the ups and downs of hebrew verb movement

HAGIT B O R E R

T H E UPS A N D D O W N S OF H E B R E W V E R B M O V E M E N T *

This paper puts forth a hypothesis on the nature of the transition from VSO word order to SVO word order and, more specifically, on the status of grammars which are in a state of transition. I argue that among such grammars one expects to find one in which [SPEC,IP] is never a so-called A-position and in which syntactic verb movement to I is optional and that Modem Hebrew is an example of such a language. The first part of the paper is dedicated to evidence in favor of the optional nature of verb movement, while the second part explores the properties of [SPEC,IP] and the consequences which its non-A-status has for quantification, movement and word order.

1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N

This paper investigates the nature of the transition from VSO word order to SVO word order and the status of grammars in a state of transition. I consider a number of determinants which may account for the change in word order and conclude that, within recent proposals concerning the properties of phrase markers, such a change may involve more than one shift. Such a situation allows an intermediate stage, in which a grammar exhibits some properties typically associated with VSO orders and others associated with SVO orders, This conclusion is illustrated in the grammar of one such language in transition, that of Modern Hebrew (Hebrew).

Within current approaches, two possible factors may determine whether a grammar exhibits primarily a VSO or an SVO order in neutral sentences. One such determinant involves the location of nominative Case assignment. We may assume, following in essence Koopman and Sportiche (1988, 1990), that in some grammars, nominative Case is available in the specifier of the highest functional projection only, while in others nomin-

* Various versions of this paper were presented in the UQAM workshop on Hebrew Syntax, Fall 1990; at MIT; SOAS; McGill; UConn and Bar-Ilan University. Parts of this material have been taught in a graduate seminar at UMass. t am grateful to these audiences for useful comments. Special thanks go to Kyle Johnson, Ur Shlonsky, Rejean Canac-Marquis, Edit Doron, Ilan Hazout, David Pesetsky, Lisa Travis and three anonymous NLLT reviewers.

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 527-606, 1995. ~) 1995 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

528 HAGIT BORER

ative NPs may r ema in at a lower specifier posi t ion at S-structure. z The

second d e t e r m i n a n t involves the m o v e m e n t of the ma in verb. The main

verb may be in the highest func t iona l head at S-structure, or on the o ther

hand , it may be in a lower head, e i ther func t iona l or lexical.

Cons ider now the in te rac t ion of these two de te rminan t s , i l lustrated in

(1).

(1) G1 G2 G3 G4

A. N O M in the highest SPEC + + - -

B. V in the highest F ° + - + -

The in te rac t ion of the two de t e rminan t s results in four possible gram-

mars. Cons ide r ing now a possible language cor responding to each of these

g rammars , G1 predicts the word orders given in (2).

(2) G1

a. S-V-YP [m N P 2 / n o m V-I [ve t2 tv YP]]

b. * (XP)-V-S-YP

c. XP-S-V-YP [~p XP [IF NP 2 / nom V-I [ re t2 tv YP]]

This is an SVO g rammar , with the highest specifier typically associated

1 A number of comments are warranted concerning the following discussion. First, note that while in the text the determinant is assumed to be the location of nominative Case, an alternative formulation would be to assume that it involves the position of the subject at Spell-Out, following recent proposals of Chomsky's (1992). Note specifically that if it is assumed that nominative Case is always assigned in LF in the highest specifier position, the determinant differentiating VSO languages from SVO languages would involve strong vs. weak features of the functional head assigning nominative, with the grammar of SVO languages having a strong feature, and the grammar of VSO languages having a weak one. In subsequent sections it will become apparent that this assumption is untenable within the system proposed here, as the highest specifier may, in fact, be otherwise occupied by a non- expletive element.

Second, I am ignoring here, and below, word orders which are generated by more elaborate movement rules, concentrating on the neutral position of the subject, the position of the main verb and the position of topics/scrambled elements. The reader should bear in mind that the purpose of this discussion is to consider the factors responsible for distinguishing basic VSO orders from basic SVO orders, with no prediction made, at this point, concerning other properties of the languages under discussion.

Third, for reasons of exposition, a main verb that is not in the highest functional projection and that exhibits the general properties typically associated with lowering is assumed in this work throughout to be in the VP; a subject in a lower specifier is assumed to be in [SPEC,VP], unless otherwise stated. A systematic raising of both main verb and subject to an intermediate functional projection with the set of properties and modifiers discussed in the rest of this paper is not excluded, although the existence and the nature of such an intermediate functional projection would have to be motivated in detail. Note, in this context, that nominative Case in a lower specifier may be assigned either by government, essentially as in Koopman and Sportiche (1988), or through SPEC,HEAD agreement. The choice between these options is not discussed in this paper.

THE UPS AND DOWNS OF H E B R E W VERB MOVEMENT 529

with so-called A-position properties and the main verb exhibiting raising properties. Non-WH-constituents moved from the clause, such as topics or scrambled constituents, may not land in the highest specifier and are typically adjoined to the maximal projection headed by the highest functional head (henceforth IP). French is an actual illustration of such a language.

Consider now G2. The word orders in (3) are predicted.

(3) G2 a. S-V-YP [iv NP2/nom 0 [we t2 V-I YP]] b. *(XP)-V-S-YP c. XP-S-V-YP [Iv XP [Iv NP2/nom 0 [vv t2 V-I YP]]

As in G1, in G2 the subject is in the highest specifier, making topicalization or scrambling through that position impossible and thus forcing adjunction. The main verb, on the other hand, does not occupy the highest specifier position and displays the diagnostics of lowering. Again, SVO order is the result. English is an illustration of such a language.

Now consider G3. The predicted word orders are in (4).

(4) G3 a. S-V-YP [n- NP2 V-I [ve t2/nom tv YP]] b. (XP)-V-S-YP [ie XP2 V-I [-ce NP/nom tv t2 YP]] c. *XP-S/ZP-V-YP

(unless a peripheral adjunction strategy is available)

G3 is a typical VSO grammar. While the main verb displays the diagnostics of raising, the subject is assigned nominative in a specifier lower than the highest one. The highest specifier plausibly has the properties of a (so-called) A'-position, allowing topics and scrambled elements. I will argue below that when this is the case, the subject in that position is a topic as well. Arabic is plausibly a language of the G3 type. 2

Finally, consider G4. The word orders allowed by G4 are as in (5).

(5) G4 a. S - V - Y P [rv NP2 0 [ w t 2 / n o m V - I YP]]

b. *(XP)-V-S-YP

2 An independent factor must be responsible for the availability or non-availability of sentence-initial constituent preceding the verb in VSO languages. Thus, Irish does not permit such a constituent, but Arabic does, optionally, whereas Breton mandates it in matrix clauses. This issue is not pursued further in this paper.

530 HAGIT BORER

(5)c. XP-S-V-YP [xP XPz 0 [vP NP/nom V-I tz YP]

G4 is a grammar in which the subject is not in the highest specifier and the main verb exhibits the diagnostics of lowering. Such a grammar is again an SVO one, but it differs from both French and English in that it allows topics and scrambled elements to occur in the highest specifier, resulting in the (5c) word order and structure. Whether such a language exists remains unclear, but I will argue below that Hebrew, a language with a grammar in transition, exhibits the properties in (5a,c), alongside others.

It may be noted that of the possible grammars, only one is VSO, while the three others are SVO, accounting possibly for the well known shift from VSO to SVO, but the scarcity of shifts in the other direction.

Consider now the following proposal. Suppose some grammars fix the value of one of the determinants in (1) but leave the other unspecified. With respect to the unspecified value, the grammar would allow more than one possibility. I refer to such grammars as transitional grammars (with no time-table attached). The two given determinants, allowing for one (and only one) unfixed one, thus give the following possibilities. 3

(6) Transitional Grammars: TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4 A. NOM in the highest SPEC ± ± + - B. V in the highest F + - ± ±

TG1 is a grammar in which nominative is available either in the highest SPEC or in some lower SPEC, but the main verb always exhibits the diagnostics of raising. The predicted word orders are in (7).

(7) TG1 a. S-V-YP

b. XP-V-S-YP c. *XP-S-V-YP

[IP NPz/nom V-I [w t2 tv YP]] [n, NPz V-I[w tz/nom tv YP]] [~p XP3 V-I [vP NP/nom tv t3 YP]]

Note that in TG1, [SPEC,IP] is sometimes assigned nominative, and I assume that in such cases this position has the properties typically associated with an A-Position. At other times nominative is assigned lower, and elements moved to [SPEC,IP] are expected to display the properties associate with A'-positions. Diesing (1990) argues that these are precisely

3 Alternatively, transitional grammars do not represent true optionality, but rather, a situation of bi-lingualism, where a speaker brings to bear two distinct grammatical systems on analyzing the data, with the relevant determinant differing in each one. For a discussion of this view of some opfionality in grammars, see Kroeh (1990).


the properties associated with [SPEC,IP] in Yiddish. Other languages in which such diagnostics may be attested are Icelandic and Spanish (for discussion of the latter see Goodall 1991, Canac-Marquis 1991 and Uribe- Etxebarria 1991).

Consider now TG2, with the word orders in (8).

(8) TG2 a. S-V-YP

b. *XP-V-S-YP c. XP-S-V-YP

[IP NP2/nom 0 [vP t2 V-I YP]] ([iv 0 0 [w NP/nom V-I YP]] 4

[iv NP2 0 [vv t2 nom V-I YP]]

[Ip XP3 0 [vP N P / n o m V - I t3 YP]] [iP XP3 [iP NP/nom 0 [vP t2 V-I t3 YP]]

TG2 exhibits the diagnostics of main verb lowering, together with strict SVO order. Note that the distinction between TG2 and English is minimal and could be empirically established based only on the position of topics, which in English must be adjoined, whereas in TG2 they may be either adjoined or in [SPEC,IP]. Given the strong similarity to English, topicalization in potential grammars of this type would require a detailed compari- son with English-type topicalization to ascertain their actual existence.

Word order possibilities in TG3 grammars are given in (9).

(9) TG3 a. S-V-YP

b. *XP-V-S-YP c. XP-S-V-YP

[IP NP2/nom V-I [vP t2 tv YP]] [~p NP2/nom 0 [vP tz V-I YP]]

[IP XP3 [iP NP2/nom V-I [vP t2 tv t31]] [iP XP3 [iP NP2/nom 0 [vP t2 V-I t3]]]

TG3 is a union of the properties of English and French, showing at the same time diagnostics associated with verb raising and with verb lowering. Such a grammar would exhibit mixed characteristics associated with adverb placement and the placement of modifiers. Like English and French, however, the grammar would allow only topics or scrambled elements to be adjoined.

4 It is possible that the string [~p 0 0 [w NP/NOM V-I YP] is independently excluded due to the radically empty nature of the functional projection IP. Thus, Speas (1993) proposes the following principle that might exclude such a derivation:

(i) The Economy of Projections: Project XP only if XP has content X has content iff X dominates a distinct phonological matrix or a distinct semantic matrix.

532 HAGIT BORER

Finally, consider TG4, with the word orders in (10),

(10) TG4 a. S-V-YP

b. XP-V-S-YP c. XP-S-V-YP

[xv NP2 0 [vv ta/nom V-I YP]] [iv NP2 V-I [ve t2/nom tv YP]] (*[iv 0 0 [vP NPz/nom V-I YP]]) (see fn. 4) [iv XP V-I [vP NP/nom tv YP]] [iv XP3 0 [xv NP/nom V-I t3 YP]]

In TG4, the subject is always assigned nominative in a lower specifier. However, the main verb exhibits diagnostics associated with both lowering and raising. When exhibiting raising diagnostics, the grammar shares much with VSO languages. When exhibiting lowering diagnostics, on the other hand, VSO is not attested. I would like to propose that Hebrew has a TG4-type grammar. As such, it will exhibit both raising and lowering diagnostics for the verb, on the one hand, and properties associated with [SPEC,IP] as a non-Case position, on the other hand.

The argument leading to these conclusions is organized as follows. In Section 2, I introduce Copula Inversion, a Hebrew construction that serves as evidence for the existence of both raising and lowering diagnostics side- by-side in the language. In Section 3, I argue that Copula Inversion involves head-adjunction movement, and in Section 4 I show that it can have raising diagnostics. Section 5 shows that Copula Inversion exhibits lowering diagnostics as well, with additional evidence supporting this conclusion presented in Section 6. Section 7 discusses the status of [SPEC,IP], and Section 8 proposes a chain-based typology for movement. Section 9 offers a conclusion. 5

2. C O P U L A I N V E R S I O N : P R E S E N T A T I O N

There is a construction in Hebrew that allows an adjective or a participle which follows the verb haya 'be' to change place with that verb, a process I henceforth refer to as Copula Inversion (CI). Hebrew, which does not use auxiliaries of any sort for the expression of complex tenses, neverthe-

s Metaphors such as raising and lowering are used here and throughout this paper as a notational convenience. As will become clear, any argumentation can seek only to show that the verb-tense cluster may occupy more than one position, one of which is lower than the other. The question of whether this state of affairs represents base-generation of the entire cluster in the lower position, with a parametrized raising by Spell-Out or at LF, as in Chomsky (1992), or whether one should prefer the old-fashioned execution involving raising of V to tense alongside lowering of tense to V cannot be determined on the basis of positional diagnostics alone and must be approached as a meta-theoretical issue, rather than an empirical one.

THE UPS AND DOWNS OF H E B R E W VERB M O V E M E N T 533

less uses the verb 'be' preceding an adjective, an active participle or a passive participle in an assortment of contexts, some of which are illustrated below. CI is attested in all these cases (as an aside, Hebrew allows V-initial sentences only under very special circumstances. In other contexts, the subject or some other constituent must precede the verb). 6,7

( l l )a . Dani haya muxan ba-zman

Dani was ready on-time

b. 'im/lu Michal hayta mevia 'et ha-kruzim ba-zman hayinu

if Michal was bring A C C the-leaflets on-time were-we

yexolim le-xalek 'otam ha-boker

able to-distribute them this-morning

If Michal had brought the leaflets on time, we could have distributed them this morning.

c. Ha-sefer haya mudpas be-otiyot ktanot midai

the-book was printed in-letters small too

The book was printed in letters that were too small.

6 For a brief discussion of Copula Inversion, see Doron (1983). The specific derivation of the sentences in (11)-(12) will not be discussed in this paper. It is highly unlikely that issues specific to any of these constructions interact directly with CI. It is worthwhile to point out that CI belongs in a rather literary strata of Hebrew, making judgements at times rather subtle. Contrastive judgements are, thus, used whenever possible.

Here, and throughout, glosses are somewhat abbreviated, and only relevant details are fully glossed.

A somewhat similar construction, in which a participle, an adjective or at times a particle may be adjoined to a host to its left is attested in Icelandic (called Stylistic Inversion; see Maling and Zaenen 1990 for discussion). While it is extremely plausible that the Icelandic construction, on a par with the Hebrew one, is generated by head adjunction (see Jonsson 1991), Icelandic crucially differs from Hebrew in mandating an empty [SPEC,IP] in such inversions. Yet another similar construction in Old Spanish is discussed by Lama and Rivero (1989) and Rivero (1991), where it is argued that it involves long head movement. In Section 4.1 below, long head movement is explicitly excluded for CI. The similarities and distinctions between Icelandic Stylistic Inversion and Spanish "Long Head Movement," on the one hand, and Hebrew Copula Inversion on the other hand, will not be pursued here. 7 Ur Shlonsky (p.c.) points out that in imperatives, the verb haya is used, but CI is blocked:

(i) 'al tihiya kaSuax!

not be tough

Dont be tough!

(ii) *'al kaSuax tihiya

534

(11)d.

e .

H A G I T B O R E R

Efraim haya carix liknot sfarim bi-Svili

Efraim was must to-buy books for-me

Efraim was supposed to buy books for me.

haya katuv ba-iton Se-ha-bxirot hukdemu

was written in-the-paper that the elections were advanced

(12)a. Dani muxan haya ba-zman

Dani ready was on-time

b. 'im/lu Michal mevia hayta 'et ha-kruzim ba-zman, yexolim

if Michal bring was ACC the-leaflets on-time able

hayinu le-xalek 'otam ha-boker

were-we to-distribute them this-morning

If Michal had brought the leaflets on time, we could have distributed them this morning.

c. Ha-sefer mudpas haya be-otiyot ktanot midai

the-book printed was in-letters small too

The book was printed in letters that were too small.

d. Efraim carix haya liknot sfarim bi-Svili

Efraim must was to-buy books for-me

Efraim was supposed to buy books for me.

katuv haya ba-iton Se-ha-bxirot hukdemu e .

writtenwas in-the-paper that the elections were advanced

In what follows, I argue that CI can come about either as a result of the head participle/adjective (henceforth PA) adjoining to the left of the verbal head haya, or as a result of the verbal head haya adjoining to the right of the PA in its base-generated position. When this optionality has been established, I argue that it characterizes the V-I cluster in Hebrew in general, resulting in V-I clusters with both raising and lowering properties. In turn, the co-existence of lowering and raising diagnostics permit the subsumption of another well-known option in Hebrew: In the presence of a sentence-initial phrase, the main verb may, but need not, precede the subject (henceforth Stylistic Inversion).


3. H E A D A D J U N C T I O N

3.1. Stranding of Complements and Modifiers

Of some significance in considering a possible structure for the sentences in (11)-(12) above is the fact that the sequence PA-haya appears to the right of the subject in (12), suggesting that the PA element does not occupy the subject position (which is presumably [SPEC,IP]). As is illustrated by (13), if PA has arguments, these are stranded, resulting in the word order PA-haya-eomplement.

(13)a. Dan haya ge'e

Dan was proud

b. Dan ge'e haya

Dan proud was

Likewise, modifiers of PA more discussion).

(14)a. Dan haya yoter midai

Dan was too- much

Dan haya ge'e yoter

Dan was proud too-

b, Dan ge'e haya yoter

Dan proud was too-

be-hesegav

of his achievements.

be-hesegav

of his achievements.

may be stranded behind (See Section 5 for

ge'e be-hesegav

proud of his achievements

midai be-hesegav

much of his achievements

midai be-hesegav

much of his achievements

These facts clearly suggest that in (13)-(14) it is the head of the PA phrase alone which adjoins to haya.

3.2. Placement of Negation and Adverbs

Further support for the conclusion in 3.1 comes from the placement of negation and adverbs. Note first that in Hebrew, negation normally appears to the left of the verbal cluster and to the right of the subject. In CI cases, negation appears to the left of the entire PA-haya cluster. Any attempt to place it between PA and haya results in strong ungrammaticality. 8

For discussion of the grammatical (i), see Section 5.4 below:

(i) Karmela lmyta lo muxana le-hafgin le-yad ha-Sagrirut

Karmela was not ready to-demonstrate by the embassy

536 HAGIT B O R E R

(15)a. Karmela lo hayta muxana le-hafgin le-yad ha-Sagrirut

Karmela not was ready to-demonstrate by the-embassy

b. Karmela lo muxana hayta le-hafgin le-yad ha-Sagrirut

Karmela not ready was to demonstrate by the-embassy

c. *Karmeta muxana lo hayta le-hafgin le-yad ha-Sagrirut

Karmela ready not was to-demonstrate by the-embassy

Further, some adverbs may precede haya. When CI applies, these must remain to the left of the entire PA-haya duster, or ungrammaticality results.

(16)a. Karmela behexlet hayta muxana le-hafgin le-yad

Karmela definitely was ready to-demonstrate by

ha-Sagrirut

the-embassy

b. Karmela behexlet muxana hayta le-hafgin le-yad

Karmela definitely ready was to-demonstrate by

ha-Sagrirut

the-embassy

c. *Karmela muxana behexlet hayta le-hafgin le-yad

to-demonstrate by Karmela ready definitely was

ha-Sagrinut

the-embassy

Such a pattern of ADVERB and NEG placement can be easily accounted for if we assume that PA is adjoined directly to the head. If, however, PA occupies some other position (say some specifier or a null dominating head) we would expect ADVERB and NEG to occur between PA and the copula, an impossibility. 9

9 Note that the adverb argument put forth in this section concerns the ability of separating PA from a copula-inverted haya, and does not use the placement of adverbs as such as a diagnostic for the position of phrasal boundaries. To be sure, (aspectual) adverbs such as tamid, le-'itim krovot 'always', 'often' in Hebrew may appear both preceding the verb and following it, prima facie supporting the co-existence of VP-interual and VP-external V. However, the behavior of adverbs in Hebrew, when manner adverbs and propositional adverbs are taken into account as well, is too complicated and poorly researched, at this point, to be used reliably as a structural diagnostics, and is thus avoided.

T H E U P S A N D D O W N S O F H E B R E W v E R B M O V E M E N T 537

3.3. Placement of Dative Clitics

In Borer and Grodzinsky (1986) it is argued that pronominal possessive and reflexive datives in Hebrew are clitics attached to a verbal or adjectival host. Both possessive and reflexive dative clitics are available in non-CI configurations, as is clear from (17). However, the post-CI sentences are ungrammatical with dative clitics under any configuration (cf. (18)).

(17)a. ha-ugai hayta munaxat lai be-tox ha-kufsa

the-cake was placed to-it inside the-box.

The cake was sitting in the box.

b. ha-uga hayta munaxat lii be-tox hai-kufsa

the-cake was placed to-me inside the-box

The cake was inside my box.

(18)a. *ha-ugai munaxat hayta lai be-tox ha-kufsa

the-cake placed was to-it inside the-box

b. *ha-uga manaxat hayta lii be-tox ha~-kufsa

the-cake placed was to-me inside the-box

c. *ha-uga munaxat litla hayta be-tox ha-kufsa

the-cake placed to-me~it was inside the-box

Note that the ungrammaticality of (18a-c) cannot be attributed to the unavailability of (at least) possessive datives with CI in principle. As noted in Borer and Grodzinsky, possessive datives (but not reflexive datives) need not be clitics and may be realized as full dative NPs. When such full realization occurs, CI does not result in ungrammaticality.

(19)a. ha-uga hayta munaxat te-Danii be-tox hai-kufsa

the-cake was placed to-Dani inside the-box

The cake was inside Dani's box.

b. ha-uga munaxat hayta le-Danii be-tox hai.kufsa

the-cake placed was to-Dani inside the-box

The cake was inside Dani's box.

Rather, it appears that the ungrammaticality of (18a-c) is specifically due to the fact that a pronominal clitic is present in the structure. Under natural assumptions, the head adjunction in (18a-b) no longer meets the

538 H A G I T B O R E R

condition on dative cliticization (and see subsection 5.4 below for more discussion of such conditions). In the absence of an appropriate host for the clitic, the clitic is stranded and ungrammaticality results. Likewise in (18c), a head adjunction configuration [PA-c/] already exists, and is thus prevented from further adjoining to haya.

The ungrammaticality of (18a-c), specifically when contrasted with the grammaticality of (19b), is directly reminiscent of a similar contrast in process derived nominals. In these nominals, a possessive dative clitic is barred, but a full NP possessive dative is much preferred. 10

(20)a. (ha-)nipuc (Sel) ha-xalonot la-bossim ('al yedey

(the)shuttering (of) the-windows to the bosses by the

ha-'ovdim) mitraxeS kan pa'am be-Sana lefaxot

workers) happens here once a year at least

The shuttering of bosses' windows (by the workers) happens here at least once a year.

b. *(ha-)nipuc (Sel) ha-xalonot la-hem ('al yedey

(the)shuttering (of) the-windows to-them by the

ha'ovdim) . . . .

workers) . . . .

The shuttering of their windows (by the workers) . . . .

c. *ha-nipuc la-hem Sel ha-xalonot ('al yedey

the-shuttering to-them of the-windows (by the

ha-'ovdim) . . . .

workers) . . . .

The shuttering of their windows (by the workers) . . . .

In Borer (forthcoming, see also Hazout 1990 and this issue), it is argued that process nominals such as nipuc 'shuttering' in (20) have an underlying VP and are derived by head-to-head movement of the embedded verb to a governing nominal (affixal) head. Given this derivation, the parallelism between (20) and (17)-(19) becomes obvious: The ungrammaticality of

a0 The derived nominals in (20) are given both in their "of" form and in construct state, where material in parentheses is the "of" form. (20c) is not available in the construct state form, as this form does not allow any intervening material between the head and its complement, and in (20c) the clitic appears immediately following the head. For reasons that I do not understand, the construct state form of (20a) is fully grammatical, while I find the "of" form marginal.


(20b) is on a par with that of (18a-b): the complex morphological head adjunction giving rise to nipuc 'shuttering' blocks pronominal cliticization. As a result, the critic in (20b) has been stranded. The ungrammaticality of (20c) is on a par with that of (18c): The V-clitic here, as in (18c), is not an appropriate target for head-adjunction to N. In the presence of a fully realized possessive dative NP, as in (19b) or (20a), no ungrammaticality is attested.

Clearly, these accounts, as well as the parallelism with process nominals, all crucially depend on the assumption that head adjunction is involved in CI; in turn, the success of these accounts lends support to this very claim.

4. PA R A I S I N G TO HAYA

I turn now the evidence showing that the structure of CI is at least sometimes as in (21). 11

(21) IP

S P E ~

I

PA 2 I

PAP

S P E J ~ ~ .

PA ... t2

1t The diagram in (21) abstracts away from irrelevant details. Note, specifically, that this diagram has a unified IP, rather than a separate TP and AGR-SP projection, in line with much current research originating with Pollock (1989). This work is largely neutral with respect to this question. The arguments provided henceforth for the existence of raising diagnostics will necessitate the placement of PA in a higher functional head than its original position, presumably, the position of base-generation. The existence of lowering diagnostics, on the other hand, will necessitate the placement of PA in a lower head position. As the main purpose here is to establish two possible positions for PA + haya, postulating intervening functional heads, which the PA + haya combination may or may not occupy is immaterial, as long as the possibility of two positions is preserved. The actual existence of intermediate functional heads is not excluded. As will become clear below, I do assume that an objective functional projection, in essence Chomsky's (1992) AGR-OP is projected and that it interacts with the position of PA or the main verb in a meaningful way.


As will become clear, much of this evidence lends further support to a head-adjunction analysis of CI.

4.1. VP Ellipsis

Hebrew has a productive rule of VP-Ellipsis. In contexts in which haya is followed by PA, it is the latter which is omitted together with its complements, as is clear from (22), thus showing that the rule of VP-Ellipsis is generalizable to all sisters to I. (22) is thus grammatical because the PA- phrase, a sister to I, occupied by haya, has been eliminated. When CI has applied, however, the situation is as in (23).

(22) Dani haya muxan ba-zman ve-rina hayta gain

Dani was ready on-time and-Rina was too

(23)a. Dani muxan haya ba-zman ve-Rina muxana hayta gam

Dani ready was on-time and Rina ready was too

b. *Dani muxan haya ba-zman ve-Rina hayta gain

Dani ready was on-time and Rina was too

c. *Dani muxan haya ba-zman ve-Rina muxana gam

Dani ready was on-time and Rina ready too

Assuming that (23a) is derived by VP-Ellipsis, (or more accurately, ellipsis applied optionally to all phrasal sisters to I), the presence of PA to the left of the copula clearly shows that PA has been raised from the phrase which it heads and is now located outside it, adjoined to I. The null PA-phrase remnant includes the trace of PA, alongside whatever complements and modifiers may have been generated in it. (23a) thus strongly supports a raising analysis for these constructions. Note that under the assumption that a parallelism is required between the two conjuncts in order to license (generalized) VP-EUipsis, we can account for the ungrammaticality of (23b), in which CI applied only to the first conjunct.

(23c) further strongly supports a head adjunction analysis for CI: Note that if we were to assume that muxan in (23c) has moved to a position distinct from haya, such as the head of a dominating functional projection or [SPEC,IP], we would expect the resulting structure to be as in (24). In a structure such as (24), there is no way to block the ellipsis of the functional projection headed by haya. This is especially so, as F-ellipsis is attested in Hebrew as well, as (25) illustrates. The ungrammaticality of

T H E UPS A N D D O W N S OF H E B R E W V E R B M O V E M E N T 541

(23c), thus, suggests that (24) cannot be the structure of CI, and that the structure in (21) must be preferred. ~2

(24) [xe muxan [i, [haya [ve. . . ]]1]

(25) Dani haya muxan ba-zman ve-Rina gam

Dani was ready on-time and Rina too

4.2. CI and Stylistic Inversion

Hebrew has a rule sometimes referred to as Stylistic Inversion, which optionally reverses the order of the subject and the verb whenever any element other than the subject precedes the verb. ~3 This inversion occurs freely in both matrix and embedded clauses, as is illustrated by (26)-(27), thereby giving the appearance of optional V2.

(26) XP S V YP: a. (Ran amar Se-) lifney Se-higanu, ha-xatul xisel

(Ran said that) before we arrived, the-cat finished

'et ha-gvina

the-cheese

b. (Ran amar Se-) 'et ha-gvina ha-xatul xisel

(Ran said that) the-cheese the-cat finished

lifney Se-higanu

before we arrived

c. (Ran Raca lada 'at) madu'a ha-xatul xisel

(Ran wanted to know) why the-cat finished

'et ha-gvina(?)

the-cheese

12 For a discussion of VP-ellipsis in Hebrew as evidence for V-to-i movement , see Doron (1990). 13 Although, as observed by Doron and Shlonsky (1990), many adverbs fail to trigger this inversion. For discussion of Stylistic Inversion see, especially, Borer (1984); Shlonsky (1987).


(26)d. Ran Raca lada'at im (gain) 'et ha-gvina

Ran wanted to know whether (also) the-cheese

ha-xatul xisel

the cat finished

(27) XP V S YP: a. (Ran amar Se-) lifney Se-higanu, xisel

(Ran said that) before we arrived, finished

ha-xatul 'et ha-gvina

the-cat the-cheese

b. (Ran amar Se-) 'et ha-gvina xisel ha-xatul lifney

(Ran said that) the-cheese finished the-cat before

Se-higanu

we arrived

c. (Ran Raca lada'at) madu'a xisel ha-xatul

(Ran wanted to know) why finished the-cat

'et ha-gvina(?)

the-cheese

d. (Ran Raca lada'at) im (gain) 'et ha-gvina xisel

(Ran wanted to know whether (also) the-cheese finished

ha-xatul

the-cat

I will return below to an extensive discussion of (26), turning first to (27). Shlonsky (1987) proposes that in configurations such as (27), the subject is in the VP and the V has been raised over it to I. I adopt the essence of this proposal, 14 and further assume that in (27), the subject occupies its base-generated position, that of [SPEC,VP], and that the XP occupies the [SPEC,IP] position (see Doron and Shlonsky 1990, where

14 Shlonsky (1987) further proposes that the subject is base-generated in [SPEC,IP] and then adjoined to VP, a proposal not adopted here.

THE UPS AND DOWNS OF H E B R E W V E R B M O V E M E N T 543

similar conclusions were independently reached). 15 This line of reasoning, influenced in obvious ways by work by Diesing (1990), thus yields the following structure for a sentence such as (27b).

(28) n ~

SPEC I'

ha-gvina 3 I VP

ha-xatul

V 2 NP t3

Suppose that in (27a), the adjunct lifney Se-higanu 'before we arrived' has been base-generated in [SPEC,IP], thereby forcing the subject to remain in its base position. Suppose further that nominative Case assignment is available directly to the subject in that position. Two related questions immediately arise concerning the sentences in (27): First, what is the status of the [SPEC,IP] position? Note that both an NP and an adjunct are allowed in this position, making this question particularly salient. A second question concerns (27c). Is the WH-word madu'a 'why' in [SPEC,IP]? If it is, the nature of that position becomes even more puzzling. If it is not, and is rather in COMP, it appears that the structure in (28) cannot fury accommodate Stylistic Inversion in the case of questions. I return to a thorough investigation of these questions in Sections 7 and 8 where I propose that characteristics such as A and A' are associated with chains, not with positions (hence making moot an investigation of the nature of [SPEC,IP] from this perspective). I further propose that while madu'a in (27c) is in COMP, all WH-movement in Hebrew must go through [SPEC,IP], thereby subsuming Stylistic Inversion in (27c) under the structure in (28).

15 However, in Shlonsky and Doron (1992) it is argued that XP occupies the [SPEC,CP] position, on a par with some Germanic V2 languages, and that in cases where such an account is not prima facie plausible (i.e., in cases where an overt complementizer precedes XP) recursive CPs are attested, in line with proposals made by Vikner (1990) and Schwartz and Vikner (1989). I return to a detailed discussion of empirical problems with that proposal in Section 7

544 HAGIT B O R E R

Setting these issues aside, however, and assuming for the moment that the structure in (28) is basically on the right track, consider now the interaction of Stylistic Inversion and CI. In (29) I illustrate the workings of Stylistic Inversion in sequences of haya-PA in which no CI has applied. The direct interaction of Stylistic Inversion and CI is illustrated in (30). 16

(29)a. beSana Se-'avra Michal hayta muxana le-xalek kruzim

last year Michal was ready to-distribute leaflets

(30) a.

Last year, Michal was ready to distribute leaflets.

le-xalek kruzim

to-distribute leaflets

le-xalek kruzim


le-xatek kruzim


le-xalek kruzim


le-xalek kruzim


b. beSana Se-'avra hayta Michal m u x a n a

last year, was Michal ready

c. *beSana Se-'avra hayta muxana Michat

last year was ready Michal

beSana Se-'avra Michal muxana hayta

tast year Michal ready was

b. beSana Se-'avra muxana hayta Michal

last year, ready was Michal

c. *beSana Se-'avra muxana Michal hayta

last year ready Michal was

The generalization which emerges here is dear: In a haya-PA sequence, it is haya which appears to occupy the I position in structures such as (28). When an adjunct clause is in the [SPEC,IP] position and the subject remains in its base position, this position is below haya, but above PA. The opposite picture emerges when PA-haya sequences are considered. These behave as if the entire sequence is under I in (28), the position of the subject below it, and the adjunct clause in [SPEC,IP] is to its left. Given the structure in (28), then, the contrasts in (29)-(30) strongly argue for a raising analysis for PA.

Note now that the ungrammaticality of (30c) can again be construed as evidence that the raising yields head-adjunction. In reference again to the

16 In Section 8.5 I pro~de evidence that in some cases, haya must be base-generated in L For other cases, as in (29), the analysis presented here is compatible with the possibility that haya is base-generated heading a lower [+V] projection, selecting the PA phrase as complement. This haya in turn may raise to I. The availability of a haya projection lower than I will turn out to have little bearing on most constructions discussed in this study. See Section 5.4 for further discussion.

THE UPS AND DOWNS OF HEBREW VERB MOVEMENT 545

structure in (24), which I rejected on the basis of ellipsis possibilities, notice that if that structure were correct, it would be possible for Stylistic Inversion to involve just movement of PA to some functional head, with an accompanying movement of the adjunct to the SPEC of that functional head with the subject in the SPEC of haya. The ungrammaticality of (30c) suggests that such an approach is misguided.

It might be worthwhile to point out that while the argument for raising is based on the structure in (28), it is, in fact, quite independent of it. Consider, as an alternative, a V2-type approach with V moving to C, where in (27a-c) a phrase has moved to [SPEC,CP], that phrase being an adjunct phrase, a topic or a WH-element. Subsequently, the verb has been raised to C. Suppose further that we set aside the fact that in Hebrew this phenomenon is freely attested in embedded clauses and in the presence of a lexical complementizer (see Section 7 for discussion). Note that under such an analysis we must assume that the relevant verb moving to COMP in (29) is haya alone, but in (30) it is PA-haya as a unit. As clearly movement to C must be preceded by movement to I, such an account does not undermine the raising analysis or the assumption that head-adjunction is involved. Quite the contrary', both these assumptions are essential for this account as welt. As will become clear below, the decision to reject a V2-type analysis involving V to C for (27) in favor of the analysis in (28) is based on evidence for I-towering diagnostics. This decision is based as well as on a detailed typology of A and A' chains, which leads to the conclusion that for the grammar of Hebrew, the structure in (28) has obvious explanatory advantages.

Concluding this section, I have shown that two constructions, VP-Ellip- sis and Stylistic Inversion, strongly argue that CI is generated by raising PA and adjoining it to haya, as in (21). I now turn to evidence indicating that CI clusters may be PA-phrase internal as well.

5. L O W E R I N G D I A G N O S T I C S

5.1. Degree Modifiers

Recall that in (14b) above it was shown that PA may raise and adjoin to haya, stranding degree modifiers such as yoter midai 'too much'. While this is true, suggesting that, at least in (14b), head-to-head movement has raised PA, the paradigm is in fact considerably more complex. Modifiers such as yoter midai may, it turns out, occur in three positions relative to a modified adjective, participle or a main verb, as is illustrated by (31).


(31)a. Dan haya yoter miday 'asuk be-'avodato

Dan was too- much busy in-his-work

b. Dan haya 'asuk yoter miday be-'avodato

Dan was busy too- much in-his-work

c. Dan haya 'asuk be-'avodato yoter midai

Dan was busy in-his work too- much

A similar picture emerges when we consider the modifier paxot midai 'too little':

(32)a. Neta hayta paxot miday ge'a be-hesegeha

Neta was too- little proud of-her-achievements

b. Neta hayta ge'a paxot miday be-hesegeha

Neta was proud too- little of-her-achievements

c. Neta hayta ge'a be-hesegeha paxot midai

Neta was proud of-her-achievements too- little

When no complements are present, the modifier will occur either preceding the head or following it, but preceding an adjunct, as the distribution of legamrey 'completely' in (33) illustrates (and likewise laxalutin also 'completely').

(33)a. Ya'el hayta legamrey muxana kSe-higanu

Yael was completely ready when-we-arrived

b. Ya'el hayta muxana legamarey kSe-higanu

Yael was ready completely when-we-arrived

c. *Ya'el hayta muxana kSe-higanu legamrey

Yael was submerged in-the-conversation completely

Suppose we assume that modifiers, such as yoter midai, paxot midai, and legamrey when modifying an adjective or a main verb, are adjoined to the X' projection at either its right or left periphery, as is illustrated by (34a-b). This structure would immediately account for (31a,c), (32a,c) and (33a,c), in which the modifier either precedes the head or follows the complements. 17

~7 In a previous version of this paper , I pointed out that when degree modification of VP is considered, the following contrast emerges:


(34)a. [AP [A' paxot midai [A' ge'a be-hesegeha]]] b. [Ae In' [A' ge'a be-hesegeha] paxot midai]]

Suppose now that the availability of (31b) follows from a rute postposing the PP be-hesegeha 'in his achievements', adjoining it to the maximal projection, resulting in the structure in (35).

(35) [[[A' [A' ge'a t2] paxot midai] A~'] be-hesegeha2 AP]

Consider finally the interaction of modifier distribution and CI. As illustrated by (31)-(33) above, PA complements of haya may be freely modified by yoter midai, paxot midai and legamrey. Haya itself, on the other hand, may not be modified by any of these modifiers. 18

(36)a. *Dan yoter miday haya 'asuk be-'avodato Dan too- much was busy in-his-work

b. *Neta paxot miday hayta ge'a be-hesegeha Neta too- little was proud of-her-achievements

(i)a. ziva yoter/paxot miday 'ohevet tapuxim

ziva too- much~little l oves apples

b. *ziva 'ohevet yoter/paxot miday tapuxim

ziva loves too- much~little apples

c. ziva 'ohevet yoter/paxot miday 'et ha-tapuxim Set ha-Saxen

ziva loves too- much/little A CC the-applies of the-neighbor

I attributed this contrast to the fact that heavy NP can be post-posed. A reviewer notes, however, that the relevant contrast seems to involve definiteness, rather than heaviness, and that (ii) is grammatical as well:

(ii) ziva 'ohevet yoter miday/paxot miday 'et ha-tapuxim

Ziva loves too- much~little A CC the-apples

In view of this, a special restriction on V movement, preventing the derivation of (lb) by V-raising, seems unnecessary. 18 Some dialectal variation is attested with respect to (36a) and the distribution, specifically, of yoter midai ' too much'. Thus, for some speakers (36a), and subsequently, (41a) and (49a) below are grammatical, providing yoter midai is given a strong emphasis. For the same speakers, (36b-c) are still ungrammatical, as are (42a), (43a) and (49b) below. Anticipating matters somewhat, note that the correlation of the grammaticality of (36a) and (41a), (49a) is precisely what the system presented here predicts: If for some speakers it is possible to generate yoter midai as a modifier of haya in t, the grammaticality of yoter midai PA-haya sequences in raising contexts is expected. If, on the other hand, the generation of other modifiers in the same position is not possible, we expect yoter midai to contrast minimally with, say, paxot midai for these speakers in these contexts, which it does.


(36)c. *Ya'el legamrey hayta muxana kSe-higanu

Yael completely was ready when-we-arrived

But consider now the range of modifiers found with the PA-haya cluster, following CI.

yoter miday haya be-'avodato (37)a. *Dan 'asuk

Dan busy

b. Dan 'asuk

Dan busy

Dan yoter

Dan too-

Dan 'asuk

Dan busy

*Neta

Neta

Neta

Neta

Neta

Neta

too- much was in-his-work

haya yoter miday be-'avodato

was too- much in-his-work

c. midai 'asuk haya be-'avodato

much busy was in-his-work

d. haya be-'avodato yoter midai

was in-his work too- much

(38)a. ge'a paxot miday hayta be-hesegeha

proud too- little was of-her-achievements

b. ge'a hayta paxot miday be-hesegeha

proud was too- little of-her-achievements

c. paxot midai ge'a hayta be-hesegeha

too- little- proud was of-her-achievements

d. Neta ge'a hayta be-hesegeha paxot miday

Neta proud was of-her-achievements too- little

(39)a. *Ya'el muxana legamrey hayta kSe-higanu

Yael ready completely was when-we-arrived

b. Ya'el muxana hayta legamrey kSe-higanu

Yael ready was completely when-we-arrived

c. Ya'el legamrey muxana hayta kSe-higanu

Yael completely ready was when-we-arrived

Let us look first at the straightforward cases. (37a), (38a) and (39a) are presumably ungrammatical because head to-head raising is not possible when it involves both a head and its right modifier. In reference to the assumed structure of modifiers as in (34)-(35), it is clear that the derivation of (37a)-(39a) would involve not a head, but rather a string of a

T H E U P S A N D D O W N S O F H E B R E W V E R B M O V E M E N T 549

head, possibly a trace of a postposed PP and a modifier right-adjoined to A'. On the other hand, (37b), (38b) and (39b) are grammatical, precisely as expected. In these structures, the head adjective is raised and adjoined to the left of haya, leaving behind either a left- or a right-adjoined modifier. A similar derivation is available in a straightforward way for (37d)- (38d), where the head alone raises and incorporates into haya.

Finally, however, note the surprising grammaticality of (37c), (38c) and (39c). If it is correct to attribute the ungrammaticality of (37a)-(39a) to the fact that a non-head has been moved, how can (37c)-(39c) be derived by raising, where the raised segment would be both non-head and a non- constituent, moving PA and its left-adjoined modifier but stranding the complement behind? Note that given the ungrammaficality of (36), we may not assume that the modifier is base-generated as a modifier of haya, and we must assume that it originates as a modifier of PA.

Puzzling as these issues may be for a raising analysis, note that if the PA-haya cluster is internal to the PA-phrase, the facts can be handled without any difficulties whatsoever, and without compromising the ungrammaticality of (37a)-(39a). Suppose that alongside a raising derivation, CI can be head-adjunction internal to the PA-phrase, either base-generated or derived by the lowering of haya and adjoining it the right of the PA head. (37a)-(39a) would still be ungrammatical: Even in a 'lowering' derivation haya would be adjoined to the fight of a modifier rather than to the right of a PA head. On the other hand, the grammaticaIity of (37c)- (39c) would now follow exactly as required. Even if actual lowering is involved, it skips over the adjoined modifier and adjoins on the fight of PA, leading to grammaticality. Likewise, a base-generated PA + haya cluster is headed by PA, licensing such a modifier in a straightforward way. It thus appears that the placement of modifiers in CI structures forces us to assume an alternate PA + haya location, internal to the PA phrase.

5.2. Stylistic Inversion, Modifiers, and CI

Note that in discussing the structures above, a couple of possibilities for deriving (37c)-(39c) by raising have not been considered. First, one could argue that (37c)-(39c) are the result of head-to-head raising, where the modifier heads a functional projection of sorts (for instance, a DEG phrase, as is argued by Corver (1992)). Under such a derivation, PA would move to DEG, and the PA + DEG combination would move to I. Note that in such a scenario we would have to assume that the very same modifiers may be either heads of DEGP (when they occur on the left) or non-heads (when they occur on the right). A second possibifity for gen-


erating (37c)-(39c) without lowering would form the PA-haya sequence by raising and head-adjunction in the usual way. Subsequent movement would raise the stranded modifier and adjoin it to the PA-haya sequence, giving rise to (37c)-(39c). Such modifier raising would have to be blocked when CI does not take place to avoid ruling in the ungrammatical (36).

It turns out that direct evidence is available indicating that neither of these solutions can be adopted. In order to see this, consider the predic- tions made by the raising derivation and the 'lowering' derivation, respectively. I claimed in the previous sections that whenever the order v-s is present (for our purposes, whenever the order PA-haya-S is attested), the subject occupies the [SPEC,VP], and the verb or the PA-haya combination is in I. If (37c)-(39c) are derived by head-raising and subsequent modifier- raising, we predict that modifiers and Stylistic Inversion should co-exist. Specifically, we predict that sequences such as (40) should be grammatical.

(40) xe MOP PA-haya S

On the other hand, if sentences such as (37c)-(39c) are instances of a PA + haya clusters internal to the PA-phrase and an operation of modifier-raising independently or as part of head-to-head are never attested, we predict sequences such as (40) to result in ungrammaficality. This is due directly to the fact that whenever S follows PA-haya, raising must have occurred. However, in order for the modifier to precede the PA- haya duster, that cluster must be internal to the PA-phrase, clearly a contradictory situation. As (41a), (42a) and (43a) illustrate, (40)-type sequences lead to ungrammaticality, directly confirming the PA-phrase internal position of PA-haya clusters in (37c)-(39c). Cases (b)-(c) below are given as controls, showing that without modification, Stylistic Inversion is grammatical and that with a right-adjoined modifier preceding the subject, Stylistic Inversion is blocked as is expected, t9

(41)a. *ba-tkufa ha-hi, yoter midai 'asuk haya Dan be-'avodato

during that period too- much busy was Dan in-his work

b. ba-tkufa ha-hi 'asuk haya Dan yoter miday be-'avodato

during that period busy was Dan too- much in-his-work

c. *ba-tkufa ha-hi 'asuk haya yoter miday Dan be-'avodato

during that period busy was too- much Dan in-his-work

19 See fn. 18 concerning grammaticality judgments for (41a).

T H E lAPS A N D D O W N S OF H E B R E W V E R B M O V E M E N T 551

(42)a. *be-yalduta, paxot miday ge'a hayta Neta

in her childhood too- little proud was Neta

be-hesegeha

of-her-achievements

b. be-yalduta, ge'a hayta Neta paxot midai in her childhood proud was Neta too- little

be-hesegeha

of-her-achievements

c. *be-yalduta, ge'a hayta paxot midai Neta

in her childhood proud was too- little Neta

be-hesegeha

of-her-achievements

(43)a. *kSe-higanu, legamrey muxana hayta Ya'et

when we arrived, completely ready was Yael

b. kSe-higanu, muxana hayta Ya'el legamrey

when we arrived, ready was Yael completely

c. *kSe-higanu, muxana hayta legamrey Ya'el

when we arrived, ready was completely Yael

The paradigm in (41)-(43) thus clearly suggests that modifier-raising in either form cannot be utilized to maintain a raising analysis of CI for (37c)- (39c). It further confirms that PA-haya clusters may be either internal to the PA-phrase (lowering) or external to it (raising). The co-existence of these two possibilities, forced in distinct contexts, can fully account for the ungrammaticality of CI-modification in Stylistic Inversion contexts.

5.3. CI, Lowering and Floated Quantifiers

Hebrew, along lines quite similar to French, allows a quantifier to be stranded in the base-generated subject position.

(44)a. ha-yeladim 'axlu kulam 'et ha-tapuxim

the-children ate all A CC the apples

b. ha-yeladim kulam 'axlu let ha-tapuxim

the-children all ate A CC the-apples

552 HAGIT BORER

In line with Sportiche's (1988) conclusions, let us suppose that in (44a), the NP ha-yeladim 'the-children' has raised from [SPEC,VP] to [SPEC,IP], stranding the quantifier behind. Such stranding is optional, and in (44b) the NP has raised together with the quantifier. The salient aspects of (44a- b) are thus the representations in (45a-b)2o

(45)a. NP3V-I [vP [NP t3 Q] tv YP] b. [NP Q]3 V-I [vP [NP t3] tv YP]

Floated quantifiers can, thus, serve as a diagnostic for the S-structure position of the subject. And indeed, as expected, in the XP-V-S configuration in which I argued XP occupies the [SPEC,IP] and the subject is in [SPEC,VP], both subject and quantifier occur post-verbally.

(46) ha-boker 'axlu ha-yeladim kulam 'et ha-tapuxim

this-morning ate the-children all ACC the apples

(47) lip XP V-I [vP [NP NP Q] tv YP]]

Clearly, a representation such as (45a) must involve the raising of the verb followed by the raising of the NP-subject to [SPEC,IP], stranding the quantifier. Without verb raising, there is no way to derive a discontinuity between the NP and the Q. Thus, (45a) gives us, alongside Stylistic Inversion, a test for raising: Whenever a quantifier is stranded, the derivation must have involved the raising of the verb to a position intervening between the subject and the stranded quantifier.

Recall now that I argued in Section 5.1 that whenever sequences such as MOD-PA-haya occur, they could not have been derived by raising; rather they must involve a PA-haya cluster internal to the PA-phrase. Given the obligatory nature of the PA-phrase internal position in such configurations and the obligatory nature of the PA-phrase external position in quantifier-stranding constructions, a direct prediction is made: The sequence in (48) is predicted to be strictly ungrammatical. (49) shows that this prediction is borne out. (50)-(51) provide minimal contrasts with (49). (50) involves CI, by raising, to the left of the floated quantifier and with a stranded modifier; (51) is a case of quantifier float and a modifier

2o I am setting aside here particular issues concerning the Hebrew construction, such as the nature of the quantifier kulam, a complex form consisting of a quantifier and a clitic which agrees with the NP. These issues are largely irrelevant to the discussion in the text, where the floated quantifier, regardless of its internal structure, is used as a diagnostic for raising. For discussion of the specific conditions on the Hebrew construction, see Shlonsky (1991).


without CI. Both are correctly predicted to be grammatical. Relevant structures are given in (52)21

(48) *NP3 MOD PA haya Q YP

(49)a. *ha-yeladim yoter midai 'asukim hayu kulam be-'avodatam the-boys too- much busy were all in-their-work

b. *ha-yeladot paxot miday ge'ot hayu kulan the-girls too- little proud were all

be-hesegeyhen in-their-achievements.

c. *ha-yeladot legamrey muxanot hayu kulan kSe-higanu the-girls completely ready were all when-we-arrived

(50)a. ha-yeladim 'asukim hayu kulam yoter midai be-'avodatam the children busy were all too- much in-their-work

b. ha-yeladot ge'ot hayu kulan paxot miday the-girls proud were all too- little

be-hesegeyhen in-their-achievements.

c. ha-yeladot muxanot hayu kulan legamrey kSe-higanu the-girts ready were all completely when-we-arrived

(51)a. ha-yeladim hayu kulam yoter midai 'asukim be-'avodatam the-boys were all too- much busy in-their-work

b. ha-yeladot hayu kulan paxot miday ge'ot

(52)a. b.

the-girls were all

be-hesegeyhen in-their-achievements

too- little proud

c. ha-yeladot hayu kutan legamrey muxanot kSe-higanu

the-girls were all completely ready when-we-arrived

NP3 PA haya [vP [NV t3 Q] MOD tFA YP ]] NP3 haya [vp [NP t3 Q] MOD PA YP ]]

2~ I am indebted to Lisa Travis for suggesting the Q-float test to me.


The exclusion of the structure in (48), especially when contrasted with the grammaticality of (52a-b), thus strongly supports the claimed co-existence of internal and external PA-phrase position for PA-haya clusters put forth in this work.

5.4. A Note on the Placement of NEG and on the Placement of haya

Since Pollock (1989), it has been assumed by many studies that NEG heads its own projection, placed, at least at times, above some functional projection (FP in (53)), but below the maximal sentential projection (IP in (53)). (Other possible functional projections are ignored here for pre- sentational purposes).

(53) Iv

I NEG"

NEG FP

F VP/AP

Arguably, a filled NEG head in representations such as (53) may block the linking of TENSE and the verb (e.g., in English). Alternatively, when attached to an auxiliary or a dummy verb like 'do', the entire V + NEG cluster may move by head-to-head movement to C, as in SUBJECT-AUX inversion in English. If we assume, as in Chomsky (1992), that auxiliaries are base-generated in I in (53), the resulting representation would be as in (54).

(54) [[cv [AUX + NEG3]2[~v SPEC [t2 ][NZO" t3 [FP . . . . . ]]]]

Returning to CI constructions in Hebrew, note that just as the haya- PA cluster may be both internal and external to the PA-phrase, the negative marker lo must be allowed two possibilities as well. Thus, consider (55). Recall that cases of Stylistic Inversion must involve haya-PA

T H E UPS A N D D O W N S OF H E B R E W V E R B M O V E M E N T 5 5 5

external to PA-phrase, while those occurring to the right of a modifier must be internal to PA-phrase. The occurrence of lo in Stylistic Inversion structures preceding the subject in (55a), thus, indicates a position external to the PA-phrase. In (55b), on the other hand, lo appears to the right of the modifier legamrey, suggesting that it is internal to the PA-phrase (recall crucially that legamrey may not modify haya or I' directly).

(55)a. le-yad ha-Sagrirut ha-zot lo muxanim hayu ha-studentim

near the-embassy the-this not willing were the-students

le-hafgin

to-demonstrate

b. Karmela legamrey lo muxana hayta kSe-higanu

Karmela completely not read), was when-arrived-we

This dual position for NEG is by no means a hallmark of CI constructions, since it is possible for non-CI constructions as well, as (56a-b) show.

(56)a.

b.

le-yad ha-Sagrirut ha-zot Io hayu

near the-embassy the-this not were

ha-studentim muxanim le-hafgin

the-students willing to-demonstrate

Karmela hayta legamrey lo muxana kSe-higanu

Karmela was completely not ready when-arrived-we

The PA-phrase-internal position of the negation in (55b) is confirmed by the impossibility of Stylistic Inversion for the strings Iegamrey-Io-muxana-hayta, as (57) shows.

(57) *le-yad ha-Sagrirut ha-zot legamrey 1o muxana

by this embassy completely not ready

hayta Karmela le-hafgin

was Karmela to-demonstrate

Likewise, note that VP-ellipsis cannot strand the MOD + NEG + PA + haya cluster in (55b) or the MOD + NEG + PA cluster in (56b), as (58a- b) show.

556 I--IA G I T B O R E R

(58)a. Karmela legamrey lo muxana hayta le-hafgin le-yad

Karmela completely not ready was to-demonstrate by

ha-Sagrirut ve-David gam/ken/lo (*legamrey

the-embassy and David also~yes~no (*completely

(*1o muxan (*haya)))

(*not ready (*was)))

b. Karmela hayta legamrey lo muxana le-hafgin le-yad

Karmela was completely not ready to-demonstrate by

ha-Sagrirut ve-David gam/ken/lo 22 (haya)

the-embassy and David also~yes~no (was)

(*legamrey (*1o muxan))

(*completely (*not ready))

It thus appears that at least two positions are possible for NEG. It is possible, however, that the PA-Phrase-internal position is the result of NEG lowering (or base-generation attached to the PA head). If this is the case, then the structure for NEG in Hebrew may be as follows.

22 (58b), with haya not elided, shows a s trong tendency to assert again either a negat ion (re-David lo haya ' and David was not ' or affirmative ve-David ken haya ' and David was so') . While such an assert ion is possible for (58a), it seems less strongly favored. This topic, as well as o ther properties of negat ion in Hebrew, are outside the scope of this paper.


(59) I~P

I N~G"

NEG FP lo

F VP/A P

haya

SPEC

V/A

One interesting property of the structure in (59) should be observed at this point. Note that unless we assume that NEGP is the maximal sentential projection (= IP), we must assume that haya (at least may) occupy a position distinct from I. I return to this point below.

Returning to the double position for NEG, and assuming it to involve lowering diagnostics, note that with respect to (56b), such lowering would be over haya to PA. With respect to (55b), on the other hand, such a lowering derivation would entail first adjoining lo to haya, and then adjoining the lo + haya cluster to PA. ~3 Recall now that I claimed that a similar situation is blocked in dative cliticization, where PA+haya+

23 As is too often the case ~ t h cases of multiple head adjunctions, the order predicted by successive lowering is distinct from the one actually attested. Thus, any successive lowering account would have to preserve the continuity of haya-NEG in either order, but the actual order attested is NEG-PA-haya. This suggests that either the cluster is base-generated in situ and checked subsequently through LF raising, as suggested in Chomsky (1992), or alternatively, that haya must first adjoin to PA, and then NEG adjoins to the entire cluster. The choice between these options is not pursued here.


cl/PA + cl + haya clusters are ungrammatical. What then accounts for the difference between the cliticization of datives and the incorporation of NEG? A possible account for such a difference might rests in the relationship which holds between NEG and the haya/PA pair, on the one hand, and the relationship between dative clifics and the haya/PA pair, on the other. Note that NEG may attach independently to both haya and PA, as (56a-b) clearly show. This is not the case with dative clitics. They can attach to PA, but never to haya. If we assume now that head incorporation is possible to an already complex head adjunction only if such head can be incorporated independently into either head of the adjoined structure, the difference between dative ciiticization and NEG cliticization would follow. The proposed condition, the Head Adjunction Condition, is given in (60).

(6o) The Head Adjunction Condition:

* x ~ w O

ZQzo W o X o

y "zo Unless

y/•w 0

W ~ Z 0

and

w z°I Considering now (55a) and (56a), note that if the structure in (59) is

assumed, we must also assume that in such sentences haya and PA + haya, respectively, are adjoined (to the right) of NEG. Only such adjunction would prevent the ungrammatical (61), where the subject occurs in the specifier of FP.

(61)a. *[m le-yad ha-Sagrirut ha-zot [N~G Io [FP/PAP ha-studentim

by the-embassy the-this not the-students

muxanim hayu le-hafgin]]]

willing were to-demonstrate

T H E UPS A N D D O W N S OF H E B R E W V E R B M O V E M E N T 5 5 9

b. *[iP le-yad ha-Sagrirut

near the-embassy

ha-zot [NEG 10 [FP ha-studentim hayu [PAP muxanim the-this not willing were the-students

le-hafgin]]]] to-demonstrate

Interestingly, one more environment licences the occurrence of NEG for CI and non-CI contexts alike:

(62) ha-studentim hayu 1o legamrey muxanim le-hafgin the-students were not completely willing to-demonstrate

le-yad ha-Sagrirut ha-zot

by this embassy

The grammaticality of (62) can be accounted for in three ways. First, it could be proposed that lo in (62) modifies the modifier legamrey 'completely'. A drawback to this possibility is the ungrammaticality of (63), where the modifier is right-adjoined and where negation may only be construed as negating the adverb.

(63) ha-studentim hayu muxanim (*1o) legamrey le-hafgin

the-students were willing (*not) completely to-demonstrate

le-yad ha-Sagrirut ha-zot

by this embassy

A second possibility is to postulate, alongside (59), the structure in (64), effectively allowing two base-generated positions for NEG.

560 HAOIT B O R E R

(64) ip

I FP

F haya

N E G "

Z, NEG VP/AP

lo S P E C ~

MOD / ~

V/A

If, indeed, (64) is a possible structure, it would eliminate the need to lower NEG to PA across haya in (56b).

Finally, attempting to exploit maximally the already postulated structure in (59), note that in that structure, IP is a distinct projection from FP, already allowing in principle for a verbal element to be both to the right and to the left of NEG, without postulating a second NEG.position. Suppose, then, that in (62) haya is raised to the head I, over NEG. Note that it is not plausible to assume that haya moves and head-adjoins to the left of lo in (62). In contrast with (61a-b), a filled specifier between haya and lo is possible in these cases, as (65) shows.

(65) [IP le-yad ha-Sagrirut ha-zot hayu3 [NEGP by this embassy were

ha-studentim lo [FP t3 [PAP legamrey muxanim le-hafgin ]]]] the-students not completely willing to-demonstrate

The adoption of the raising analysis of haya over NEG for structures


such as (62) has two consequences. First, note that it results in the ability of haya, in principle, to occupy two positions on the tree, in addition to the possibility of its being attached to PA. Second, note that in such a structure it must be assumed that additional specifier positions are available, making it possible in principle to have up to four filled specifiers preceding PA: [SPEC,IP], [SPEC~NEGP], [SPEC,FP], and [SPEC,VP].

Clearly, this is an undesirable result. While two filled specifiers preceding haya (with or without negation) are attested, as in (66), three are already clearly ungrammatical, as (67) shows.

(66)a. be-yalduta, rina (lo) hayta ge'a be-hesegeha

in-her-childhood, Rina (not) was proud in-her.achievements

b. ba-hesegim ha-ele rina (Io) hayta ge'a

in-the-achievements the-these Rina (not) was proud

be-yalduta

in-her childhood

(67)a. *be-yalduta, ba-hesegim ha-ele, rina hayta ge'a

in-her-childhood, in these achievements Rina was proud

b. *ba-hesagim ha-ele, be-yalduta, rina hayta ge'a

in these achievements, in-her-childhood, Rina was proud

Suppose, then, that we assume the following conditions licensing speci-

fiers.

(68) On the Licensing of Specifiers: a. Specifiers of lexical projections are independently licensed. b. IP (and its specifier) are independently licensed (in essence,

the Extended Projection Principle of Chomsky (1981) where by IP we mean the projection selected by C).

c. Given a maximal string ai. • • an, where ~,, is a lexical head and a i . . . a,~-I is a maximal string of functional heads excluding I, all heads in o~i.., o~,~ are coindexed. By transitiv- ity, all their specifiers are coindexed as well, allowing only one filled specifier between them.

d. Given a maximal string a~ . . . an, where for any a, a a functional head distinct from I, specifiers in a i . . • a , , are licensed only if ak contains an overt [+V] head.

Consider now the possibilities for filled specifiers in (59). As haya in this structure occupies a functional head, as does NEG, we must assume


that haya, NEG and the lexical head of VP/AP are all coindexed, allowing for at most one filled specifier. In turn, as haya is a [+V] functional head, functional specifiers are licensed in this structure. It follows that in (59), and in the presence of haya, two specifiers may be filled: one with the NP originating in [SPEC,VP], either in situ or in any intermediate functional specifier, and another, with an adverb or a phrase originating elsewhere, in [SPEC,IP]. The grammaticality of (66), as well as the ungrammaticality of (67) now follow.

Consider, however, a structure without the auxiliary haya, with or without NEG, as given in (69).

(69) IP

I NEG"

NEG VP/AP

MOD / ~

V/A

In (69), [SPEC,IP] is licensed, as is [SPEC,VP]. No other intermediate specifier is available, since the functional head chain contains no [+V] elements. It, thus, follows that while (66a-b) may have the structure in (70), a sentence such as (71a), corresponding to the structure in (69), may only have the structure in (71b).

(70) [re be-yalduta, [FP fina2 (10 [FP) [t2 hayta [AP t2 in-her-childhood, Rina (not) was

ge'a be-hesegeha]]]]

proud in-her-achievements


(71)a. be-yalduta, rina lamda ciyur

in-her-childhood, Rina studied drawing

b. [IP be-yalduta, ([FP...) [w rina lamda ciyur]] in-her-childhood Rina studied drawing

Crucially, in the absence of haya, no other specifier is licensed, forcing the NP rina to stay in the VP.

Consider finally cases of CI. As haya may be either in I or head its own projection, and as it licenses a specifier, we expect that when CI is derived by raising, two PA-phrase-external specifiers should be available. All the strings in (72a-d) should be available, depending on the position of the PA + haya cluster and the position of t h e subject: 24

(72)a. [iv be-yalduta, [FP rina2 ge'a + hayta [AV t2 be-hesegeha]]] b. [~r be-yalduta, [w ge'a + hayta [AP rina2 be-hesegeha]]] c. [re be-yalduta, ge'a + hayta [rP.[Av rina2 be-hesegeha]]] d. [,e be-yalduta, ge'a + hayta [FP rina2 [a, t2 be-hesegeha]]]

Considering lowering configurations, note that the only possibility is in (73a). The structure in (73b) is ruled out, as a functional specifier is not licensed in the absence of overt [+V] head.

(73)a. [n, be-yalduta, [AP rina2 ge'a + hayta be-hesegeha]] b. *[n, be-yalduta, [FP rina2 [AP t2 ge'a + hayta be-hesegeha]]]

24 While in cases of PA-phrase-interual CI the placement of negation is obvious, the pattern in raising structures is of some interest, as illustrated by (i) (Recall that placement of the subject between NEG and haya is blocked by either haya or the PA + haya cluster raising to lo):

(i)a. b. C.

d. e.

f.

[n, be-yatduta, [n, be-yalduta, [iv be-yalduta, [iP be-yalduta, [re be-yalduta, [re be-yalduta, hesegeha]]]]

g. [iP be-yalduta, h. [iv be-yalduta, i. *[iv be-yalduta, j. *[iv be-yalduta,

[r,ne~,' rina2 10 [ge'a + hayta]3 [v~ tz t3 [Av t2 be-hesegeha]]]] [~rzo" rinaz 0 [FV t2 10 ge'a + hayta [A1, t2 be-hesegeha]]]] [NZG" 10 [ge'a + hayta]a [w t3 [AV rina2 be-hesegeha]]]] [~reG,, t~ [w 10 [ge'a + hayta] [~e rina2 be-hesegeha]]]] [!0 [ge'a + hayta]3]4 [msG- t4 [ve t3 [AP rinaz be-hesegeha]]]] [ln [ge'a + hayta]3]4 [r,~e~- rina2 t 4 ~ t2 t3 [ ~ tz be-

[10 [ge'a + hayta]3]4 [NEO" t4 [re rina2 t3 [AI" t2 be-hesegeha]]]] [10 [ge'a + hayta]3]4 [~o" t4 [vv t3 [AP fina2 be-hesegeha]]]] [ge'a + hayta]3 [NEO" 10 IVY t3 lAY fina2 be-hesegeha]]]] [ge'a + hayta]3 [r-rzcy" In [rv rina2 t3 [Av t2 be-hesegeha]]]]

k. *[IP be-yalduta, [ge'a + hayta]3 [~zo', rina2 Io [Fe t2 t3 [AI" t~ be-hesegeha]]]]

While the possibilities in (a-h) are all attested, (i-k) result in ungrammatical derivations. Here, unlike in (62), it appears that movement across a NEG head is not possible. In investigating the contrast between (i-k) and (65), it is tempting to argue that the ungrammaticality of (i-k) derives from the absence of an overt verbal element in the scope of negation. I leave this matter to future research.

564 HAGIT B O R E R

To conclude, the purpose of this subsection has been twofold: First, I established that NEG in Hebrew must be allowed to be in the VP/AP, alongside its placement external to the VP/AP, just like haya. Second, the investigation of negation indicated that haya may occupy more than one position and that it may license an additional VP/AP external specifier, accounting for the data in (66).

Having established that haya may occupy more than one position in the tree, a natural question arises. Is it possible that what has been characterized here as haya lowering to PA, or base-generation of haya attached to PA in situ, is, in fact short raising of PA to the lower haya position in the tree, while so-called raising is long raising of PA to the higher haya position? Although such an account seems extremely attractive, note that it cannot be maintained. Recall that the placement of haya internal to the PA-phrase is motivated by several considerations: First, it occurs to the right of modifiers that cannot be modifiers of haya; second, in such contexts it does not participate in Stylistic Inversion; third, in those very same contexts, Q-float is blocked.

Consider how short vs. long raising would fare with respect to these diagnostics. Concerning modifiers, one would have to argue that such modifiers are not possible for the higher haya position, but are possible for the lower haya position, as in (74).

(74) [~e(*MOD haya) [Fp (MOD haya) [PA"...1]]

There is no evidence that such modification preceding haya is ever possible, but even granting this point, note that in structure (74), we predict the grammaticality of both Stylistic Inversion and Q-float, as in structures (75a) and (75b), respectively.

(75)a. [iP NP2 [vP t2 [MOD PA-haya [PA" t2 Q...]]11 b. [~e XP-topic [FP [MOD PA-haya [PA" S. . . ] ] ] ]

Recall that a functional specifier is licensed in (75) by the fact that haya is a [+V] functional head. A short raising analysis for lowering cases predicts the grammaticality of (75) contrary to facts. I, thus, conclude that the presence of two possible positions for haya is independent of the availability of PA-phrase internal haya, which is necessary to account for the pattern of grammaticality described in the previous sections. I return to the two positions of haya in Section 8.


6. A D D I T I O N A L E V I D E N C E

6.1. Optional Stylistic Inversion

Having established that in Hebrew PA-haya clusters exist both PA-phrase internally and externally, suppose now that in fact, these two options exist in Hebrew across the board. Specifically, let us suppose that in the case of simple main verbs, V-I clusters can be dominated by both I and V. Armed with this assumption, let us return to the optionality of Stylistic Inversion illustrated in (26) and (27). We may now ponder the question of what may account for such optionality. Typically, languages which exhibit V2-1ike effects in the presence of a fronted element do not do so optionally, but obligatorily. Further, under the assumption that the structure of stylistically inverted clauses is as in (28), what could plausibly be the structure of the non-inverted clauses in (26)? One would have to assume that, while in inverted clauses XP is in [SPEC,IP], a parallel strategy exists which allows XP to adjoin to IP or possibly to move to [SPEC,CP] (but see Section 7.1 below for more discussion).

Consider, however, an alternative approach. Suppose the optionality of Stylistic Inversion is only apparent. In fact, what is optional is a lowering derivation vs. a raising derivation° In other words, both in (26) and in (27), XP occupies the [SPEC,IP] position, in both, the subject occupies the [SPEC,VP] position. However, in (26), V-I is dominated by V, whereas in (27) it is dominated by I, resulting in a VS order in the latter, but not in the former. Following this approach, the structures associated with (26) and (27), respectively, are as in (76a-b).

(76)a. [ip 'et ha-yeladim [r I-limdai [vv Rina ti la-Sir]]]

A CC the-boys taught Rina to sing

b. [iP 'et ha-yeladim [r 0 [w Rina limda-I la-Sir]]] ACC the-boys Rina taught to sing

Specifically, assume that in the S-structure of (76b), the head position of I is null. Other than the respective positions of V-I, however, the structures of (76a) and (76b) are identical. Thus, it is clear that the optionality of Stylistic Inversion in Hebrew is successfully reduced to another process: the optional position of the V-I cluster.

A prediction concerning the structures proposed in (76a-b) may be checked at this point to establish their plausibility. If, indeed, any material preceding the subject is in [SPEC,IP], then in all such contexts, (and given the absence of haya, licensing another specifier), the subject must be in [SPEC,VP]. It follows that Q-float from subject position must always be


blocked in these configurations. This prediction is confirmed, as (77) shows (note that when V-I is dominated by I this prediction is impossible to test, as the position of the verb to the left of the subject would create a string adjacency between S and O, making a structural determination of their respective positions impossible). (77) contrasts with grammatical (78a- b) 25

(77) ??la-nearot ha-Me ha-ne'arim2 Salxu kulama zerey praxim to-these girls the-boys sent all flowers XP-topic S V Q YP

(78)a. la-nearot ha-'ele Salxu ha-ne'arim2 kulam2 zerey praxim XP-topic V S Q YM

b. ha-ne'arima2 Salxu kulam2 zerey praxim la-nearot ha-'ele S V Q YP XP

Before I turn to an investigation of the status of the [SPEC,IP] position in view of the representations in (76a-b), consider additional evidence that raising exists alongside lowering, coming from adjunct control. 26

25 (77) improves with a very strong pausal break between XP-topic and the subject. It might be that in cases of such strong pausal break, an actual IP adjunction is an alternative structure. See Appendix for some more discussion of this option. 26 A couple of other ingenious tests suggested by a reviewer for the structures in (76a-b) are independently not available. Thus, the reviewer proposes that VP-ellipsis may confirm these structures by eliding the VP, including the subject in its specifier, and that (manner) adverbials may precede the subject, confirming the structures in (76a-b). It is unlikely, however, that VP-eUipsis can ever delete a subject or that VP-adverbs can ever precede the subject even in languages in which the placement of the subject in [SPEC,VP] is not contested, such as genuine VSO languages. In fact, along with other generalizations developed to delineate the VP boundary, and based fundamentally on the assumption that the VP excludes the subject, these all present a prima facie problem for the VP-internal subject hypothesis. The formulation of VP ellipsis and placement of adverbs as well as other VP- boundary diagnostics, must be reworked as a result of base-generating subjects in [SPEC,VP], possibly as a diagnostics of non maximal/non-head verbal projections, rather than a full VP. Alternatively, as suggested by Koopman and Sportiche (1988, 1990), the subject may be external to the VP, dominated by a V m~-~ distinct from VP.

Alternatively, it is possible that a functional projection, call it FP, dominates the VP, and that the subject is Nominative-marked in its specifier and the V-I cluster heads it, precisely in the cases where VP-internal subject and I are argued for in this work. In such a case, modifiers of the type investigated above would be associated with FP, rather than VP or AP, and Q-float, likewise, would be associated with its specifier. Note, however, that the only motivation, at this point, for the existence of such a functional projection is that it would allow us to go on maintaining that some generalizations hold with respect to VP, rather than V'. As it would still allow the V-I cluster and the subject to occur in more than one position in Hebrew, it would leave unaffected the core claim of this work.


6.2. Adjunct Control

Surprisingly, we find the following contrast.

(79) *kSe-lamdu, ha-yeladim hiclixu ba-bxina

when studied-3mpi, the boysi succeeded in the test

(80) kSe-lamdu, hiclixu ha-yeladim ba-bxina

when Studied, succeeded the-boys in the test

The distinction between the ungrammatical (79) and the grammatical (80) is only in whether or not, according to the assumptions made here, the V-I is dominated by I or by V. The schematized structures are given in (81)-(82):

(81) *[IF [when studied-3mp2] ft [re the-boys~ V-AGR in the test]]

(82) [rv [when studied-3mp2] V-AGR2 [va, the-boys2 tv in the test]]

Consider now what could be the offending element in (81). It is not the presence of the adjunct itself, as the grammaticality of (83) shows.

(83) kSe-hiStadalnu, ha-yeladim hiclLxu ba-bxina

when we tried, the-boys succeeded in the text

In (83), the subject of the adjunct is not coreferential with the subject of the matrix, and no ungrarrLmaticality results, thereby suggesting that the ungrammaticality of (81) is linked to the referential dependency between the subject of the adjunct and the subject of the matrix. Note, however, that when the subject of the adjunct is overt, coindexation between it the matrix subject does not result in ungrammaticalityY

(84) kSe-ha-yeladimi lamdu, hemi hiclixu

when the-boys studied, they succeeded

27 The following is marginal in my judgement:

(i) ??kSe-hem2 tamdu, ha-yeladimz hiclixu ba-bxina

when they studied, the-boys succeeded in-the-test

The marginality of (i), however, is independent of the position of the main verb, and (ii) is equally marginal, or possibly even worse, in contrast with (82b) in the text:

(ii) ??kSe-hem2 lamdu, hiclixu ha-yeladim2 ba-bxina

when they studied, succeeded the-boys in-the-test

Quite possibly, an independent factor involving the appearance of an overt pronoun to the left of its antecedent is involved in the marginality of both (i) and (ii).


Nor does ungrammaticality results when the adjunct is in the right periphery of the sentence, presumably adjoined to VP.

(85) ba-bxina ha-yeladim hiclixu kSe-lamdu

in-the test the-boys3 succeeded when-studied-3m-pl3

We may then conclude that the ungrammaticality of (81) is related to restrictions on coreference when the adjunct precedes the subject. Note now that no standard formulation of the binding conditions is capable of distinguishing the relations between the adjunct subject and the matrix subject in (81) and (82). Plausibly, we could rule out (81) by assuming that the matrix subject, a name, is c-commanded somehow by the pro subject of the adjunct. It is hard to see, however, how such c-command could hold in (81), but not in (82). Were the situation reversed, one could possibly argue that c-command holds in (82), but not in (81), but this clearly would give us results opposite from the desired ones. Nor can it be argued that the matrix subject c-commands the adjunct subject in (81), but not (82), resulting in ungrammaticality (for some mysterious reason). If that were true, we would have expected (84) to be ungrammatical, contrary to fact.

Consider, however, the analysis proposed for similar cases in Borer (1989) (and see also Finer 1985), where it is proposed that in Hebrew, third person null pronominals may only be identified if the I with which they are coindexed contains an anaphoric AGR, which is independently bound in accordance with the binding conditions. Such an antecedent may be a full c-commanding NP in its governing category, or an m-commanding A G R node in its governing category. In view of this, consider a fuller representation of the structures in (81)-(82)es

(86)a. [~e [pro2 AGR + anaphorica] 0 Ivy NP2 V-AGR2. . . ] ] b. [re [pro2 AGR + anaphoric2] V-AGR2 [ve NP2 t v . . . ] ]

Consider now a possible antecedent for the anaphoric AGR in (86). NP2 is clearly not a possible antecedent in either (86a) or (86b); since it occupies the [SPEC,VP] in both, it does not c-command the anaphoric adjunct agreement, and binding is precluded. Considering, however, the matrix AGR2, an asymmetry emerges. While in (86b), the matrix AGR2 plausibly m-commands, and hence binds, the adjunct AGR, in (86a) such

28 In Borer (1989) it is proposed specifically that the anaphoric AGR moves to C. For a similar proposal concerning switch reference see Finer (1985). For reasons of simplification, this aspect is not represented in the text. As will be clear below, the analysis rests on whether the matrix AGR m-commands the adjunct AGR, and the precise location of the latter within these confines is immaterial.

THE UPS A N D DOWNS OF H E B R E W V E R B M O V E M E N T 569

m-command relations do not hold. As a result, the adjunct anaphoric A G R in (86b) is unbound, and ungrammaticatity results. 29 It, thus, turns out that the position of A G R can supply the crucial missing factor in ruling (86a) out, but (86b) in, independently supporting the claim that sentences such as (26) above have the structure in (76b), crucially involving a VP-internal I.

Consider how an account such as the one proposed by Shlonsky and Doron (1992) would fare in explaining the contrast in (79)-(80). Shlonsky and Doron argue that in XP-S-V orders the XP is adjoined to IP. On the other hand, in XP-V-S orders the XP is in [SPEC,CP], the V has raised to C and the subject occupies [SPEC,IP]. The configurations are, thus, as in (87)-(88):

(87) [~p XP [~p S V-AGR [vP . . . . . 111

(88) [cP X P V - A O R [iP S t [vP . . . . . ]]]

Clearly, the availability of control/binding in (88) follows in a straightforward way in this system as well, predicting the grammaticality of (80). Consider, however, the structure in (87). Crucially, the ungrammaticality of (79) under structure (87) depends on blocking the binding of the anaphoric A G R in the adjunct, that is, claiming that the matrix AGR cannot m-command or c-command into adjoined projections.

This claim is clearly false. In English, where, presumably, topics and pre-sentential clausal adjuncts are always adjoined to IP and subjects are, indeed, in [SPEC,IP], such control is possible, as (89) illustrates.

(89) While pro2, dancing, Kim~ drank beer

Further, the system of switch-reference advocated by Finer (1985), which uses in essence similar configurations, crucially relies on the possibility of

29 As is argued in Borer (1989), cases such as (86a) are not actually violations of binding, as the null pronominal itself may bind the anaphoric AGR heading its clause. However, when such binding holds, the anaphoric A G R may not inherit the set of features necessary to identify that very null pronominal, and the sentence is ruled out as a failure of identification. Subsequently, we expect the ungrammaticality of (86a) to be on a par with that of unlicensed pro-drop cases in Hebrew, a weaker violation than that resulting from failure of binding.


binding into an adjunct position, showing that the licensing of a pro in pre-sentential clauses by a matrix AGR is possible. 3°

To conclude, a system distingtfishing XP-S-V-YP orders from XP-V-S- YP orders by assuming adjunction vs. [SPEC,CP] location for XP fails to capture the facts which are naturally captured here by assuming a unified [SPEC,IP] position for the XP-topic, but a differing position for the V-I cluster.

7. ON THE STATUS OF [ S P E C , I P ]

I have argued above that when a phrase precedes the subject, that phrase occupies the [SPEC,IP] position, while the subject remains in its base- generated [SPEC,VP] position. As such, the position of the pre-subject phrase (henceforth XP-topic) is identical when it immediately precedes the subject and when the (raised) V intervenes between the two. This identity of position is repeated in (90).

(90)a. ( Z P . . [cv C) [iv XP-topic [i, V [vP S t v YP ]]] b. ( Z P . . [cP C) [~r XP-topic [i, 0 [,~a- S V YP ]]]

There are several important consequences to the structure in (90). First, note that there is an explicit claim here that the XP-topics in (90a-b) are in the same position and that any differences between (90a) and (90b), if indeed there are any, follow from the position of the main verb in I in (90a) vs. its position in the VP in (90b). In what follows I demonstrate that, indeed, the restrictions on the distribution of XP-topic in (90a) and (90b), respectively, are close to identical. In Section 8.3 below I discuss the one case in which their distribution parts ways, and I show it to follow naturally from a VP-internal vs. VP-external position for the V-I cluster.

Second, the representations in (90a-b) give rise to a host of important questions concerning the status of [SPEC,IP]: Note that XP-topic in (90a-

3o For Finer, such a configuration is obtained by moving the agreement node to C. Note, however, that under such a derivation, (79) should certainly be ruled in, rather than out. For the analysis presented here, whether A G R moves to C in Stylistic Inversion cases or not is immaterial. Crucially, no such movement is possible in cases such as (79). A reviewer notes that, indeed, the difference may boil precisely to that: the movement of A G R to C in Stylistic hwers ion cases vs. its in situ placement in non-Stylistic Inversion cases, with XP in [SPEC,CP] across the board. Note that such an account basically reproduces the account given in this paper, but lifts the contrast up the tree from VP-internal A G R vs. VP-external A G R to a contrast between IP-internal A G R and IP-external AGR. As I have already established that at least sometimes A G R must be lower than I, it would seem preferable to reduce other contrasts to two potential positions for A G R (V and I, or alternatively, V and C), rather than three (V,I,C).


b) could have been moved from a Case-marked position. Such cases, involving, e.g., the fronting of direct and indirect objects are given in (91), corresponding to (90a), and (92), corresponding to (90b) (See also (26)-(27) above).

(91)a. (Ran Sa'al 'ira) 'et ha-gvina3 xisel ha-xatul It]3

(Ran asked whether) the-cheese finished the-cat

lifney Se-higanu

before we arrived

b. (Ran niba Se-) 'ira ha-baxura3 ha-zot yircu

(Ran predicted that) with this- woman will want

kulam le-daber [t]3

everyone to talk

(92)a. (Ran Sa'al ira) 'et ha-gvina3 ha-xatul xisel [t]3

(Ran asked whether) the-cheese the-cat finished

lifney Se-higanu

before we arrived

b. (Ran niba Se-) 'ira ha-baxura3 ha-zot kulam

(Ran predicted that) with this- woman everyone

yircu le-daber [t]3

will-want to talk

Standard A-A' typologies would classify the position occupied by XP- topic as an A'-position, and, as I show below, there are good reasons to assume that such a classification is correct (See subsection 7.1). As is shown, however, there are equally good reasons to assume that the position is an A-position (See Section 7.2). In Section 8, an account for this apparent contradiction is attempted, It is suggested that the A-A' distinction applies to chains and not to positions (See Section 8.1). It is further proposed that nominative Case in Hebrew is only available in [SPEC,VP] (See Section 8.2). Section 8.3 deals with a surprising asymmetry between weak crossover effects in inverted and non-inverted structures, and Section 8.4 touches upon the interaction of WH-movement licensing and XP- topic, relating it to claims made in this paper concerning the co-existence of V placement in both I and in V. Some cases of obligatory inversion in Hebrew are discussed in 8.5, providing additional evidence for the system developed.

572 ~AGIa" BOaER

7.1. Evidence for [SPEC,IP] as an A'-position

In addition to having potentially moved from a Case-marked position, XP-topic displays a number of clear properties typically associated with A'-movement. First among these is the licensing of parasitic gaps, exemplified in (93) for structures such as (90a) and in (94) for structures such as (90b) . 31

(93) 'et ha-ma'amar3 tiyka Rina [t]3 mibli likro [e]3

A CC-the-article .filed Rina without reading

(94) 'et ha-ma'amar3 Rina tiyka [t]3 mibli likro [e]3

ACC-the-articIe Rina filed without reading

In another typical diagnostic for A'-movement, an XP-topic creates an island. As Doron and Shlonsky (1990) observe, such an island is attested both in the COMP immediately dominating XP-topic (95a-b), and in an embedded context (96a-b). Note again that XP-topics exhibit this behavior in both (90a) and (90b).

(95)a. *le-mi3 'et ha-sefer2 Dani natan [e]z [e]3

to-whom ACC the-book Dani gave

b. *le-mi3 'et ha-sefer2 natan Dani [e]2 [e]3

to-whom ACC the-book gave Dani

(96)a. *le-mi3 Rina xoSevet Se-'et ha-sefer2 Dani natan [el2 [el3

to-whom Rina thinks that-ACC the book Dani gave

xoSevet Rina

thinks Rina

b. *le-mi3 Rina xoSevet Se-'et ha-sefer2 natan Dani [e]z [e]3

to-whom Rina thinks that-ACC the book gave Dani

xoSevet Rina

thinks Rina

While these appear to give a clear indication that the XP-topic is in an A'-position, the picture is considerably complicated by two other factors. First, note that subjects when occurring pre-verbally, and thus plausibly in the [SPEC,IP] position, do not license parasitic gaps, nor do they create islands for extraction.

31 See Doron and Shlonsky (1990) and Shlonsky and Doron (1992) for discussion,


(97) *ha-ma'amar3 tuyak [vP [t]3 mibli likro [e]3]

The-article was-filed without reading

(98) le-mi3 Rina xoSevet Se-Dani natan 'et ha-sefer2 [t]3

to-whom Rina thinks that-Dani gave ACC the book

xoSevet Rina

thinks Rina

Secondly, note that while the island effects created by XP-topic in (96a- b) result in extremely strong ungrammaticality, WH islands in Hebrew typically give rise to extremely weak islands, if any, as the grammaticatity of (99) indicates (note that whether or not Stylistic Inversion takes place is again irrelevant).

(99)a. le-mi3 Rina lo yoda'at ma2 Dani natan [e]2 [e]3 to-whom Rina doesn't know what Dani gave

10 yoda'at Rina

doesn't know Rina

b. le-mi3 Rina lo yoda'at ma2 natan Dani [el2 [el3

to-whom Rina doesn't know what gave Dani

10 yoda'at Rina

doesn't know Rina

Confronting these facts, Shlonsky and Doron (1992) propose that Heb- rew distinguishes among three structures. Subjects in Hebrew are always in the [SPEC,IP] position, an A-position, thereby failing to license parasitic gaps and not giving rise to islands. When the word order displayed is XP-V-S, on the other hand, V has moved to C and XP-topic is in [SPEC,CP]. When the word order is XP-topic-S-V, where V-movement to C is prima facie implausible, XP is adjoined to IP. Thus, unlike in the approach advocated here, where only one structure is attested, in the Shlonsky and Doron approach three structures are proposed: (100) for S- V-YP sequences, and (101a-b) for XP-topic-V-S sequences and XP-topic- S-V sequences respectively:

(100) [~e NP3 V-I [vP t3 tv YP 1]

(101)a. [cP XP-topic [c, V-I [iP NPa tv-i [va, t3 tv YP 11]] b. [rP XP-topic [~p NP3 V-I [vp t3 tv YP ]11

An immediately observed serious difficulty for the structures in (101a-

574 t { A G I T B O R E R

b) is the fact that the structure is clearly attested in embedded clauses with overt complementizers (cf. (91)-(92)). To overcome this difficulty, Shlonsky and Doron adopt a proposal of Vikner (1990) (and see also Schwartz and Vikner 1989, Iatridou and Kroch 1992) assuming that embedded V2 effects derive from the possibility of recursive CPs, in which V has moved to a C dominated by an embedded CP, and XP-topic has moved to the SPEC of that C, thereby creating an island. Thus, (101a) in an embedded context would have the structure in (102a). As they do not discuss directly the structure of (101b) in embedded contexts, it is to be assumed that they allow for adjunction to IP in embedded clauses, giving (101b) the structure in (102b).

(102)a. ZP [cP [c Se [cP XP-top.[c, V-I [iP NP tv_~ [w 111111 b. ZP [cP [c Se [~p XP-top [~p NP V-I [vP ]]]]]

While in their system XP-topic clearly occupies an A'-position both in (102a) and (102b), note that it is nevertheless a distinct position. The identical behavior of XP-topic in both contexts, thus, casts doubt on the need for a dual representation in (102). However, a much more serious problem for the system proposed by Shlonsky and Doron (1992) is that their proposal is incompatible with properties of recursive CPs, as argued for recently by Iatridou and Kroch (1992). Iatridou and Kroch distinguish between two types of languages: those that display CP-recursion (Swedish, Danish) and those that do not (Yiddish, Icelandic). While in the former, V2 effects derive from V movement to C and XP-ffonting to [SPEC,CP] in the usual fashion, in the latter, V2 effects derive from movement of V to I, movement of an XP possibly distinct from the subject to [SPEC,IP] and the possibility of leaving the subject in some specifier position lower than [SPEC,IP]. Developing an original idea of Vikner's (1990), Iatridou and Kroch show that typically, recursive-CP languages allow V2 effects in an extremely restricted range of contexts. Specifically, [el, [cP sequences are only licensed by a selecting bridge verb, and are, thus, barred in islands, complex NPs, adjuncts and relative clauses. On the other hand, non-recursive CP languages with V2 effects exhibit no such restrictions, allowing V2 effects in a wide range of constructions, including adjuncts, islands, etc.

Applying this typological observation to Hebrew, we see there is no question that it patterns with the non-recursive-CP type. Hebrew allows XP-topic-V-S sequences in adjuncts, in islands and even in relative clauses.

(103) zot ha-ne'eSemet Se-'axrey ha-miSpat Salxa ha-miStara this the-defendant that-after the-trial sent the-police


balaSim be-'ikvot ba'ala

detectives after husband-her

(104) keyvan Se-ba-xufSot ozvim ha-studentim et

because that in the breaks leave the students A CC-the

ha-universita, hexlita ha-hanhala le-natek

University, decided the administration todisconnect

'et ha-xaSmat

A CC-the electricity

(105) rina lo betuxa 'im be-kayic ha-ze tagi'a

Rina not sure whether in-summer this will-arrive

dodata le-bikur

aunt-her for-visit

Rina is not sure whether her aunt will arrive for a visit this

summer.

Furthermore, under a recursive-CP account, it is not clear why XP- topic-S-V sequences should be licensed precisely in the same wide range of contexts as XP-topic-V-S sequences, given that they have such a distinct structure. Thus (106)-(108) illustrate that these sequences as well are licensed in relative clauses, in adjuncts, and inside islands.

(106) zot ha-ne'eSemet Se-'axrey ha-miSpat ha-miStara

this the-defendant that-after the-trial the-police

Salxa balaSim be-'ikvot ba'ala

sent detectives after husband-her

(107) keyvan Se-ba-xufSot ha-studentim ozvim et

because that in the breaks the students leave ACC-the

ha-universita, hexlita ha-hanhala le-natek

University, decided the administration to disconnect

'et ha-xaSmal

A CC -the electricity

576 HAGIT BORER

(108) Rina lo betuxa 'im he-kayic ha-ze dodata

Rina not sure whether in-summer this aunt-her

tagi'a le-bikur

will-arrive for-visit

Rina is not sure whether her aunt will arrive for a visit this summer.

Below, I return to some more inadequacies of the CP-recursion account. For the time being, suffice it to say that the problem solved by such an account (the explanation for the island effects in (95)-(96)) is achieved at the cost of suggesting two distinct analyses for XP-topic, and of compromising the licensing conditions on CP-recursion as attested in other gram-

32 mars. To summarize this section, while there is some indication that XP-topic

is in an A'-position, such a conclusion gives rise to two new questions:

A.

B.

How can we distinguish between subjects occupying [SPEC, IP]], and patterning with A-elements, and XP-topic occurring in the same position patterning with A'-elements?

How can we account for the strong islands created by XP-topic, islands which are created neither by WH-elements in COMP, nor by subjects occupying the same position?

Below, in Section 8.1, I develop a typology of chains, rather than positions, arguing that the properties of subjects and XP-topics, respectively, follow from the properties of the chains they head, not the positions they occupy. In Section 8.4, I suggest an account for the island effects induced by XP-topics based on licensing domains for Operator-movement. Such an account does not necessitate postulating either recursive CPs or

32 KI'och and Iatridou argue that V-to-I languages, such as Yiddish and Icelandic, do not exhibit island effects when XP-topic occupies [SPEC,IP]. While this appears to be true for Yiddish, as reported in Diesing (1990), this is not the case for Icelandic, where such extraction appears to be barred, on a par with Hebrew. Below I offer an explanation for the impossibility of extraction in Hebrew and, by extension in Icelandic. For some brief comments on the possible difference between Icelandic and Yiddish, see fla. 47.


adjunction. 33 Before I turn to this issue, however, let us consider some further properties of the XP-topic in (90a-b), clustering more properly with A-phenomena.

7.2. Evidence for [SPEC,IP] as A-position

Alongside the A'-characteristics of XP-topic in (90a-b) is an important A-like property: the failure to trigger weak crossover effects, as is illustrated by (110), with typical weak crossover effects with WH-elements and quantifiers illustrated in (109). 34

(109)a. ?hor-av2 'ohavim 'et Daniz

his-parents love Dani

b. *im-o2 rakda 'ira kol yeled2

his-mother danced with every boy 35

c. *'ira mi2 'im-o2 rakda It]2 .9

with whom his-mother danced

(110)a. ?'et Dani2 hor-av2 'ohavim It]2 (la-mrot Se-nixSal)

A CC Dani his-parents love (although he failed)

b. ? 'et Daniz 'ohavirn hor-av2 [t]z (la-mrot Se-nixSal)

ACC Dani love his-parents (although he failed)

His parents love Dani.

Under all standard descriptions of weak crossover, the offending structure must involve a variable to the right of a coindexed pronoun. The relative grammaticality of ( l l0a-b) , which are definitely no worse than

33 Although the possibility of adjunction in addition to XP-topic is not in principle excluded here. It might turn out to be necessary to postulate such an adjunction to account for cases where more than one non-subject phrase appears pre-verbally, as in (i):

(i) Ia-kaytana ha-zot 'et ha-yeled Sela Rina 1o tiSlax

to-this summer camp ACC the-boy of-her Rina not will-send

To this summer camp Rina won' t send her son.

I return briefly to these cases in the appendix, where I discuss long distance scrambling. 34 But note that while an XP-S-V order in (109c) exhibits a weak crossover effect, an XP- V-S order would not. I return to this important observation in Section 8.3 below. 35 For reasons that remain mysterious, universal quantifiers in Hebrew are not comfortable in direct object positions, quite independently of weak crossover effects, thus necessitating an illustration with PPs.


(109a), itself somewhat marginal in Hebrew, suggests that XP-topics do not bind such a variable, a conclusion compatible with their status as A- binders, but strongly incompatible with their status as licensors of parasitic gaps.

Mahajan (1990), discussing somewhat similar facts in Hindi, proposes that [SPEC,IP] may be either an A- or an A'-position, but not both. As Hindi does not have syntactically overt movement, some of the crucial tests cannot be conducted. Specifically, the licensing of parasitic gaps cannot be checked against the occurrence of weak crossover violations. In Hebrew, however, these tests can be correlated. The results suggest that [SPEC,IP] may be both an A-position and an A'-position in the same derivation. ( l l l a - b ) are as grammatical as ( l l0a-b) and clearly better than violations of weak crossover such as (109b-c).

( l l l )a .

b.

'et ha-student2 ha-ze kiblu mor-avz It]2

A CC the-student the-this accepted his-teachers

la-xug mibli le-hakir [e]2

to-the-department without knowing

'et ha-student2 ha-ze mor-av2 kiblu [t]2

ACC the-student the-this his teachers accepted

la-xug mibli le-hakir [e]2

to-the-department without knowing

The emerging typology is a confusing one, to say the least. I have identified XP-topic as having the properties in (112), an unholy mixture of A- and A'-properties (and recall, importantly, that these properties may co-exist in the same derivation).

(112) XP-topic properties: 36 1. Leaves a Case-marked trace

36 An important question concerns the functioning of XP-topic as an A-binder. Unfortu- nately, however, it appears that a number of independent factors render the construction of felicitous examples difficult. The morphological paradigm for reflexives and reciprocal anaphors in Hebrew lacks a nominative form. As a result, the binding of a nominative anaphor in [SPEC,VP] by an XP-topic cannot be tested. As in dative constructions both DO and IO can serve as binders/anaphors for each other, fronting of these constituents is uninformative as well. The remaining option is to bind an anaphor inside a subject NP. Reflexives, however, are independently barred as complements of N. While reciprocals are possible as complements of N, note that for a valid test to be conducted, such reciprocals must be embedded in an agentive NP, so as to exclude binding by reconstruction into the object position. The resulting expressions (such as xaverim 'exad Sel ha-Seni 'friends of each other') appear to be independently cumbersome, rendering judgements too difficult to be conclusive.

T H E LIPS A N D D O W N S O F H E B R E W V E R B M O V E M E N T 579

2. Creates strong island effects 3. Licenses parasitic gaps 4. Does not exhibit weak crossover effects.

8. A CHAIN-BASED TYPOLOGY

8.1. On the Properties of Chains

Before I suggest an account of the host of properties exhibited by XP- topics, it is worthwhile noting that surprising as the list in (112) is, it is not without precedents. A mixture of A- and A'-properties has been identified for short-distanced scrambled elements in Japanese (Saito 1984, 1992), in German (Webelhuth 1990) and in Hindi (Mahajan 1990). For Hindi and Japanese, the absence of overt syntactic movement makes the correlating of some of these tests impossible, but still, the picture is not a new one. Further, in a recent study of weak crossover effects in English, Lasnik and Stowell (1991) point out that some A'-moved elements, not- ably those moved by topicalization and relative clause formation, do not give rise to weak crossover effects. Chains formed by such movement clearly share the properties in list in (112).

Suppose then we take XP-topics in Hebrew to form a natural class with short distance scrambled elements in Japanese, Hindi and German, and possibly with topicalized elements in English. Suppose now we take the characteristics of these elements to be precisely those associated with the list in (112). It appears, then, that alongside A-chains, with their well- known properties, and operator-variable chains, with their well-known properties, we have a third type of chain, call it S-chain (S for short distance scrambling) with the properties in (112). The respective properties of these distinct chain types are summarized in (113)-(115).

(113) A(rgument)-Chain: NP5 . . . t5 + Case + 0

Salient properties: a. Tail is not Case marked b. Head participates in A-binding c. Tail does not license parasitic gaps d. Tail Does not trigger weak crossover effects e. Head does not create an island


(114) S(crambling)-Chain XP3 . . . t3

(A-chain)

Salient properties: a. Tail is an A-chain b. Head may participates in A-binding. 37 c. Tail licenses parasitic gaps d. Tail does not trigger weak crossover effects e. Head creates an island 38

(115) O(perator)-Chain: O p 4 • • • t4

('A-chain) (S-chain)

Salient Properties: a. Tail is either an A-chain or an S-chain b. Tail participates in A-binding c. Tail licenses parasitic gaps d. Tail triggers weak crossover effects e. Head does not create an island (but an island effect may

emerge as a result of other factors, such as ECP and subjac- ency).

I will return to the question of island effects in Section 8.4 below. For the time being, however, I attempt a characterization of movement diagnostics based on the properties of the three chain types in (113)- (115).

(116) Parasitic gaps: licensed by Case-marked tails (S-chains, O- chains). A-binding: licensed by heads of non-operator chains (Name

37 I noted in fn. 36 that binding by XP-topic cannot be tested in Hebrew for independent reasons. On the other hand, such effects are present in Japanese and in German, as reported by Saito (1992) and Webelhuth (1990) respectively. It may turn out to be the case that some languages do not allow heads of S-chains to participate in A-binding, with English as a case at hand. This variation among S-chains, in turn, may derive from the adjunction vs. substitution nature of s-chains in distinct languages. This topic is not pursued further in this work, although it is assumed here implicitly that S-chains may be headed both by adjoined and by substituted elements (see below for some additional discussion). 3s But only if S-movement is to [SPEC,IP], and for reasons associated with that position, as discussed below, rather than with the properties of S-chains as such.


chains). Weak Crossover: licensed by variables.

Several distinctions are implicit in (116). First, it is assumed that variables are name-like, but traces of either A-movement or S-movement are not. Licensing of A-binding, then, is by Names, where for operator movement these are variables, but for S-movement and A-movement these are the heads of their respective chains. Likewise, weak crossover is a property assumed to be connected with variables, or operator-variable relations, rather than movement to a particular position. If, indeed, Koop- man and Sporfiche (1982) are correct, and weak crossover effects are derived from the failure of bi-unique operator-binding relations, such a constraint specifically on the binding of variables is expected.

On the other hand, traces of S-movement are not variables, even if Case-marked. In the S-chain, the Name properties remain associated with the head, and a short-distance scrambled element does not function as an operator. The consequence is that the creation of an operator-variable function cannot be accomplished merely as the result of so-called A'- movement. Rather, such a relation must be established as a result of the syntactic movement of an actual Operator, a member of a well-defined set in the language ranging over quantifiers, WH-operators and possibly other elements, such as negation and certain adverbs. Names, as such, may undergo movement, but such movement does not give rise to first- order logic representations of the ty?e ~a~;.:iliar from QR representations. Rather, it gives rise to a syntactic cc-~fig~ara:ion, possibly associated with topic/focus interpretation, which does ~e! participate in variable binding.

Before I proceed, the following discussion needs to be put in context. Short distance scrambling, what I call S-chain, has been argued to involve adjunction in Japanese (Saito 1984, 1992) and in German (Webelhuth 1990). Topicalization in English is in all likelihood an adjunction process as well (Lasnik and Saito 1992). O-movement, too, may create adjunctions, with QR as a prime example. It is, thus, clear that a full typology of S and O chains needs to describe these as well. In this paper, however, I concentrate on movement to specifier positions exclusively. Distinctions between scrambling types (e.g., the lack of A-binding for English topicalization) might eventually be reduced to the distinction between adjunction and substitution. This task is not attempted here.

Consider finally the status of [SPEC,IP]. As is well-known, the emer- gence of the VP-internal subject hypothesis, coupled with the assumed possibility in some languages of assigning nominative Case directly in that position has rendered the [SPEC,IP] position a peculiar one from the

582 I--IA G I T B O R E R

perspective of the A-A'-typology. While nominative Case continues to be assigned in the [SPEC,IP] position obligatorily in some languages (e.g., English) and optionally in others, 0-role never is. Putting together a typology of positions alongside the typology of chains in (116), the following picture emerges.

(117) Potential Case Potential 0 a. + +

b. -+ C. -- +

d . - -

Instantiation complements, [SPEC,VP] [SPEC,IP]

[SPEC,CPI

If D-structure is GF0, complements are an impossible landing site for any movement. Consider, however, other properties of the table in (117). Assuming that A-movement is movement to an (actual) Case position, movement to [SPEC,IP] in, e.g., English where nominative is assigned, is A-movement.

8.2. [SPEC,1P] and Nominative Case in Modern Hebrew

Consider now Hebrew. I propose that in Hebrew, nominative Case is assigned only in [SPEC,VP], in configurations such as (l18a) or (l18b). 39

(l18)a. [n, V-I [vP NP t YP]] b. [~v O [vP NP V-I YP]]

S-movement may apply to ( l l8a-b) , giving rise to ( l l9a-b) , if the element S-moved to [SPEC,IP] is a non-subject. If the S-moved element is the subject, (120a-b) results. Note, crucially, that as the subject is assigned nominative in [SPEC,VP], A-movement to [SPEC,IP] in Hebrew is not available.

(l19)a. [iP XP-topic V-I [ve NP tv txe YP]] nora

b. [IF XP-topic 0 [ve NP V-I txe YP]] nom

39 Koopman and Sportiche (1988) and much subsequent work on word order in VSO languages associates the assignment of nominative Case in [SPEC,VP] with the failure of agreement. If, however, Diesing (1990) is right in assuming that in a language such as Yiddish the subject may remain in [SPEC,VP], it is clear that the correlation between subjects in [SPEC,VP] and the failure of agreement is at least sometimes wrong. Note further that in VSO languages, there is a good reason to believe that agreement is not triggered by the positioning the subject in [SPEC,IP], but rather, by the presence of a pro, regardless of its position. For some recent research, see Benedicto (1993).


(120)a. [u, NP3-topic V-I [ w [el3 tv YP]I n o r a

b. [IV NP3-topic 0 [vP [e]3 V-I YP]] nom

In essence, the state of affairs depicted by (119)-(120) embodies the claim that what appears in the [SPEC,IP] position in Hebrew is never a 'subject'. Rather, it is always a topic of sorts, at times nominative and at times non- nominative.

In view of this proposal, consider again the properties of subject-headed chains, illustrated by (97)-(98) above and repeated here. Recall that subjects, unlike XP-topics, do not license parasitic gaps, nor do they create islands for movement.

(97) *ha-ma'amar3 tuyak [vP [t]3 mibli likro [el3] The-article was-filed without reading

(98) le-mi~ Rina xoSevet Se-Dani natan 'et ha-sefer2 [t]3 to-whom Rina thinks that-Dani gave ACC the book

xoSevet Rina

thinks Rina

Given the structures in (120a-b), neither effect is expected in this structure. Considering first parasitic gaps, the structure of (97) is as in (121) (where t2 is the trace of passive and t~ is the Case-marked tail of the S-chain). Such structure is plausibly ruled out by whatever rules out (122a), whether the anti-c-command restriction or any other condition designed to achieve similar results (Compare with relative acceptability of (122b)).

(121) [IF XP-topic2 [re t~ [v , t 2 ] . . . [e]2]] • , • n o r a

(122)a. *Whoz [t]2 invited Mary without John's meeting [e]2 b. Who2 did Bill invite [t]z without John's meeting [e]2

Crucial to the parallelism drawn between the ungrammaticality of (121) and (122a) is the assumption that the nominative trace in (121) c-commands the parasitic gap. That VP-internal subjects do, indeed, c-command adjuncts can be illustrated by the grammaticality (123).

584 H A O I T B O R E R

(123) [~r 'etmol nixnas [vP Dan2 ha-bayta [bli pro2

yesterday entered Dan the-house without to

lidfok]]]

knock

Under the rather uncontroversial assumption that adjunct control is accomplished through c-command by the controlling subject, it is clear that NP in [SPEC,VP] in (123) does c-command the adjunct.

Turning now to the absence of island effects with subjects, note that we do not expect these. The reason is as follows. Whenever an XP-topic distinct from the subject surfaces, we know that it is in the [SPEC,IP] position, as that is the only position available to it. However, sequences such as S-V-YP are in fact, structurally ambiguous. They may have the structure in (118b) or, alternatively, the structure in (120a). Under the assumption that XP-topics in [SPEC,IP] always create islands, regardless of whether they are subjects or not, we may rule out extraction from (120a). The conclusion is that whenever extraction over a subject is attested, it has occurred from the equivalent of (l18b), in which no island effects are expected.

A clear prediction emerges from this account. As in cases of Q-float the subject must be in [SPEC,IP], such cases wotfld always give rise to islands. While judgments here are subtle, the contrasts in (124)-(125) seem quite clear:

(124)a. ha-nearot2 'avdu [vP t2 kulan ba-gan ('etmol)]

the-women worked all in-the-garden (yesterday)

b. ??'efo3 [iP ha-nearot2 'avdu [vP t2 kulan2 tv ta ('etmol)]]

where the-women worked all (yesterday)

c. 'ef03 [iP t3 'avdu [vP ha-nearot2 kulan2 tv t3 ('etmol)]]

where worked the-woman all (yesterday)

(125)a. ha-nearot2 Salxu [vP t2 kulan2 tv mixtavey-mexa'a

the-woman sent all letters-protest

la-memSala]

to-the-government

b. ??te-mi3 [w ha-nearot2 Salxu Ire t2 kulan2 tv to-whom the-women sent all

THE UPS AND DOWNS OF H E B R E W V E R B M O V E M E N T 585

mixtavey mexa'a h]]?

letters-protest

c. ??'eyze mixtavim4 [iP ha-nearot2 Salxu [vF t2

which letters the-women sent

kulan2 tv t4 la-memSala]]

all to-the-government

d. le-me3 [~p t3 Salxu [vP ha-nearot2 kulan2 tv

to-whom sent the-girls all

mixtavey mexa'a t3]]?

letters-protest

e. 'eyze mixtavim4 [~p t4 Sa]xu [VP ha-nearot2 kulan2 tv t4

what-letters sent the-girls all

la-memSala]]?

to-the-government

In essence, then, movement to [SPEC,IP] in Hebrew is never A-movement, and when it involves a non-operator, it is always S-movement. Attempting to characterize possible landing sites for S-movement, we may say minimally that S-movement is not possible to 0-positions. [SPEC,IP], being a non-0-position, now becomes a natural host for S-movement.

Clearly, as S-movement in Hebrew may choose [SPEC,IP], a non-Case position, as its target, such landing sites are possible for S-movement. However, could S-movement select a Case-position as its target? An investigation of this question is rather complicated by the fact that crucially, while S-movement might be possible to a potential Case position, it is never possible to an actual Case position, since the main characteristic of an S-chain is that its tail is in a Case position (and under standard assumptions, its head must be in a position in which actual Case is not assigned). This means that S-movement to [SPEC,IP] may occur only when that position is not associated with actual Case. In such configurations, the subject must remain in the [SPEC,VP], where it is assigned nominative, resulting precisely in the XP-topic configurations of the type discussed in this study. 40

4o It is predicted that S-movement to [SPEC,IP] in infinitives should be grammatical, and indeed, it is

586 H A O I T B O R E R

As in the grammar of Hebrew, [SPEC,IP] is not a Case position, other possible Case positions must be considered. Below, such cases are considered and it is concluded that S-movement to a potential (but not actual) Case position is possible.

Turning now to O-movement, note that, like S-movement, it is barred to a potential 0-position. It is also precluded from landing in a Case position. O-movement is, thus, excluded from landing in [SPEC,IP] if that position is a (potential) Case position. Both S and O movement, however, can use [SPEC,CP] as landing sites. The correlation of landing sites and movement types is given in (126).

(126) Landing Sites: a. Potential but - actual 0, actual Case: b. - Potential O, actual Case: C. - Potential 0, --- potential ( - actual) Case d. -Potential 0, -potential Case:

A-movement A-movement S-movement S-movement O-movement

Putting forth a system similar to the one proposed here, Webelhuth (1990) proposes that scrambling involves a type of movement that is neither A-movement nor operator movement; his model clearly is similar to the one proposed here. Unlike this proposal, however, Webelhuth's identifies the distinction between S-movement and O-movement with distinct landing sites. Thus, in his account, an IP-adjoined position is the target for S-movement exclusively, whereas operator movement may select only [SPEC,CP] as its landing site. [SPEC,IP], on the other hand, remains a landing site for A-movement alone.

Considering now (126), note that [SPEC,IP] may serve as the target for A-movement, S-movement and O-movement, at least in some languages. It is, thus, clear that the inventory of landing sites for movement types is not sufficient to distinguish chains and that information concerning the original position, as well as the nature of the moved element, is essential for determining chain-types.

In the next section, I turn to the properties of O-movement, discussing its exclusion from potential Case positions and its interaction with S- movement. Summarizing this section, once we view the properties of movement as deriving from the properties of chains, rather than from the

(i) ['et rin% le-hazmin t2] zo Sgi'a gdola

ACC Rina to-invite is mistake big

It is a big mistake to invite Rina,

T H E U P S A N D D O W N S OF H E B R E W V E R B M O V E M E N T 587

properties of positions alone, it is possible at least to characterize the apparently puzzling properties of XP-topics,properties that are a mixture of A and A' properties. XP-topics can now be characterized as heading a particular type of chain: a chain headed by a Name with its tail in a Case position.

8.3. A Surprising Asymmetry

Is O-movement allowed to land in [SPEC,IP]? A positive answer to this question is given in Diesing (1990) and Pesetsky (1989). Consider, in this view, the absence of weak crossover effects in (127).

(127) [Ie 'im kol yeled2 [I' rakda [re im-o2 t2]]]

with every boy danced mother-his

His mother danced with every boy.

(127) is a case of a fronted quantifier. In line with the previous discussion in this paper, such a fronted quantifier occupies [SPEC,IP]. It would, thus, appear that if [SPEC,IP] were a possible landing site for O-movement, the trace of the quantifier would be a variable to the right of a coindexed pronoun leading to weak crossover effects, contrary to fact. If one were to assume, on the other hand, that [SPEC,IP] may not serve as a landing site for O-movement, the quantifier in (127) has not been subject to O- movement, but rather it has been S-moved to [SPEC,IP]. In accordance with the assumptions made here thus far, such movement would leave a non-variable trace failing to trigger weak crossover effects. Under such an account, subsequent O-movement may adjoin the quantifier to IP in LF, and the variable bound by such O-movement would be the head of the S-chain in [SPEC,IP]. This variable would not be to the right of a coindexed pronoun, and weak crossover effects would not be expected.

An interesting twist emerges, however, when we consider the non- Stylistically Inverted correlate of (127), given in (128):

(128) *[iP 'im kol yeled2 [r 0 [ve im-o2 rakda t2]]]

with every boy mother-his boy.

Here a weak crossover effect is triggered. Thus, the ungrammaticality of (128) seems to point in exactly the opposite direction: [SPEC,IP] may be


the target of O-movement, leaving behind a variable to the fight of a coindexed pronoun with resulting ungrammaticality. 41

An identical contrast is attested in the WH-movement correlates of (127). While (129a) exhibits weak crossover effects as expected, such effects disappear in (129b). As (130a-b) illustrate, these contrasts repeat themselves when a PP, rather than an NP, is extracted by WH-movement:

(129)a. *'et mi2 'im-o2 ohevet [t]2?

ACC who mother-his loves?

b. 'et mi2 'ohevet 'im-o2 [t]2?

ACC who loves mother-his

(130)a. *'ira mi2 'im-o2 rakda [t]2?

with whom mother-his danced?

b. 'im mi2 rakda 'im-o2 [t]2?

with whom danced mother-his

Note that (127)-(130) present the only cases in which XP-topic-S-V sequences display different behavior from XP-topic-V-S sequences. More- over, while this contrast is beyond dispute, there appears to be no natural way to account for it in terms of the recursive-CP hypothesis proposed by Shlonsky and Doron (1992). Recall that within their approach, the structure of (127), (129b) and (130b), on the one hand, and (128), (129a) and (130a), on the other hand, would be as in (131) and (132). 42

(131)a. [cP 'im kol yeled2 rakda [iP ['im-o213 tv [vP [t]3 tv [t]2]]] with every boy danced mother-his

b. [cP 'ira mi2 rakda [iP ['im-o213 tv [w [t]3 tv [t]2]]]? with whom danced mother-his?

41 In what is an interesting minority dialectal variation, I judge (128) to be quite good, contrasting, as such, with (129a). Possibly, and anticipating the discussion somewhat, in my dialect, quantifiers, but not WH-operators, may S-move to [SPEC,IP], acquiring their operator status only in LF. In the majority dialect, it appears that quantifiers, like WH-operators, may only O-move to that position. 42 In Doron and Shlonsky (1990), however, in which XP-V-S orders have the structure proposed in this work, but XP-S-V involve adjunction of XP to IP, the contrasts in (127)- (130) are accounted for, by assuming that in (128), (129a) and (130a) the relevant variable trace is in the object position, to the right of the pronoun, while the subject is in [SPEC,IP]. On the other hand in (127), (129b) and (130t)) the subject is in [SPEC,VP], WH-raovement has proceeded through [SPEC,IP] as proposed here, and the relevant variable is in [SPEC,IP], to the left of the pronoun, bypassing weak crossover effects.


(132)a. [IP 'ira kol yeled2 [iv [ 'im-oz]3 rakda [vv [t]3 tv [t]21]] with every boy mother-his danced

b. [cP 'ira mi2 [Iv ['im-0213 rakda [w It]3 tv [t]2]]]? with whom mother-his danced?

For Shlonsky and Doron (1992), the difference between (131) and (132) lies in the optionality of main verb movement to C alongside the possibility of IP-adjunction for topics. This optionality does not affect the positioning of the variable with respect to the coindexed pronoun and hence should not have any effect on weak crossover.

One might propose that the grammaficality of (I27), (t29b) and (130b) derives from tile fact that in these cases (for whatever reason), the pronoun is in [SPEC,VP], while in (128), (129a) and (130a), it is in [SPEC,IP]. However, pronouns in clear, unambiguous [SPEC,VP] positions still trigger weak crossover effects, as (133) illustrates, rendering such an account impossible.

(133) *[ie 'etmol rakda [vP 'im-o2 'ira kol yeled2]

yesterday danced mother-his with every boy

Consider, however, another possibility, suggested by R. Canac-Marquis (personal communication). Suppose that, given the optionality of the position of the V-I cluster in Hebrew, it is nevertheless assumed that a given derivation may involve across-the-board lowering configurations or across-the-board raising configurations, but not both. In other words, while the representations depicted in (134a-b) are well-formed, the one depicted in (134c) is not (where L is a lexical head and Fn is a functional head).

(134) The Uniform Representation Condition: a. [FP2 [L + F3 + F212] [vr'3 e3 [LP eL]]] b. [w2 0 [w3 0 [LV [L + F3 + F2]L]]] C. *[~P2 0 [FP3 [L + F3 + F213 [LP eL]]]

Let us now assume, in line with Chomsky (1992), that the VP is licensed by a functional projection distinct from I, call it AGR-OP, with the property of assigning accusative Case to elements in its specifier. 43 I deviate from Chomsky, however, in two important respects. First, I assume that like I, AGR-OP may be adjoined to V in its base position,

43 But see Borer (1993), where it is explicitly argued that the accusative assigning functional head is an aspectual phrase.

5 9 0 H A G I T B O R E R

thereby licensing direct accusative assignment by V in the VP alongside accusative assignment in [SPEC,AGR-OP] by SPEC-HEAD agreement. Second, I assume that other complements of V may (although need not) move to [SPEC,AGR-OP].

In line with the Uniform Representation Condition, when derivations argued in this paper to have lowering diagnostics occur, they involve not only the V-I cluster dominated by V, but also the V-AGRO-I cluster dominated by V and the subsequent direct assignment of accusative Case in the base-position of the direct object. On the other hand, in a raising derivation, the verb will adjoin to AGR-O and then move on to I, rendering accusative Case assignment in [SPEC,AGR-OP] the only possibility.

Consider now the contrasts in (127)-(130), and recall that raising derivations which involve Stylistic Inversion and not trigger weak crossover effects, while the lowering derivations without Stylistic Inversion do. The structures in (135)-(136), corresponding to a lowering and raising derivations, respectively, now provide a key to this surprising contrast.

(135)a. CP

C IP

/ Q t3 i)

/ Q I ¢

AGR-O"

AGR-O VP

[im-o312

V-AGRO-I NP 'ohevet t 3

+Case


b. CP

et mi 3 ~ C IP

V-AGRO-I AGR-O"

ohevet SPt3 E C ~ ~

+Case AGR-O VP

[im-o 3 ] 2

V NP t 3

-Case

592

(136)a. IP

/ % Q3 i1

I 0

H A G I T B O R E R

AGR-O"

AGR-O VP

[im-o 3] 2

V-AGRO-I NP rakda t 3

+Case

b. IP

V-AGRO-I AGR-O"

rakda E ~ SP t3

AGR-O VP

N [im-o3] 2

V NP t t3

-Case

In the movement of a direct object, as in (135), we see that the position of the Case-marked DO variable of the moved WH-element , although it


is always accusative, is influenced by the lowering or raising status of the representation. In (135a), Case is assigned in the original object position. That position is now the variable, and that variable is to the right of the coindexed pronoun; a weak crossover configuration emerges. A different situation holds in (135b). A non-Case marked WH-element A-moves to [SPEC,AGR-OP], where it receives Case. The variable is now in [SPEC,- AGR-OP], where it is to the left of the pronoun and where it c-commands that pronoun, resulting in a licit configuration that does not trigger weak crossover effects.

Assume now that specifiers of functional projections (with the clear exception of IP and CP; see Section 5.4 for some discussion) are not licensed when no properties are assigned to them by their heads. The direct result is that [SPEC,AGR-OP] is not licensed in a lowering representation. On the other hand, in a raising representation, such a specifier position is licensed quite independently of the need for accusative Case. Once licensed, this position is available to other complements of the main verb, for instance PPs. As [SPEC,AGR-OP] is a potential Case position, movement to it may not be O-movement. As the moved PP is already Case-marked, it cannot A-move. It follows then that such a PP would form an S-chain headed by the element in the [SPEC,AGR-OP] position. O-movement now applies to the output of S-movement, leaving a variable in [SPEC,AGR-OP], to the left of the coindexed pronoun in [SPEC,IP]. This movement affects a WH-PP, as in (130), or a quantifier, as in (127). As the variable is to the left of the coindexed pronoun, weak crossover effects are neither expected nor attested. Note, however, that such a derivation is only possible if AGR-O is not VP-internal. As a consequence, direct object S-movement to [SPEC,AGR-OP] is never possible. As [SPEC,AGR-OP] is only projected if AGR-O heads it and, since whenever AGR-OP is headed by AGR-O, accusative Case may not be assigned directly in the VP, any movement of a direct object to that position is by definition A-, rather than S-, movement.

Deriving the contrasts in (127)-(130) leads to two conclusions. First, we must assume that not only is O-movement possible to [SPEC,IP], but also that S-movement of operators to [SPEC,IP] in Hebrew is barred. If such movement were allowed, it would enable the quantifier and the WH- operator in (128), (129a) and (130a) to be rescued by S-movement to that position with subsequent O-movement depositing a variable in [SPEC,IP] to the left of the coindexed pronoun. This would result in incorrect predic- tions concerning weak crossover violations. Second, we must crucially allow S-movement of Case-marked PPs to [SPEC,AGR-OP], a potential Case position, indicating that S-movement to potential (but not actual)

594 nAG~a" BORER

Case positions is possible. The following picture emerges: Operators, when moved to a potential Case position, move by S-movement. When moved to a non-Case position, however, movement is O-movement and leaves a variable. A Name moving to the same position, however, creates an S-chain, rather than an O-chain.

Given the overlap of landing sites for O-movement and S-movement, chains originating in a Case position and landing in a - 0, - Case position can be distinguished only on the basis of whether or not they are headed by a Name or by an Operator. Thus, in the configurations in (137), (a) is an O-chain, but (b) is an S-chain.

(137)a. [Oe [t2 - Case + Case - 0

b. [Name2 [tz - Case + Case - 0

To conclude this section, a surprising asymmetry between the weak crossover effects attested by inverted and non-inverted structures was reduced to variation in the position of the verbal cluster, lending additional support to the main argument of this paper. It further supported a particular description of movement types based on the properties of chains, rather than on the properties of positions alone.

8.4. Islands and Licensing of Extraction Domains

Turning finally to the island effects produced by XP-topics, but not by WH-movement, let us first review the relevant facts. I have argued that elements in [SPEC,IP], whether subjects or not, block extraction, and that extraction over a subject is possible only if that subject remains in its base-generated position in [SPEC,VP]. The offending configuration, thus, appears to be the one in (138).

(138) *[iP NP [i . . . . Y . . . l ]

Put quite strongly, it appears that an element may not be extracted out of IP if its specifier is filled. The one escape hatch, it appears, is that very [SPEC,IP]: movement proceeding through it is licensed, resulting in the configuration in (139).


(139) WH2 lip [t]2 [vP (NP).[t]~] NOM

In (139), movement originated in [t]~, where Case is assigned either VP-internally or in [SPEC,AGR-OP]. The first step is O-movement to [SPEC,IP]. From here, O-movement may proceed without island effects. This derivation is applicable to nominative elements and to non-nominative elements alike.

Assuming that movement out of IP may proceed only through [SPEC, IP] has an obvious conceptual attraction. First, it unifies the treatment of extraction from IP with extraction from NP, where Giorgi and Longobardi (1991) argue extraction may proceed through the specifier exclusively. Second, it is potentially explanatory in accounting for extraction hierarch- ies proposed for languages in which extraction from the subject, but not from the complement, is possible, such as the Austronesian languages. (For a recent discussion, proposing independently that Austronesian languages only allow extraction from [SPEC,IP] see Guilfoyle, Hung and Travis 1992). If we assume that in these languages extraction from IP must proceed through the [SPEC,IP] and that nominative Case is available only in [SPEC,IP], the extractability of subjects alone follows, 44

Attractive as it may be, the constraint on extraction in (138) is dearly too strong. While excluding all extractions from XP-topic initial IPs, as required, it also rules out extractions from WH-islands. The tatter, recall, are grammatical, as (99), repeated here, shows.

(99)a. le-mia Rina lo yoda'at ma2 Dani natan [e]2 [el3

to-whom Rina doesn't know what Dani gave

lo yoda'at Rina

doesn't know Rina

b. le-mi3 Rina lo yoda'at ma2 natan Dani [e]2 [e]3

to-whom Rina doesn't know what gave Dani

lo yoda'at Rina

doesn't know Rina

Since two WH-elements are extracted from the embedded clauses in (99a- b) and, since under plausible assumptions there is only one [SPEC,IP]

44 The inteflanguage status of the proposal that all extraction from IP must proceed through the subject is yet to be fully investigated. It has been proposed independently for Spanish by Goodall (1991) and Canac-Marquis (1991). However, it deafly cannot be maintained in English in a straightforward way.

596 rtAOIT ~30RER

position, the constraint in (138) predicts the ungrammaticality of (99), contrary to facts.

Let us consider a different approach. Suppose the principle in (140) is correct, amounting to domain-licensing of O-movement. ~5

(140) Every IP in the path of X-movement must be marked as [+X].

Along lines reminiscent of Rizzi (1991), suppose that when an O-element occupies [SPEC,IP] or [SPEC,CP], it is responsible for marking the I or C head as [+ O] as part of SPEC,HEAD agreement. It is now clear why XP-topics trigger island effects: such XP-topics are [ -O] , and, hence, I itself becomes [ -O] , and O-movement out of such a configuration is blocked.

Crucially, I assume that an O-marked I is a licensed domain for the extraction not only of the particular Operator that has licensed it, but of other Operators of the same kind as well. As a result, once a WH-element has moved to [SPEC,IP] and then on to [SPEC,CP], both IP and CP are marked as [+ O/WH], licensing further O-movement by WH-operators in a configuration such as (141). 46

(141) Op3 [cP Op2 [C+o [iP t2 [I+0 [ v e . . . t3]]]]]

I take WH-operators to belong to a unified semantic class, and thus, to be capable of licensing each other's extraction domains. Quantifiers, however, belong to a distinct semantic class, and are incapable of licensing the extraction of WH-elements from their domain. 47 Names do not belong

45 And see Goodall (1991) for a similar proposal independently made. 46 Needless to say, such movement is further subject to the ECP, accounting for well-known adjunct-subject/object asymmetries. 47 This would seem to predict that quantifiers could be raised from the domain of a quantifier in [SPEC,IP]. This, however, is not so, and (i) is ungrammatical under a wide-scope interpretation for SaloS naSim ' three women':

(i) 'im kol gever rakdu SaloS naSim/SaloS naSim rakdu

with every men danced three women~three women danced

a. Vx, x a man, 33y, y a woman, y danced with x b. "33y, y a woman, Vx, x a man, y danced with x

A possible account for this difference between WH-movement and the movement of quanti- tiers may derived from the fact that quantifiers are unique and, thus, cannot license an extraction domain for one another. Note that the similarity between WH-operators is further realized by the possibility of absorption for WH-operators. Such absorption is not possible for quantifiers, forcing them, in contrast with WH-operators, to always have a relative scope with respect to one another. I leave an elaboration of these matters to future research.

Recall that unlike Icelandic and Hebrew, movement of topics to [SPEC,IP] in Yiddish does not give rise to islands for further extraction. In addressing this minimal difference between Icelandic and Yiddish, one is tempted to propose one of two possible solutions:

T H E U P S A N D D O W N S OF H E B R E W V E R B M O V E M E N T 597

to a unified semantic class; therefore, they lack the ability to license a domain for any movement but their own. As a result, Names in [SPEC,IP] define an absolute boundary for the movement of Operators, such as WH- elements, and have wide scope with respect to quantifiers. Thus, we derive the result that XP-topics always create islands, but WH-movement, as such, does not. 48

8.5. Obligatory Stylistic Inversion

Finally, consider an interesting confirmation for the claim that WH-movement must proceed through [SPEC,IP]. Such evidence comes from a context in Hebrew in which Stylistic Inversion is obligatory. This context is given in (142) (and contrasts with the ungrammatical (143)).

(142)a. (hem lo yod'im) mi hayta ema goldman

they not know who was Emma Goldman

b. (racino li-S'ol) 'efo yihiye ha-ma'avak ha-'axaron

(we-wanted to ask) where wilt-be the struggle the-last

(143)a. *(hem lo yod'im) mi ema goldman hayta

they not know who Emma Goldman was

b. *(racino li-S'ol) 'efo ha-ma'avak ha-'axaron yihiye

(we-wanted to ask) where the-struggle the last will-be

The WH-questions in (142)-(143) are derived from copular constructions, such as those in (144). In these cases, the verb haya is clearly an empty copula, which in present tense is replaced by a pleonastic pronominal element spelling out features of I /AGR, as is argued independently by Doron (1983) and Rapoport (1987). Note nov,' that in such sentences reversing the order of the NP predicate and the subject results in ungrammaticality, as (146) illustrates.

(144)a. Ema goldman hayta mahapxanit mefursemet

Emma Goldman was revolutionary famous

Either in Yiddish IP does not need to be marked as -+0 to allow extraction, or on the other hand, the m o v e m e n t of Names in Yiddish is not S-movement , bu t O-movement . In the latter case, note, we expect such a movemen t to give rise to weak crossover effects. 4s See appendix for issues concerning the extraction of Names f rom WH-islands or across topicalized Names.

598 HAGIT B O R E R

(144)b. ha-ma'avak ha-'axaron yihiye be-kol ha-mizrax ha-tixon

the-struggle the-last will-be in-aU the-Middle East

(145)a. Ema goldman hi mahapxanit mefursemet

Emma Goldman she revolutionary famous

b. ha-ma'avak ha-noxexi hu be-kol ha-mizrax ha-tixon

the.struggle the-present he in-all the Middle East

(146)a. *mahapxanit mefursemet hayta/hi Ema goldman

revolutionary famous was~she Emma goldman

b. *be-kol ha-mizrax ha-tixon yihiye/hu

in-the entire Middle East wil-be/he

ha-ma'avak ha-'axaron

the-struggle the-last

Recall that in Section 5.4, I proposed that haya may occupy two positions. Clearly, when XP-topic occupies [SPEC,IP], only a higher haya may appear to participate in Stylistic Inversion.

Suppose now that cases where the pronominal is obligatory in present tense, such as those in (145a-b), an overt realization of I, the highest functional head, is obligatory, mandating the occurrence of haya in I, rather than in a head of a lower functional projection. In these cases, haya selects as its sister a non-VP complement: NP in (144a) and a PP in (144b). The structures associated with (144a-b) and (145a-b), respectively, are thus as in (147a-b). 49

(147)a. IP

was | NP he )Emma Goldman

mahapxanit revolutionary

49 I skirt here many issues concerning the structure of predicative NP small clauses, which are largely irrelevant to this study.


b. IP

I PP

yihiyehu

will be NP he ha-

the P NP m a ' a v a k b a J ~ struggle in

kol ha-mizrax ha-tixon the entire Middle East

The obligatoriness of Stylistic Inversion in (142) now follows directly from the fact that WH-movement must proceed through [SPEC,IP]. There are only two positions the subject may occupy in (147): [SPEC,IP] and the specifier of the complement, either [SPEC,N MAx] or [SPEC,PP]. If, indeed, WH-movement must proceed through [SPEC,IP], then that position is not available to the subject in (142), and the subject must be in [SPEC,N ~ x ] or [SPEC,PP] respectively. On the other hand, in these structures I may not appear predicate-internally, as there is no verbal element other than haya to carry tense. The appearance of obligatory Stylistic Inversion results.

9 . C O N C L U S I O N

The purpose of this paper has been to investigate in detail the possibility that Hebrew has the properties of a transitional grammatical system, allowing the V-I cluster to be dominated both by V, VP-internaUy, and by I, VP-externally. Alongside this option, and in a fashion similar to that of classical VSO languages, Hebrew licenses the assignment of nominative Case in [SPEC,VP] exclusively.

Having established the transitional nature of this grammar and by extension, the possibility of other types of transitional grammars, a range of significant theoretical issues present themselves concerning the nature of [SPEC,IP], the characteristics of various movement types and, finally, the determination of the variable nature of some empty categories. I conclude that a typology of movement must take account of chains rather than positions and that the A/A' distinction must be replaced by a tripartite

600 HAGIT BORER

distinction between A-chains, S-chains and O-chains, each with its own properties and diagnostics. Many questions remain open: Are S-chains headed exclusively by specifiers of functional projections, or do some languages allow them to be headed by adjoined positions? What is the relation between the position for nominative Case assignment and the availability of [SPEC,IP] as a landing site for S-movement? It is hoped that future research will shed light on these questions. From a typological perspective, it is hoped that further investigations will uncover other transitional grammatical systems and will elaborate on the psycholinguistic nature of such grammars.

APPENDIX: SOME NOTES ON LONG-DISTANCE SCRAMBLING

Mahajan (1990) and Saito (1992) both note that the scrambling of a constituent outside its immediate clause has markedly different properties from clause-internal scrambling. Specifically, while short scrambling has the properties outlined in this study (cf. (114)), long scrambling typically has properties associated with genuine A'-movement, the type of movement referred to in this work as O-movement (cf. (115)). Mahajan (1990) argues that short scrambling may be either A- or A'-movement, but not both (See section 7 for some arguments against this position), but that long scrambling must be A'-movement. The exclusively A'-nature of long scrambling is established on the basis of binding contrasts: while short- scrambled NPs may serve as A-binders and do not trigger weak crossover effects, long-scrambled NPs may not serve as A-binders and do trigger weak crossover effects. Similar facts are reported in Japanese by Saito (1992). In contrast with Mahajan, however, Saito adopts a position put forth by Webelhuth (1990), according to which there are unique targets for scrambling, distinct from A-positions or Operator positions and consti- tuting, so to speak, S-positions. While this latter position is somewhat similar to the proposal made in this work in distinguishing three types of movements, recall that, specifically, I do not assume that there are S- positions. Rather, the nature of a particular chain is established ad-hoc on the basis of the original position, the target position, and the inherent nature of the moved element for a given derivation.

Returning, however, to the distinction between short scrambling and long scrambling, consider the properties of long topicalization in Hebrew, exemplified in (A1).

(A1) 'et ha-sefer ha-ze3 ran xaSav Se-rina kantat3

A CC the-book the-this Ran thought that-Rina bought t


Recall now that short scrambling in Hebrew is possible both in XP-topic- V-S and XP-topic-S-V contexts, that it licenses parasitic gaps, but does not trigger weak crossover effects, and that it creates an island for further WH-movement.

Consider now the long scrambled element in (A1). Not surprisingly, the topic here, as well, licenses parasitic gaps, as (A2) shows.

(A2) 'et ha-sefer ha-ze3 ran xaSav Se-rina kar'at3

ACC the-book the-this Ran thought that-Rina read t

bli le-havin e3

without understanding e

This, however, exhausts the similarities between short scrambling and long scrambling. First, long scrambling requires a strong intonational break between it and remainder of the clause, which is not needed for short scrambled elements. Moving to the realm of clearer syntactic distinctions, long scrambling is possible only in XP-topic-S-V configurations and is barred when a V-S configuration appears immediately following the scrambled element or in the embedded clause.

(A3)a. ??'et ha-sefer ha-ze3 xaSav ran Se-rina

ACC the-book the-this thought Ran that-Rina

kanta t3

bought t

b. *'et ha-sefer ha-ze3 xaSav ran Se-kanta

ACC the-book the-this thought Ran that-bought

rina t3

Rina t

c. *'et ha-sefer ha-ze3 ran xaSav Se-kanta

ACC the-book the-this Ran thought that-bought

Rina t3

rina t

Further, long-scrambled elements give rise to weak crossover effects in their immediate clause, but not in the clause containing their trace, as (A4a-b) show.


(A4) 'et ha-yeled ha-ze3 ran xaSav

A C C the-boy the-this Ran thought

Se-mor-av3 he'erixu t3

that-his teachers respected t

b. *'et ha-yeled ha-ze3 ran 'amar le-im-03

A C C the-boy the-this Ran toldhis mother

Se-ha-morim he'erixu t3

that-the teachers respected t

And finally, long topicalization is possible from topicalization structures as well as from WH-constructions, as (A5) shows. When extraction is across a topic, however, VS orders are barred following both topics, as (A6) shows.

(A5)a. la-kaytana4 ha-zot ran xaSav Se-'et ha-yeled

to this summer camp Ran thought that-ACC this

ha-ze3 rina Salxa t3 t4 ha-kayic

child Rina sent this summer

b. la-kaytana4 ha-zot ran lo yada 'eyze yeled3

to this summer camp Ran didn't know which child

Rina Salxa t3 t4 ha-kayic

rina sent this summer

(A6)a. ??la-kaytana4 ha-zot xaSav ran Se-'et ha-yeled

to this summer camp thought Ran that-ACC this

ha-ze3 rina Salxa t3 t4 ba-kayic

child Rina sent in the summer

b. *la-kaytana4 ha-zot ran xaSav Se-'et ha-yeled

to this summer camp Ran thought that-ACC this

ha-ze3 Salxa rina t3 t4 ba-kayic

child sent Rina in the summer

c. *la-kaytana4 ha-zot xaSav ran Se-'et ha-yeled

to this summer camp thought Ran that-ACC this

ha-ze3 Salxa rina t3 t4 ba-kayic

child sent Rina in the summer


A full investigation of the properties of long scrambling is outside the scope of this paper. Suppose, however, that long scrambling is always Operator movement and that, along lines suggested by Tada (1990) and reported in Saito (1992), long scrambled Names are interpreted as Oper- ators in LF. Suppose further that alongside a strategy of moving topics to [SPEC,IP], they may be adjoined to IP and that such adjunction is more costly than movement to [SPEC,IP] and is thus forced only ff any other interpretation of the derivation would lead to ungrammaticality. Suppose, further, IP adjunction as such does not create an island (contra Shlonsky and Doron, 1992).

Consider in this view the derivations in (A1)-(A6). As (A1) involves long scrambling, the topic 'et ha-sefer ha-ze 'this book' must be interpreted as O-movement in LF. As both S-movement and O-movement license parasitic gaps, the grammaticality of (A2) is not surprising. However, once the topic is interpreted as an Operator, it triggers weak crossover effects, as in (A4). Note that the contrast between (A4a) and (A4b) is precisely what we would expect if the XP-topic has been first S-moved to the embedded [SPEC,IP] position, failing to trigger weak crossover effects, but then O-moved to the matrix adjunction position, triggering such effects for coindexed pronouns to the left of the variable in the embedded [SPEC,IP] position.

Considering the possibility of long scrambling from short-scrambling domains, as well as from WH-islands, note that such a derivation is possible only if the short-scrambled element has been adjoined to the embedded IP, rather than S-moved to [SPEC,IP]. As only such adjunction would license the further extraction, we may assume it to be a last resort strategy in these cases, but prohibited in (A1)-(A4), where O-movement of the topic could proceed from the embedded [SPEC,IP]. If, indeed, the embedded topics, as well as the matrix topics in (A5)-(A6), must be adjoined to IP, rather than in [SPEC,IP], the failure of VS orders follows immediately. Such orders, recall, are made possible by the presence of the XP-topic in [SPEC,IP], the raising of the verb and the presence of the subject in [SPEC,VP]. We further predict that in (A5)-(A6), the embedded XP-topic should give rise to weak crossover effects. While judgments are subtle, (A7) is clearly degraded when compared with ( l l0a - b).

(A7) *?[~p la-kaytana4 ha-zot [~p rina xaSva [ce Se-[~p'et ha-yeled ha- ze3 [ip'im-03 Salxa t3 t4 ba-kayic]]]]] to this summer camp Rina thought that-ACC this boy his mother sent in the summer


Finally, let us examine the possibility of two topics (distinct from the subject) associated with the same clause. Their occurrence is predicted to be grammatical, but only if both are adjoined to IP. Thus, in such cases we expect VS orders to be barred and weak crossover to be triggered, which is correct (again, relevant contrasts are (110a-b) for the weak crossover effect).

(A8)a. ??ba-kayic ha-'axaron 'et ha-yeled ha-ze Salxa Rina

last summer A CC this-child his mother sent Rina

la-kaytana

to the camp

b. ??ba-kayic ha-'axaron 'et ha-yeled ha-ze im-o3 Salxa

last summer A CC this-child his mother sent

la-kaytana

to the camp

While this system is suggestive and is capable of handling the bulk of the data appealing to an independently established contrast between short scrambling and long scrambling, problems remain. Specifically, the ungrammaticality of (A3c) remains unexplained under this proposal, and must await a future research.

REFERENCES

Benedicto, E.: 1993, 'The IP Functional Projection and the Identification of pro', unpublished ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Borer, H.: 1984, 'Restrictive Relatives in Modem Hebrew', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2, pp. 219-260.

Borer, H.: 1989, 'Anaphoric AGR', in O. Jaeggli and K. Safir, The Null Subject Parameter, Reidel, Dordrecht.

Borer, H.: 1993, 'The Projection of Arguments', UMass Occasional Papers in Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Borer, H.: forthcoming, Parallel Morphology, MIT Press. Borer, H. and Y. Grodzinsky: 1987, 'Syntactic vs. lexical cliticization: the case of Hebrew

dative critics', in H. Borer (ed.) The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics, Syntax and Semantics 19, Academic Press, San Francisco.

Canac-Marquis, R.: 1991, 'On the Obligatory Character of Inversion in Spanish', in D. Bates (ed.) The Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford CA.

Canac-Marquis, R.: 1994, Chain Uniformity, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachu- setts, Amherst.

Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foils, Dordrecht. Chomsky, N.: 1992, 'A Minimalist Program in Linguistic Theory', MIT Occasional Papers

in Linguistics 1, Cambridge, Mass.


Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik: 1977, 'Filters and Control', Linguistic Inqiury 8, pp. 425-504. Corver, N.: 1991, 'Functional Heads and the Internal Syntax of Adjective Phrases', paper

presented at the GLOW conference, Leiden. Diesing, M.: 1992, 'Verb Movement and the Subject Position in Yiddish', Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory 8, pp. 41-79. Doron, E.: 1983, The Syntax and Semantics of Hebrew Copula Constructions, Ph.D. disserta-

tion, University of Texas, Austin. Doron, E.: 1990, 'VP ellipsis in Hebrew', unpublished ms., The Hebrew University, Jerusa-

lem. Doron, E. and U. Shlonsky: 1990, 'Word Order in Hebrew', paper presented at the UQAM

workshop on Modern Hebrew Syntax, November, 1990. Finer, D.: 1985, 'The Syntax of Switch Reference', Linguistic Inquiry 16, pp. 36-56. Giorgi, A. and G. Longobardi: 1991, The Syntax of Noun Phrases, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, England. GoodaU, G.: 199t, 'On the Status of Spec of IP', WCCFL X, March, 1991. Gnilfoyle, E. I-L Huang and L. Travis: 1992, 'SPEC of IP and SPEC of VP: Two Subjects

in Austronesian Languages', Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, pp. 345-374. Hazout, I.: 1990, Verbal Nouns: Theta-Theoretical Studies in Hebrew and Arabic, Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Hazout, I.: this issue, 'Action Nominals in Modern Hebrew', Natural Language and Linguis-

tic Theory. Iatridou, S. and A. Kroch: 1992, 'The Licensing of CP-recursion and its Relevance to the

Germanic Verb Second Phenomenon', Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 50, 1-24. Jonsson, J.: 1991, 'Stylistic Fronting in Icelandic', unpublished ms., University of Massachu-

setts, Amherst. Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche: 1982, 'Variables and the Bijection Principle', The Linguistic

Review 2, pp. 139-160. Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche: 1988, 1990, 'Subjects', unpublished ms., UCLA, to appear

in Lingua. Kroch, A.: 1990, 'Reflexes of Grammar in Patterns of Language Change', Language Vari-

ation and Change 1, pp. 199-244. Lema, Jos6 and Maria Lnisa Rivero: 1989, 'Long Head Movement: ECP vs. I-IMC', NELS

20, 333-347. Lasnik, H. and M. Saito: 1992, Move c~, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Lasnik, H. and T. Stowell: 1991, 'Weakest Crossover', Linguistic Inquiry 22, pp~ 687-720. Mahajan, A. K.: 1990, The A/A' Distinction and Movement Theory, Ph.D. dissertation,

MIT, Cambridge, MA. Maling, J. and A. Zaenen (eds.): I990, Modern Icelandic Syntax, Syntax and Semantics 24,

Academic Press, New York. Pesetsky, D.: 1989, 'Language Particular Processes and the Earliness Principle', unpublished

ms. MIT, Cambridge. Pollock, J.-Y.: 1989, 'Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP', Linguistic Inquiry 20. Rapoport, T.: 1987, Copular, Nominal, and Small Clauses: A Study of Israeli Hebrew, Ph.D.

dissertation, MrF. Rivero, M.-L.: 1991, 'Long Head Movement and Negation', Paper presented at GLOW,

Leiden. Rizzi, L.: 1991, 'Residual Verb Second and the WH Criterion', unpublished ms., University

of Geneva. Saito, M. : 1984, Some Asymmetries in Japanese and their Theoretical Implications, Ph.D.

dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Saito, M.: 1992, 'Long Distance Scrambling in Japanese', Journal of East Asian Linguistics

1, pp. 69-128. Schwartz, B. and S. Vikner: 1989, 'All Verb Second Clauses are CPs', unpublished ms.,

Boston University and University of Geneva.

606 blAGIT BORER

Shlonsky, U.: 1987, Null and Displaced Subjects, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge. Shtonsky, U.: 1991, 'Quantifiers as Functional Heads: A Study of Quantifier Float in Heb-

rew', Lingua 84, pp. 159-I80. Shlonsky, U. and E. Doron: 1992, 'Verb Second in Hebrew', in D. Bates (ed.), The

Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford, CA, pp. 431-445.

Speas, M.: 1993, 'Null Arguments in a Theory of Economy of Projection' Umass Occasional Papers in Linguistics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Sportiche, D.: 1988, 'A Theory of Floated Quantifiers and its Corollaries for Constituent Structure', Linguistic lnquiry 19, pp. 425-49.

Tada, H.: 1990, 'Scrambling(s)', Workshop on Japanese Syntax, Ohio State University. Uribe-Etxebarria, M.: 1991, 'On the Structural Positions of the Subject in Spanish, their

Nature and their Consequences for Quantification', unpublished ms., University of Con- necticut, Storrs.

Vikner, S.: 1990, Verb Movement and the Licensing of NP-positions in the Germanic Lan- guages, Ph,D. dissertation, University of Geneva.

Webelhuth, G.: 1990, Syntactic Saturation Phenomena and the Modern Germanic Languages, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Received 2 July 1992 Revised 20 November 1993

Hagit Borer Department of Linguistics South College University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 USA [email protected]

the ups and downs of hebrew verb movement

Documents