Introduction

In this chapter, we will examine several constructions whose derivations are standardly assumed to involve movement to CP, the highest projection of clausal structure. As the discussion will show, the claim that operator-like phrases such as interrogatives move overtly to CP in Spanish has been debated in recent literature. In 6.2, we discuss Wh-movement, beginning with a summary of core properties, and then turning to issues of structure – particularly landing sites – as discussed in recent work. Section 6.3 discusses Contrastive Focus Phrases, which have been argued to be derived by A′-movement also. We again review properties of the construction and then the derivation, with emphasis on the landing site. Section 6.4 briefly summarizes several other phenomena that have been analyzed as involving A′-movements, although these constructions lack an overt operator-like element, or in some cases any overt movement. This section begins with “Scrambling” as discussed in Ordóñez (1997), then introduces three constructions that have been argued to be derived via movement of a null operator: parasitic gaps, complex adjectivals, and null indefinite objects. Section 6.5 discusses Xo movement to (and through) the head of CP.

Wh-movement

Traditionally, the “rule” of Wh-movement is assumed to subsume the movement of interrogative phrases in direct and indirect questions, as well as the movement of relative pronouns in relative clauses. Here, the properties of Wh-movement will be illustrated for interrogatives only. For discussion of relative clauses, see Plann (1980), Suñer (1984), Rivero (1990) and Brucart (1994). In this section, we will describe several characteristics of Wh-questions.

This textbook is intended to present a broad view of Spanish syntax, one which takes into account the results of recent research, but which does not focus on theoretical discussion, nor assume familiarity with current theory. In order to describe insights based on recent research, it is of course necessary to introduce enough theoretical machinery so that the approaches that have been explored are understandable. Earlier discussions, especially Chapters 2 and 3, are framed within the assumptions of the Principles and Parameters framework as developed in Chomsky (1981, 1986). Chapters 4 and 5 introduce some basic elements of the Minimalist framework of Chomsky (1993, 1995). That discussion is largely informal, and rather than providing a comprehensive introduction to the theory, it is intended to give just enough background to allow the reader to understand the lines of investigation that have been pursued in accounting for such issues as clause structure and constituent order.

Chapter 1 presents a descriptive overview of the grammar, combining many generalizations of a traditional nature with some generalizations that arise within generative grammar. This description is intended to include both those generalizations that would be of particular interest to students of Spanish linguistics, and information of a broader nature for readers who are not Spanish specialists. Chapter 2 focuses on the Noun Phrase (NP). In the course of the discussion, basic theoretical mechanisms of the Principles and Parameters framework, such as Theta-role assignment, Case assignment and Predication are introduced, in order to account for the external distribution of NP.

Introduction

The Main Goal

Nobody seems to know exactly what to do with adverbs. The literature of the last 30 years in formal syntax and semantics is peppered with analyses of the distribution or interpretation (or both) of small classes of adverbs but has few attempts at an overall theory; there have been popular proposals for other phenomena based crucially on assumptions about adverbial syntax that have little or no foundation; and almost everyone who has looked at the overall landscape has felt obliged to observe what a swamp it is. The situation for the larger class of adverbials, including PPs, CPs, and other adverb-like phrases, is yet more complex and difficult. This book is intended as a response – an attempt to formulate a comprehensive theory of the distribution of adverbial adjuncts, one based on a wide range of data from the majority of semantic types of adverbials, culled from a large and diverse range of languages, and focused on accounting for the major distributional facts by means of a relatively small number of general principles, most of which are already necessary to account for other areas of syntax. Within this framework there are several specific goals.

Specific Goals

Base Positions and Licensing

When formal grammars standardly included Phrase Structure rules of the sort elaborated by Chomsky (1965) and other scholars of the 1960s, the free distribution of adverbs like stupidly or quickly, shown in (1.1)–(1.2), created an obvious problem: one needed rules like those shown in (1.3) to express their distribution.

Overview

I have proposed in this book a theory of the syntax of adverbial adjuncts, specifically of why the various adjunct types have the distribution they do. The account is based on a fairly small number of general and restrictive principles, most of which are independently necessary: principles of phrase structure, of the feature composition of categories, of movement triggers, of weight, of mapping from syntactic structure to semantic representations. Perhaps the most important is the latter. The main explanation for adverbials’ hierarchical position – the major influence on their positions in a sentence – is the interplay between lexicosemantic requirements and compositional rules. In large measure, the theory predicts that a given adverbial may occur hierarchically wherever a well-formed semantic representation results.

The prime evidence for this theory is its ability to predict the distribution of a broad range of adjunct classes. Thus in this chapter, after we recap the main principles of the theory, we review its predictions for adverbial distribution and identify which principles are responsible in each case (sections 9.2–9.3). If the theory is successful in its empirical goal, we may then examine the properties of the theory and its implications for syntactic and semantic theory as a whole. Among other things, my proposals here claim that there is very little syntax specific to adverbials, that weight and precedence relations are relevant in syntax, that phrase structure is only partly asymmetric, and that the mapping to semantics plays the major role in determining distribution.

Introduction

The Main Claim

The generative tradition has recognized at least since Jackendoff 1972 that the meaning of a given adverb has an effect on its distribution. The main question for syntactic theory is to determine how syntax and semantics interact. How much of adjunct distribution can be directly predicted from the semantics, how much must be mediated by purely syntactic principles, and precisely what form do the principles, and the interface, take? In this chapter I argue that the relationship is very direct, with little mediation. I claim that the most important determinant of adjunct licensing is an adjunct's scope (and other selectional) requirements, encoded as lexical properties and verified at LF, rather than syntactic feature licensing, as in Cinque 1999 and other current work; beyond this, relatively few syntactic principles are needed to predict the main facts of adjunct distribution. In particular, though purely syntactic features may occasionally be involved, they are largely independent of adjuncts per se.

This is a desirable result from a theoretical point of view, because it reduces complexity and redundancy in syntax by deriving as much as possible from lexical semantics and compositional rules, which are needed independently. I justify this scope-based theory in part by contrasting it with feature-based systems, such as Cinque's, in which all adverbs are licensed by being in the Spec of a particular (functional) head.

Introduction

Goals and Principles

In previous chapters I argued for a theory in which adjuncts are free to adjoin anywhere in principle but in fact are restricted by certain semantic and syntactic effects. Syntactically, adverbial distribution is constrained by Directionality Principles, Weight theory, bounding theory, and the requirements of certain functional heads (e.g., for the position of sentence negation or the realization of aspectual auxiliaries). Semantically, it is limited by the adjuncts’ selectional properties, including scope requirements, in concert with the FEO Calculus. In this and the next two chapters, this approach is applied to a more fine-grained examination of the entire range of adverbial positions in a clause.

I start from the bottom, the “Low Range,” the domain of event-internal modification, corresponding to PredP. The adjuncts we find here include manner, domain, and measure adverbs, participant PP's, and restitutive again. The main goals are to demonstrate that the distribution of these adjuncts can be accounted for by means of the principles outlined in chapters 2–5 and to flesh out specific proposals for doing so. Recall, in particular, that the ultimate empirical goal is to do what phrase structure rules were designed to do: explicitly generate all the grammatical sentences with adjuncts in them and explicitly rule out the ungrammatical ones; but we must go beyond the stipulative and redundancy-ridden PS rules of early work on this range (e.g., Chomsky 1965, Keyser 1968, Ernst 1984). Schematically, the distribution of event-internal adjuncts is shown in (6.1).

Introduction

Predicational Adverbs

Predicational adverbs are those that are not quantificational (as are frequently and daily, for example), that represent gradable predicates taking (at least) events or propositions as their arguments, and that in English are almost always composed of an adjective plus -ly, such as probably, amazingly, similarly, cleverly, reluctantly, or loudly. Previous studies of predicational adverbs, dating back at least as far as Greenbaum 1969, have tried to account for their syntax by dividing them into classes and then specifying the range of positions where each class may occur, most often correlating this range with some aspect of meaning. Thus Jackendoff (1972), for example, proposes semantic interpretation rules for the three classes represented in (2.1).

(2.1) Jackendoff's (1972) main predicational adverb classes:

1. a. manner: loudly

2. b. subject-oriented: cleverly, reluctantly

3. c. speaker-oriented: probably, clearly, amazingly, frankly

In Jackendoff's theory, each of these classes must be interpreted by a specific semantic rule corresponding to the constituent containing the adverb, such as VP for manner adverbs. If an adverb is attached to a constituent where the appropriate rule cannot apply, it receives no interpretation and the sentence is ungrammatical.

In this chapter I propose an account of the semantics of predicational adverbs that is very much in this spirit.