MEDIDAS PREVENTIVAS EN SALUD BUCAL:

The first part of the hypothesis in (185) accounts directly for the prenominal occurrence of

DDs in French, Dutch, Russian, Romanian, and Japanese in (186a-f). On the unified

analysis proposed in 5.1, the DD in prenominal position has moved there from postnominal base position.

(186) a. Les professeurs ont lu [chacun1 deux livres t1]. [French]

the professors have read each two books

(Tellier & Valois1993:574, ex.1b)

b. De jongens hebben [elk1 twee boeken t1] gelezen. [Dutch]

the boys have each two books read

‘The boys have read two books each.’

c. Mal’chiki kupili [kazhdyj1 (po) dve sosiski t1] [Russian]

boysNOM bought each two sausages (Borik, p.c.)

d. Doi oameni au cărat [cîte1 trei valize t1]. [Romanian]

two men have carried each three suitcases

‘Two men have carried three suitcases each.’ (Gil 1982:19,ex1f)

e. Otoko=tati-ga [sorezore huta=ri-no zyosei-o t1] aisi teiru] koto. [Japanese]

men=pl -nom each two=cl-gen women-acc love-asp fact ‘The men love two women each.’ (Sakaguchi 1998:115,ex.1)

The examples in (187) – (196) below show that DP-internal fronting for discourse reasons is attested independently in all these languages. It therefore follows from (185i) that the DD-element in these languages can occur prenominally.

We begin with French. Drawing on Milner (1978), Tellier & Valois (1993) show that a postnominal constituent can move to the left edge of its embedding DP in French (cf.187b).

(187) a. J’ai lu tous les livres de Zola. (Tellier&Valois 1993:582, exs. 18ab) I-have read all the books by Zola

b. J’ai lu, de Zola1, tous les livres t1.

I-have read by Zola all the books

‘I have read all the books by ZOLA, (but not by somebody else).’

According to Milner (1978), the moved PP de Zola in (187b) is adjoined to the NP (in our

terms the DP). I take the landing site of the PP to be SpecDP, leading to the structure in (188).92

(188) [DP [PP de Zola]1 tous les [NP livres t1]]

by Zola all the books

Since DP-internal movement for discourse reasons is possible in French, the DD chacun/e

can also move to SpecDP, in accordance with (185i). The surface structure of prenominal

chacun(e)-constructions is schematised in (189), which is structurally parallel to (188).

(189) [DP [PP P0 [QP chacun(e)]]1 D0 [NP deux livres t1]]

each-one two books

The structure in (189) agrees with that found in Tellier & Valois (1993:580), where

prenominal chacun(e) is also located in SpecDP. The structural similarity is furthermore

supported by extraction facts. Tellier & Valois (1993) show that extraction of the question

word combien ‘how many’ out of the DP is possible only when chacun(e) and the PP in

(187a) occur postnominally (cf.190ab). In contrast, it is blocked when prenominal

chacun(e) or the PP are preposed (cf.191ab).

(190) a. Combien1 les professeurs ont-ils lu [t1 de livres chacun]?

how many the professors have-they read of books each

b. Combien1 as-tu lu [t1 de livres de Zola]?

how many have-you read of books by Zola

(191) a. *Combien1 les professeurs ont-ils lu [chacun2 t1 de livres t2]?

how many the professors have-they read each of books

b. *Combien as-tu lu [de Zola2 t1 de livres t2]?

how many have-you read by Zola of books

The parallelism between (190) and (191) follows directly if both de Zola and chacun have

moved to SpecDP for discourse reasons in (191). Being in SpecDP, they block extraction of combien (see the discussion on extraction from jeweils-DPs in 4.2.5). I conclude that

(185) holds for French, and that the DD chacun(e) moves to SpecDP for discourse reasons

in French.

Corver (1999) shows that Dutch allows for overt fronting of postnominal PP-modifiers

when the preposition is covert.93 _{Glossing over irrelevant details, Corver analyses the}

structure in (192a) as the result of DP-internal fronting of a postnominal constituent that is a predicate of the head noun. The structure after movement is shown in (192b), with XP standing for a DP-internal small clause.

(192) a. éen minuut voorsprong

one minute headstart ‘a headstart of one minute’

b. [[éen minuut]1 [XP voorsprong X0 t1]]

one minute headstart

(192ab) show that Dutch has DP-internal fronting (for more instances of DP-internal fronting see Corver 1999). Furthermore, the postnominal counterpart of (192a) invariably surfaces with an overt preposition, as witnessed by (193):

(193) een voorsprong *(van) éen minuut

a headstart of one minute

93 _{DP-internal fronting of PPs with overt prepositions is not attested (cf. iab).}

(i) a. [DP Een boek [PP van Zola]] b. *[[PP Van Zola]1 een boek t1]

Based on (193), I conclude that the fronted constituent in (192) is a PP with a covert P-

head.94 _{Since the Dutch DD-construction with elk also forms a PP with a covert P-head,}

(185i) predicts that elk can be fronted. The result of this movement is shown in (186b).

Russian allows for DP-internal fronting of PPs from postnominal position. This is shown in (194):

(194) a. [Predstavitel' iz gamburga] tol'ko chto priehal. [Russian]

representative from hamburg just arrived

b. [Iz gamburga1 predstavitel' t1] tol'ko chto priehal.

from hamburg representative just arrived

‘The representative from Hamburg just arrived.’ (Borik, p.c.)

The possibility of DP-internal fronting accounts for the prenominal occurrence of kazhdyj

in (186c) in line with (185i).

Romanian also allows for DP-internal fronting. Corver (2001) shows that numeral predicates from 20 onwards front DP-internally from a postnominal base position. The

preposition de in (195) is the spell out of a complex head [F+X] (cf. den Dikken 1998 and

fn.94)

(195) a. treizeci de lei

thirty of lei ‘thirty lei’

b. [FP treizeci2 [F’ F0+X01(=de) [XP lei t1 t2]]]

Consequently, overt movement of the Romanian DD cîteto SpecDP in (186d) is predicted

to be possible by (185i).

Finally, Japanese also seems to exhibit DP-internal leftward movement that is driven by discourse requirements. Muromatsu (2000) shows that numerals in their postnominal base position receive a cardinal focus-new interpretation (196a). When they occur DP- initially (196b), they receive a specific or presuppositional interpretation.

(196) a. [Kodomo o futa-ri] sitinen-sei ni ireta. [Japanese]

child ACC two-cl 7th-grade DAT I-sent

‘I sent two children to the seventh grade.’

b. [Futa-ri no kodomo o] sitinen-sei ni ireta.

two-cl GEN child ACC 7th-grade DAT I-sent

‘I sent two (particular) children to the seventh grade.’

Even though the notions of background or presupposition are not identical to topichood (see above), the DP-internal leftward movement is motivated by discourse factors. If we weaken the hypothesis (185) in such a way that it also subsumes other cases of DP- internal movement, e.g. movement of constituents expressing presupposed or discourse-

old material, it correctly predicts that the Japanese d-distributive quantifier sorezore

‘each’ can occur prenominally as in (186e).

Taking stock, the first clause of the DD-fronting hypothesis in (185) makes good predictions for French, Dutch, Russian, Romanian, and Japanese. In addition, since (185i)

94 _{den Dikken (1998) gives an alternative explanation for the absence of an overt P-head. According to den}

Dikken, head movement of covert P0 _{into the covert head of a functional projection FP is necessary in order to}

links overt movement to relative discourse notions such as ‘topic’, it explains why

fronting in French, Dutch, Russian, and Japanese is optional.95

An apparent problem arises in connection with the other Slavic languages. As

discussed in 5.1.1, movement of the DD po to prenominal position seems to be obligatory

in these languages. I would therefore like to argue that the prenominal position of po is

not the result of discourse-driven movement, but of another movement operation, which

was already discussed in section 5.1.1. There, it was shown that po moves to the

prenominal D-position by head movement, as witnessed by the (unexpected) oblique case on the DistShare. If this reasoning is correct, we have to weaken (185) accordingly. All prenominal occurrences are due to overt DP-internal movement, but not all movement operations are instances of discourse-driven (topic) movement. This being said, (185) holds for Slavic as well.

A final problematic case is Italian. The DD in Italian occurs optionally in prenominal position (cf.197a) although DP-internal topic-fronting is barely possible, if not ungrammatical (cf.197b).

(197) a. I ragazzi hanno comprato [ciascuno1 due salsicce t1]. [Italian]

the boys have bought each two sausages

b.?* Ho letto, di Zola, tutti i libri.

I.have read by Zola all the books (d’Allessandro, p.c.)

In light of (197b), the prenominal occurrence of ciascuno in (197a) casts doubt on the

adequacy of (185). In the absence of further evidence as to what is going on in Italian, I will leave the matter open for further research.

In conclusion, the first part of the DD-fronting hypothesis in (185) makes by and large good predictions in its weakened version. The hypothesis accounts for all the languages in the sample, except – perhaps – for Italian. I take this as evidence in favour of (185i), assuming that there is a solution for the problematic Italian facts.