1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.5. Other Developments in the Theory
1.5.2. The VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis and Parametric Variation
As we have mentioned before in the case of Pollock’s (1989) hypothesis, and under the PP framework, the position of subjects has been explained in terms
85 This analysis may also receive an OT treatment in the sense that in Spanish/French violation of procrastinate is permitted in order to comply with a higher principle (overt syntax requirements), while in the case of English, procrastinate is higher in the ranking hierarchy and cannot be violated.
of the VP-internal subject hypothesis (ISH). The ISH claims that subjects are generated in the specifier of the verb phrase ([Spec VP]) as in (76):86
Since V moves to I, either overtly as in Spanish or covertly as in English, preverbal subjects are, therefore, the result of the raising of the subject from its original position within VP to [Spec IP], as (77) reflects:
The immediate cause for this hypothesis is Case assignment and in that sense, parametric variation will be explained in terms of the mechanisms of Case assignment. Koopman and Sportiche (1991) propose that nominative Case may be
86 See Koopman and Sportiche (1991) for an analysis of NP subject generated as sister to VP as in (i):
(i) IP
|
I’
/\
I v max /\
NP VP | V’
/\
V ...
IP I’
VP I
V’
...
V NPsubject
(76)
IP
I’ VP
V’
NPj subject
I Vi
tj
ti ...
(77)
assigned in two different ways: under government or by agreement. First, I assigns Case to an NP that is governed by it, as in (78):
The NP subject in (78) is governed by I under the following definition of government and m-command. A governs B iff: A is a governor; A m-commands B (that is, iff A does not dominate B and every maximal projection that dominates A also dominates B); and no barrier intervenes between A and B.87 Under such a government relationship, I assigns nominative Case to the NP subject located in [Spec IP].88
The PP assumption that Case marking requires government is dispensed with in the MP in favor of more local X-bar theoretic relations, now reformulated in terms of merge, under the Spec-head agreement approach, as in (79):89
87 Maximal projections are barriers to government; governors are heads.
88 Notice the contrast in English between subjects of finite clauses which are nominative (he goes to the movies) and those of infinitival clauses which are accusative (they want him to go to the movies).
Therefore, in English, nominative Case assignment is associated with finite I.
IP
NP I’
I VP
V ... V’
(78)
IP I’
I VP V
V’
...
Spec (NP) (79)
Under a Spec-head agreement relationship, specifier and head share Number, Gender and Person features. The subject NP, then, enters into two kinds of structure relations with a predicate (V): the first is agreement which involves features shared by the NP and the predicate; and the second is Case, manifested in the NP alone. Within IP, where abstract features are located in the structural positions Agr and T, as shown in the tree diagram in (80):
Both relations involve Agr in one way or another, either Agr alone, for Agr relations; or the element T or V alone (raising to Agr = IP), for Case relations (Chomsky 1995). Subject-verb agreement is associated with nominative Case and is determined by the relation between subject NP (in [Spec IP]) and I (the head of IP). This relation is uniform at LF but parametrized at Spell-Out before PF; that is, languages vary with respect to the extent to which agreement between specifier and head is morphologically realized. The distinction between the two language-types under analysis is thus reduced to a question of morphology.
In the case of English and Spanish, parametric variation depends on whether or not the internal subject must move to [Spec IP] due to a distinction in the
89 Chomsky (1995) and previous work by Koopman (1987) and Kayne (1989b).
TP AgrSP
VP
V’
SUi
Vj
ti
tj ...
(80)
mechanism of structural Case assignment. The different process in languages such as English and Spanish is illustrated in the following examples in (81) and (82):
IP
I’ VP
V’
Spec
Spec I
V NP
Anni ti sings a song
[IP Anni [I Pres, 3rdps ] [VP ti ] [V’ sings a song ]]]
(81)
IP
I’ VP
V’
Spec
Spec I
V NP
Ana canta una canción
[IP [I cantai 3rdps ] [VP [NP Ana ] [V’ ti una canción]
(82a)
IP
I’ VP
V’
Spec
Spec I
V NP
Anaj tj canta una canción
[IP Anaj [I cantai, 3rdps] [VP [NP tj] [V’ ti una canción] ]]
(82b)
According to the ISH, subjects in any language are generated within [Spec VP].
Also, nominative Case assignment in terms of Spec-head relation between subject NP and I is uniform at LF. The double possibility in Spanish but not in English of preverbal and postverbal subjects leads to a double possibility as well in terms of the subject NP raising from [Spec VP] to [Spec IP] positions. This optional movement for Spanish but obligatory for English will, in turn, affect the mechanism of Case assignment.
The English example in (81) illustrates how NP subjects obligatorily rise to [Spec IP], thereby making all subjects preverbal in English. Under the analysis outlined above, in Spec-head agreement relationships the VP-internal subject raises to [Spec IP] and since it is in a Spec-head relation with I it is assigned nominative Case by I. Recall that verb movement of lexical verbs in English is restricted to feature movement so that I contains features while the lexical verb remains within the VP.
The case of Spanish in the examples in (82) reveals the possibility of preverbal and postverbal subjects in this language, as in (83):
(83) a. Ana canta [Ana sing-3rdps]
b. canta Ana [sing-3rdps Ana]
This double possibility reflects that in Spanish, unlike in English, movement of the subject from [Spec VP] to [Spec IP] is optional.90 If movement takes place, a preverbal subject appears, as in (83a), whereas, if the subject remains in [Spec VP], the result is a postverbal subject construction, as in (83b). Again, V-movement in Spanish involves the raising of the entire lexical item; hence, in this case, category movement and not feature movement takes place. The different steps are illustrated in the brackets in (84):
(84) a. [IP [VP [NP Ana] [V’ canta ]]]
b. [IP [I cantai ] [VP [NP Ana] [V’ ti ]]] verb movement c. [IP Anaj [I cantai ] [VP [NP tj ] [V’ ti ]]] subject in [Spec IP]
Spec-head agreement
d. [IP [I cantai ] [VP [NP Ana ] [V’ ti ]]] subject in [Spec VP]
In the case of subject in [Spec VP], subject-verb relation is carried out in terms of Spec-head relation (regarding both agreement and Case). If the subject remains in [Spec VP] then L-marking has to be considered. As opposed to English, I in Spanish is rich enough to be considered lexical;91 therefore, VP is L-marked, that is, it is transparent to an element contained in it (the subject NP in [Spec VP], and the subject is governed by I.92
90 See chapter two for a more detailed analysis of subject positions and movement, where Spanish lacks [Spec IP].
91 The lexical property of Agr in Spanish will have some bearing in the analysis of weak/strong subject pronouns (including the existence of pro and there), as we will see in the following chapters.
92 Preverbal and postverbal subjects will be dealt with in the next chapter and other proposals will be presented. The optionality of movement in the previous explanation poses problems under a minimalist optic.