Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 489–526 | Cite as

The order of verbal complements: A comparative study

  • Adriana Belletti
  • Ur Shlonsky
Article

Abstract

Hebrew and Italian manifest a relative freedom in the ordering of complements in double complement constructions. Hypothesizing that the base order is NP PP, we proceed to delineate the transformational processes involved in the derivation of the alternative PP NP order. This leads us to identify a strategy of structural focalization involving a Focus projection which we take to be responsible for the derivation of a subset of the structures displaying the order PP NP. We discuss the interaction of this strategy with ‘subject inversion’ which we interpret as also involving structural focalization. Differences between Hebrew and Italian are correlated with the linear position of Spec/FocusP in the clause structure and the availability or non-availability ofpro in object position. It is observed that the range of options open to heavy objects is greater than that available to non-heavy or light objects. We claim that the order PP NPheavy does not submit to a uniform analysis and that a process of heavy NP Shift must be admitted alongside a process shifting the PP over NPheavy.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Transformational Process Object Position Heavy Object Base Order 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, Mark: 1988,Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing, Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Belletti, Adriana: 1990,Generalized Verb Movement. Aspects of Verb Syntax, Rosenberg and Sellier, Turin.Google Scholar
  3. Belletti, Adriana: 1994, ‘Verb Positions: Evidence from Italian’, inVerb Movement, D. Lightfoot and N. Hornstein eds., Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–40.Google Scholar
  4. Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi: 1981, ‘The Syntax ofne: Some Theoretical Implications’,The Linguistic Review 1, pp. 117–154.Google Scholar
  5. Belletti, Adriana and Luigi Rizzi: 1988, ‘Psych Verbs and Theta Theory’,Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, pp. 291–352.Google Scholar
  6. Bianchi, Valentina: 1993, ‘An Empirical Contribution to the Study of Idiomatic Expressions’, unpublished ms., Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa.Google Scholar
  7. Bonet, Eulalia: 1989, ‘Postverbal Subjects in Catalan’,MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 11.Google Scholar
  8. Burzio, Luigi: 1986,Italian Syntax, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. Borer, Hagit: this issue, “The Ups and Downs of Hebrew Verb Movement’,NLLT.Google Scholar
  10. Borer, H. forthcoming,Parallel Morphology, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Brody, Michael: 1990, ‘Some Remarks on the Focus Field in Hungarian’,UCL Working Papers 2, pp. 201–225.Google Scholar
  12. Calabrese, Andrea: 1992, ‘Some Remarks on Focus and Logical Structures in Italian’,Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics I, pp. 91–27.Google Scholar
  13. Cardinaletti, Anna: 1992, ‘On Pronoun Movement: The Italian Dativeloro’,Probus 3.2, pp. 127–153.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik: 1977, ‘Filters and Control’,Linguistic Inquiry 8, pp. 425–504.Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, Noam: 1989, ‘Some Notes on the Economy of Derivation and Representation’, in Laka, I. and A. Mahajan (eds.),Functional Heads and Clause Structure: MIT Working Papers 10, pp. 43–74.Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, Noam: 1993, ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory’, in Hale, K. and S.S. Keyser (eds.)The View From Building 20, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  17. den-Dikken, Marcel: 1992, ‘Particles’, unpublished ms., University of Leiden.Google Scholar
  18. Doron, Edith and Ur Shlonsky: 1990, ‘A Study of Hebrew Triggered Inversion’, talk presented at the Workshop on Hebrew Syntax, Université du Québec à Montreal.Google Scholar
  19. Emonds, Joseph: 1978, ‘The Verbal Complex V′-V in French’,Linguistic Inquiry 9, pp. 151–175.Google Scholar
  20. Friedemann, Marc-Ariel: 1992, ‘The Underlying Position of External Arguments in French’,Gen Gen p. 1–2, pp. 123–144.Google Scholar
  21. Givon, Talmy: 1976, ‘On the VS Word Order in Israeli Hebrew: Pragmatics and Typological Change’, in P. Cole (ed.),Studies in Modern Hebrew Syntax and Semantics, North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  22. Grimshaw, Jane: 1990,Argument Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Hazout, Ilan: 1991,Verbal Nouns: Theta Theoretic Studies in Hebrew and Arabic, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, Kyle: 1991, ‘Object Positions’,Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4.Google Scholar
  25. Kayne, Richard: 1984,Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  26. Kenstowicz, Michael: 1985, ‘The Phonology and Syntax of Wh-expressions in Tangale’,Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 15.Google Scholar
  27. Larson, Richard: 1988a, ‘On the Double Object Construction’,Linguistic Inquiry 19, pp. 335–391.Google Scholar
  28. Larson, Richard: 1988b, ‘Light Predicate Raising’, unpublished ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  29. Pinker, Steven: 1984,Language Learnability and Language Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  30. Pollock, Jean-Yves: 1986, ‘Sur la syntaxe de en et le paramètre du sujet nul,’ in M. Ronat and D. Couquaux (eds.),La Grammaire Modulaire, Les Editions de Minuit, Paris, pp. 211–246.Google Scholar
  31. Pollock, Jean-Yves: 1989, ‘Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and the Structure of IP’,Linguistic Inquiry 20, pp. 365–424.Google Scholar
  32. Puskas, Genoveva: 1992, ‘The Wh-Criterion in Hungarian’, unpublished ms., Université de Genève.Google Scholar
  33. Rizzi, Luigi: 1982,Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  34. Rizzi, Luigi: 1986, ‘Null Objects in Italian and the Theory ofPro’,Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–557.Google Scholar
  35. Rizzi, Luigi: 1991, ‘Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion’,Technical Report 2, Université de Genève.Google Scholar
  36. Shlonsky, Ur: 1987,Null and Displaced Subjects, Ph.D dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  37. Shlonsky, Ur: 1988, ‘A Note on Neg Raising’,Linguistic Inquiry 19, pp. 710–717. (errata note:Linguistic Inquiry 20, 512).Google Scholar
  38. Siloni, Tal: 1991, ‘Hebrew Noun Phrases: Generalized Noun Raising’, to appear in A. Belletti and L. Rizzi (eds.),Parameters and Functional Heads, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  39. Sola, Jaume: 1992,Agreement and Subjects, Ph.D. dissertation, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
  40. Stowell, Tim: 1981,Origins of Phrase Structure, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  41. Tremblay, Mireille: 1991,Possession and Datives. Binary Branching from the Lexicon to Syntax, Ph.D. dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
  42. Tsimpli, Ianthi-Maria: 1992, ‘Focussing in Modern Greek’, ms., University College, London.Google Scholar
  43. Tuller, Laurice: 1992, ‘The Syntax of Postverbal Focus Constructions in Chadic’,Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10, pp. 303–334.Google Scholar
  44. Vikner, Sten: 1991,Verb Movement and the Licencing of NP Positions in the Germanic Languages, Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Genève.Google Scholar
  45. Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa: 1992, ‘Word Order in Spanish and the Nature of Nominative Case’, unpublished ms., USC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adriana Belletti
    • 1
  • Ur Shlonsky
    • 1
  1. 1.Université de Genève and Università per stranieriPerugia

Personalised recommendations