In §3.3 I argued that the with-infinitive in Wambeek Dutch contains a VP, an AspP and the lower modal projections that are associated with root modality, but no higher functional domain. The structure of the with-infinitive is given in (69), where I have reduced the lower modal projections to ModP and the aspectual projections to AspP: (69) [ModP Mod [AspP Asp [vP v [VP V ]]]]
The reader will recall that in §3.3 I argued explicitly against the presence of a TP projection. In this section I will modify this view to the extent that I show that Cinque’s AspP, which forms part of the with-infinitive, has the status of a tense projection. This projection, which I will refer to as the “lower tense projection”, differs from the “higher tense projection” (i.e. TP), in that it has aspectual properties rather than temporal properties. To appreciate this point, we must briefly digress from the topic of nominative case assignment and turn to Stowell’s (1996) approach to tense.
Stowell (1996) argues that TP is a predicate which expresses a relation of temporal ordering between the utterance time (UT or speech time S) and the time of the event or state (E) expressed by the verb phrase. In syntactic terms, this means that S is the external argument of T, and that E is its internal argument. Stowell (1996:281) assigns the following syntactic structure to the tense predicate (exemplified in (70) with the sentence John hit the ball):
(70) [TP ZP [T PAST ‘after’ [ZPi Opi [Z [VP ZPi [VP John DP [V hit the ball]]]]]]]]
=S =E
ZP (short for “Zeit phrase”) intervenes between TP and VP. ZP serves as the time- denoting internal argument of T, and denotes the event time (E). An operator in the Spec of ZP binds a temporal variable within VP. The external argument originates in [spec, TP], where it receives an external theta-role assigned by T. Given that the external argument is time-denoting, Stowell assumes that it also has the categorial
status of ZP. Thus, (70) translates as “the Speech Time is after a time ZPi at which
John hit the ball” (see Stowell 1996:281).
Stowell suggests that the relation between ZP and VP is analogous to that between DP and NP. The function of a determiner is to place the reference of a noun in the perspective of the speaker. Similarly, the function of ZP is to place the event in the perspective of the speaker. I would like to suggest that these referential properties in the temporal domain are in fact aspectual properties, given that they signal whether
the event is completed or ongoing. If this is correct, then Cinque’s AspP can be reinterpreted as Stowell’s ZP, i.e. as a lower tense projection with aspectual properties.
As was noted, Pesetsky & Torrego (2004) also propose a lower tense projection To
and a higher tense projection Ts for verbal predication structures, where To is located
below v and above VP:28
(71) [TPs subject [Ts [vP [v [TPo [To [VP [V object]]]]]]]]
(Pesetsky & Torrego 2004:12)
The motivation behind the ordering of To with respect to vP and VP is semantic in
nature. Pesetsky & Torrego argue that a telic verb such as read involves two distinct subevents. The first involves a process; for read, this is a predicate with an agentive argument. The second involves the completion of a process; for read, this is a predicate with an additional argument, e.g. a book. Following Hale & Keyser (1993) and Chomsky (1995), Pesetsky & Torrego propose that the predicate of each of the subevents is a distinct level item. In a verbal predicate such as read, the predicate that assigns the agent role is v, and the predicate that assigns the additional argument is V.
If tense heads have the general property of ordering pairs of times (see among
others Stowell 1996), To has the function of relating the time of the vP-subevent to
the time of the VP-subevent. For this reason, Pesetsky & Torrego place To between
vP and VP. Pesetsky & Torrego’s proposal resembles those of Kratzer (1996) and Travis (1992), who also suggest the existence of an aspectual head in the position of
To. For my purposes, the important point is that both Stowell’s ZP and Pesetsky &
Torrego’s To are compatible with the claim that Cinque’s AspP in the with-infinitive
constitutes a low tense projection with aspectual properties.
With this in mind, let us now turn to the question of why the with-infinitive in the Wambeek dialect involves nominative case assignment. I would like to propose that the key to this conundrum lies in the special feature specification of mè. Specifically, I make the claim in (72):
(72) Mè has an interpretable tense feature iT.
It is the presence of this iT feature that enables mè to occupy a tense position, i.e. the head of AspP.
The idea that a preposition has an iT feature as part of its feature specification is not new. For instance, Barbiers (2002) argues that the Dutch preposition van has an
iT feature (see §3.4.2). Furthermore, Torrego (1998, 2002) claims that To in Spanish
is prepositional in nature. Torrego observes that in Spanish animate accusative DPs surface as bare DPs or as DPs introduced by the preposition a, the choice depending
28In Pesetsky & Torrego’s approach T
o plays a role in their reinterpretation of accusative case-marking:
To allows the uT feature on a DP complement in a verbal predication structure to enter into an Agree
(in part) on the aspectual properties of the predicate. Consider for instance the verb
conocer, which may have a stative reading (‘know’) or a non-stative reading (‘get to
know’). The data in (73a,b), taken from Pesetsky & Torrego (2004:13), indicates that the difference between the two readings is disambiguated by a:
(73) a. Stative only
Conoce bien un vecino suyo. they know well a neighbour of theirs ‘They know a neighbour of theirs well.’
b. Non-stative only
Conoce bien a un vecino suyo. they know well P a neighbour of theirs ‘They got to know a neighbour of theirs well.’
Imperatives, which favour a non-stative reading, are unacceptable with an animate object, unless this object is preceded by a:
(74) ¡Conoce * (a) tu vecino!
know P your neighbour ‘Get to know your neighbour!’ (Torrego 1998:32)
Furthermore, an achievement predicate takes a DP complement with a when the complement is animate:
(75) La lluvia empapó * (a) muchos turistas.
the rain soaked P many tourists
‘The rain soaked many tourists.’ (Torrego 1998:30)
The above data suggest that in Spanish aspectual properties like achievement and completion are syntactically expressed by the preposition a. For this reason, Torrego
concludes that To belongs to the category P.29
Torrego’s interpretation of the Spanish preposition a is similar to my interpretation of the Wambeek preposition mè. I propose that the Wambeek with-infinitive has the structure in (76), where mè occupies the head of AspP:
(76) [ModP [Mod [AspP [Asp mè [vP zaai [v [VP [Vte werken]]]]]]]]
In (76) the subject zaai receives an external theta-role from the predicate te werken, and mè assigns a theta-role to the entire clause zaai te werken.
29Torrego (2002) calls this projection both a “PP” and an “aspectual projection”, but this is just a matter
I now turn to the issue of nominative case assignment in the with-infinitive. In line with Pesetsky & Torrego (2001), I assume that nominative case is an uninterpretable tense feature on D, which I will refer to as “uT” below. The fact that the infinitival subject has nominative case implies that it must have an uT feature. Furthermore, the subject must also have interpretable phi-features (henceforth “i-phi”) on account of it being a D element. I further assume that mè is specified for a complete set of u-
phi features. This results in the configuration in (77):30
(77) [ModP [Mod [AspP [Asp mè [vP zaai [v [VP [Vte werken]]]]]]]]
iT uT u-phi i-phi
In this configuration, the u-phi on Asp (the “probe”) can be licensed by the i-phi on the subject in spec vP (the “goal”). This is possible because u-phi is a complete set of phi-features (see Chomsky 2001). Furthermore, the uT feature on the subject is licensed by the iT on Asp, which results in the spell-out of nominative case on the subject. Note that the uninterpretable phi-feature dominates the interpretable phi- feature; this is the usual state of affairs in an Agree relation, given the derivational nature of the system: the uninterpretable feature is merged and “looks down” to see whether there is an interpretable feature to agree with. In the with-infinitive there is no iT available in the lower domain, since iT, due to its infinitival status, cannot be associated with vP or VP. The iT is therefore introduced by external merger of mè, which projects in Asp. This scenario is illustrated in (78):
(78) [ModP [Mod [AspP [Asp mè [vP zaai [v [VP [Vte werken]]]]]]]]
iT uT u-phi i-phi
30 Marjo van Koppen (p.c.) notes that if mè has a complete set of u-phi features, then the prediction is that
it allows Comp agreement, similar to the CP head. Wambeek mè does not display Comp agreement in the with-infinitive, however. Jeroen van Craenenbroeck (p.c.) points out that there are speakers with Comp agreement on the preposition bè (‘at’). Consider the paradigms in (i):
(i) bè moi at me bènons at us bè aa at you bèneir at you-PL
bè em/eer at him/her bèneer at them
Interestingly, the SAND data show that the with-infinitive in the dialect of Wambeek corresponds to a bè- infinitive with a nominative subject in the dialect of Zoutleeuw (which is another village in the province of Flemish Brabant), as is shown in (ii):
(ii) Bè hee te werke moes sij den hielen dag thuis blijve. at he-NOM to work had she the whole day home stay ‘With him working, she had to stay home all day.’
This would suggest that Zoutleeuw bè, like Wambeek mè, has iT and a (complete set of ) u-phi features. It would be interesting to investigate whether bè has Comp agreement, and what the syntactic properties of mè are in the Zoutleeuw dialect. I leave this matter for further research.
This analysis accounts for the fact that it is not possible to project a finite verb in the
with-infinitive, despite the presence of an AspP. The reason for this is that AspP is
occupied by the preposition mè. The analysis also correctly predicts that there is no obligatory locality between the preposition and the subject. This was shown in (23) above, repeated below in (79):
(79) Mè gisteren zaai te werken moest-n-aai de gieln dag toisj
with yesterday she-NOM to work must-CL-he the whole day home
blaaiven. stay
‘With her working, he had to stay home all day.’
In an Agree configuration, nominative case assignment can take place before optional movement of the preposition to a higher functional head (e.g. ModP). The temporal adverb gisteren (which is attached to AspP) is therefore free to intervene between the preposition and the subject. Wambeek Dutch differs from languages like English and Brazilian Portuguese in this respect. As we saw in §3.2, these languages have a with-infinitive with an oblique subject, and therefore a locality requirement between the preposition and the subject of the infinitive.