Split Noun Phrases and the Theory of Case

M. C. Boivin, 1999

for $19.95 x

This dissertation is concerned with two puzzles in the syntax of French noun phrases. I first examine the distribution of the subnominal clitic pronoun en. I argue that Case theory is the module of the grammar responsible for the well-known contrast in grammaticality between genitive en and quantitative en when they appear with derived (raised) subjects of unaccusative verbs. I argue that Case is a feature of the nominal head of a DP. Extraction of the nominal head by quantitative en creates a DP remnant which is incapable of checking Case, since it lacks the necessary feature. Genitive en does not extract the nominal head, and its remnant contains a Case feature. I show that Case theory makes the correct predictions regarding the distribution of genitive en and quantitative en in a large number of contexts, many of which were problematic for previous accounts in terms of Binding Theory or the Empty Category Principle (ECP). The Case-theoretical approach also predicts the Definiteness Restriction on the extraction of quantitative en, as well as the obligatory narrow scope of its remnant. The second puzzle is provided by Quantification at a Distance (QAD) in French. I argue that also in this case the subject/object asymmetry observed with remnants is to be explained by Case theory. QAD remnants are deficient noun phrases and are not eligible candidates for Case Checking in the specifier of a functional projection. I show how a Case-theoretical approach to QAD predicts the obligatory narrow scope of QAD remnants as well as the fact that only weak determiners are members of the beaucoup class. I propose that there are three ways of checking Case: head movement of N, head movement of D preceded by feature movement of the Case feature to D, and DP movement. Finally I show that the analysis of en cliticization and QAD can be used to shed light on the position of subjects in Stylistic Inversion contexts. More generally the thesis is a contribution to the theory of feature checking, and provides a new approach to problems usually attributed to the ECP.

Thesis Supervisor:      Alec P. Marantz

Title:                           Professor of Linguistics

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction.................................................................................................... 7

1.1.  Key aspects of the dissertation.............................................................................. 7

1.1.1.     Two puzzles with French split noun phrases............................................. 7

1.1.2.     Case theory and feature checking................................................................ 9

1.1.3.     The Empty Category Principle................................................................. 10

1.2.  Outline of the dissertation.................................................................................... 10

 

Chapter 2: Case as a Property of Nominal Heads....................................................... 12

2.1.  Introduction: the puzzle and the approach.......................................................... 12

2.2.  Preliminaries: aspects of the internal structure of noun phrases.......................... 14

2.2.1.     Substructures resumed by genitive and quantitative en............................. 15

2.2.2.     Referential properties................................................................................ 16

2.2.3.     Definiteness restriction on Q-en extraction............................................... 20

2.2.4.     Against a uniform structural analysis for G-en and Q-en.......................... 22

2.2.4.1.  Extraction as a test for the level of embedding.................................... 25

2.2.4.2.  The distribution of null heads.............................................................. 29

2.2.4.3.  A note on de........................................................................................ 30

2.2.4.4.  Animacy restriction............................................................................. 33

2.2.5.     Is there a partitive en?............................................................................... 33

2.2.5.1.  Partitive noun phrases......................................................................... 33

2.2.5.2.  Evidence against partitive en............................................................... 35

2.2.5.3.  The predicted distribution of partitive en........................................... 39

2.2.6.     En standing for a DP.................................................................................. 40

2.3.  Subject/object asymmetries with en: a new solution to an old problem.............. 41

2.3.1.     An asymmetry in the distribution of G-en and Q-en................................ 41

2.3.2.     A Case-theoretical analysis....................................................................... 45

2.3.2.1.  N as the locus of Case features and the contrast observed with raised subjects................................................................................................. 48

2.3.2.2.  Objects of transitive verbs................................................................... 53

2.3.2.3.  Thematic subjects, the VP-internal subject hypothesis and the mechanics of en cliticization................................................................. 54

2.3.2.4.  Q-en checks Case................................................................................. 59

2.3.3.     Theoretical conclusions............................................................................. 63

2.4.  Other contexts of en cliticization in the syntax of French................................... 64

2.4.1.     En cliticization and wh-movement: combien............................................. 64

2.4.1.1.  Remnant movement of [combien t]..................................................... 65

2.4.1.2.  Independent movement of combien..................................................... 67

2.4.1.3.  The problems for the Binding/ECP approaches.................................. 69

2.4.1.4.  En cliticization and wh-movement of combien in other contexts........ 71

2.4.2.     The wh-counterpart of en: dont................................................................. 72

2.4.2.1.  A Case-theoretical analysis for the extraction of dont......................... 74

2.4.2.2.  Milner (1978): Q-dont as a partitive................................................... 77

2.4.2.3.  Conclusion........................................................................................... 78

2.4.3.     En cliticization and past participle agreement........................................... 79

2.5.  A natural extension to other Romance languages................................................. 81

2.6.  The interpretation of Q-en remnants: scope and definiteness restriction............ 85

2.6.1.     Narrow scope for Q-en remnants: the facts.............................................. 86

2.6.2.     A contrast predicted by the Case-theoretical analysis.............................. 91

2.6.3.     Definiteness restriction.............................................................................. 96

2.6.4.     An apparent counterexample to the DR: la plupart.................................. 98

Chapter 3: Quantification at a Distance and Case................................................... 102

3.1.  Introduction........................................................................................................ 102

3.2.  A preliminary detour: the abc’s of QAD........................................................... 104

3.2.1.     An introduction to QAD: basic facts and issues..................................... 105

3.2.2.     Adverbial and adnominal beaucoup......................................................... 108

3.2.3.     Movement vs. base generation................................................................ 113

3.2.3.1.  Standard arguments for movement.................................................... 114

3.2.3.2.  Standard arguments for base generation............................................. 116

3.2.3.3.  Two new arguments for movement in QAD..................................... 117

3.2.3.3.1.     Non-QAD verbs and the absence of multiple-event readings in QAD........................................................................................... 118

3.2.3.3.2.     The restriction of QAD to past participles and the landing site of beaucoup: an unexpected contrast......................................... 123

3.2.3.4.  A movement analysis for QAD and the structure of QAD remnants 125

3.3.  Checking Case: subject/object asymmetries in QAD......................................... 126

3.3.1.     Subject/object asymmetries in QAD....................................................... 126

3.3.2.     Checking Case.......................................................................................... 128

3.3.2.1.  The idea and the explanation of the subject/object asymmetries....... 128

3.3.2.2.  Two predictions................................................................................ 131

3.3.2.2.1.     Beaucoup in situ.................................................................... 131

3.3.2.2.2.     Beaucoup as a subject............................................................ 132

3.3.2.3.  Q-en cliticization: the mirror image of QAD..................................... 133

3.3.2.4.  Technical implementation: the visibility problem............................. 135

3.3.2.4.1.     N to D movement: the ordering problem............................... 135

3.3.2.4.2.     A relation between D and N: feature movement................... 136

3.3.2.5.  Ways of checking Case...................................................................... 137

3.3.2.5.1.     Case checked by head movement of N: Q-en cliticization.... 137

3.3.2.5.2.     Feature movement to D and extraction of D: QAD.............. 138

3.3.2.5.3.     Feature movement to D and DP movement.......................... 139

3.4.  Scope of QAD objects....................................................................................... 139

3.4.1.     Obligatory narrow scope for QAD remnants.......................................... 140

3.4.2.     Case and the interpretation of QAD remnants........................................ 142

3.4.3.     The beaucoup class: weak determiners.................................................... 145

3.5.  A note on negation............................................................................................. 146

 

Chapter 4: French Stylistic Inversion........................................................................ 147

4.1.  Introduction........................................................................................................ 147

4.2.  Stylistic inversion, en, and QAD....................................................................... 149

4.2.1.     S-inversion and en cliticization................................................................ 149

4.2.2.     S-inversion and QAD.............................................................................. 151

4.2.3.     Conclusion: stylistic inversion must involve [Spec,TP]......................... 152

4.3.  Analyses of S-inversion and ECP accounts of en and QAD.............................. 152

4.3.1.     The [Spec,TP] accounts: Kayne and Pollock (1978, 1998/99)............... 153

4.3.2.     S-inversion as an expletive construction.................................................. 157

4.3.2.1.  The proposal..................................................................................... 158

4.3.2.2.  Adequacy of the proposal................................................................. 158

4.3.2.3.  The problems..................................................................................... 159

4.4.  Conjectures and conclusion................................................................................ 160

Chapter 5: Conclusion................................................................................................. 161

5.1.  Summary of the dissertation.............................................................................. 161

5.2.  Avenues for future research............................................................................... 162