2. SUBJECTS
2.1. Preliminaries
2.1.1. The Principles and Parameters Model, the Minimalist Program and Subjects
Within the core functional categories, Chomsky (1998) distinguishes C (expressing force/mood), T (the tense/event structure) and v (the light verb head of transitive constructions). The category v is the one that selects an NP/DP as its external argument (the subject);113 this argument, as we saw in chapter one, is located in [Spec v]. Predicates and their arguments are within VP. Arguments overtly raise out of VP into de IP layer for reasons related to checking of Case and
112 Regardless of whether this repetition involves the repetition of the exact phonetic form. For some authors, as we will see, subject function may consist of Person and Number agreement itself.
113 See Abney (1987) for the DP hypothesis, according to which there are arguments for proposing that those constituents which are standardly referred to as noun phrases are in fact projections of a head
phi-features. They will only continue up to the CP layer if they have the appropriate type of interpretation as a topic, focused element, etc. Otherwise, if the argument does not have such an interpretation, it must remain within the IP. We will consider both unmarked subjects (those contained within the IP layer) and also marked subjects (those located in a projection above IP).
As presented in the previous chapter, the VP-internal subject hypothesis (Koopman and Sportiche 1985) resumes parametric variation among languages in terms of the obligatoriness versus the optionality of the movement of the internal subject to [Spec IP]. In this sense, and under the PP framework, when comparing languages such as English and Spanish, we are confronted with the following different analyses, as reflected in the examples in (1) and (2) respectively:
(1) [IP Marthai [IPres, 3rdps] [VP [NP ti] [VP sings a song ]]] SVO (2a) [IP [IPres, 3rdps] [VP canta una canción] [NP Marta]]] VS
(2b) [IP Martai [IPres, 3rdps] [VP canta una canción] [NP ti]]] SVO
As the examples reflect, in English the only possible order is SVO, that is, only preverbal subjects are allowed; while in Spanish, a double possibility is offered regarding the relative position of the subject with respect to the verb, SV or VS.114
determiner consitutent (determiner phrase). Further refinements of Abney´s analsysis have been proposed. See Longobardi (1994), among others.
114 We are going to concentrate on subject-verb order, but it is necessary to point out here that in Spanish, when the subject is placed after the verb and an object is present, there are two possible orders. The subject may either precede or follow the object, thus giving way to VSO and VOS orders respectively:
(i) canta Marta una canción [sing-3rdps Marta a song]
(ii) canta una canción Marta [sing-3rdps a song Marta]
See the next section on VOS order versus VSO order; also Ordóñez (1997).
The key point that differentiates the examples in (1) and (2) is the mechanism of structural Case assignment.115 Thus, in the English example in (1), inflection (I) assigns Case through agreement and the VP-internal subject must raise to [Spec IP] to satisfy the Case filter, as in (3):116
In Spanish, on the other hand, I is rich enough to be considered lexical, VP being L- marked.117 Since the internal subject in [Spec VP] is governed by I, movement of the subject to preverbal position, that is [Spec IP], is then optional. Therefore, in declarative sentences, both VOS/VSO and SVO orders are possible depending on whether movement of the subject to [Spec IP] takes place, rendering the SVO order in (4):
115 Following Chomsky (1986), we can distinguish between structural Case (accusative and nominative), which is assigned solely in terms of S-Structure configuration, from inherent Case (including genitive) which is associated with theta-marking. That is, inherent Case is assigned by alpha to an NP only if alpha theta-marks the NP.
116 The Case filter states that every phonetically realized NP must be assigned (abstract) Case.
117 In the sense that the VP is governed by I and theta-marked by it, too. In order to refer to the special relation that is established between a lexical item and the complement which it governs and theta- marks, Chomsky (1986) introduces the term L-marking: A L-marks B iff A is a lexical category that theta-governs B. In the case of IP, it is said to be defective in that its head is not a word, but only a group of syntactic features [+/- Tense, +/- Agr]; nevertheless, the richness of inflection in Spanish is what may give support to certain lexical properties in various categories (Haegeman 1994).
(3) IP
I’
VP
V’
NPobject
V Spec
I Spec
Marthai Pres, 3rdps ti sing-s a song
or whether such movement, although optional, does not take place, thus resulting in a VOS/VSO order as in (5):118
The VP-internal subject hypothesis rests on two assumptions. The first one is that there is parametric variation in the overt syntax, since languages differ with respect to the mechanisms of Case assignment by I (which can either be by agreement or through lexical I). The second assumption is the degree of optionality in the
118 Notice that the subject is generated in preverbal position but Spanish presents V-to-I movement, the result being the postverbal position of the subject. Authors like Contreras (1991) defend that the subject in Spanish is generated as an adjunct unordered with respect to the predicate. We will explore this proposal later.
(5) IP
I’
VP
V’
NPobject
V Spec
I Spec
cant-aj Marta tj una canción
[sing-3rdps Marta a song]
IP (4)
I’
VP
V’
NPobject
V Spec
I Spec
Martai cant-aj ti tj una canción
[Marta sing-3rdps a song]
application of movement rules in certain cases (as the Spanish examples in (4) and (5) reveal).
Under the PP framework, these assumptions pose no problem and are, therefore, commonly accepted. Nevertheless, when adopting a minimalist perspective, such assumptions have to be reviewed, since they do have inappropriate results. As we mentioned in the previous chapter, the MP proposes a system in which parametric variation must be reduced to morphological properties of lexical items and in which movement must be considered legitimate if and only if it is necessary for convergence (the principles of economy operate in this respect).
If we are to account for the different behavior of subjects and their positions in English and in Spanish in minimalist terms, we have to incorporate economy principles as well as all other minimalist concepts in an analysis that embraces both the similarities and differences in English and Spanish, and that captures the related issues of subjects and agreement features. Such an analysis will have to account for the two possibilities present in Spanish without attributing it to the optionality of movement. Within the MP, these three numerations (SVO, VOS, VSO) should be analyzed as arrangements that are independent of each other (none deriving from the other) while having some common universal structure, since we are dealing with a universal SVO order (Kayne 1994, Chomsky 1999).