The Syntax of Non-Verbal Psychological Predication

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The Syntax of Non-Verbal Psychological Predication"

Margery Roberts
5 years ago
Views:

1 he Syntax of Non-Verbal Psychological Predication David Adger (Queen Mary, London) (Joint work with Gillian Ramchand (romsø)) OSLO, 18H NOVEMBER Introduction 1.1 Experiencers Experiencers show a range of anomalous properties crosslinguistically, giving rise to much work in the literature. (Postal 1971, Perlmutter 1983, Belletti and Rizzi 1988, Pesetsky 1995, McGinnis 2000, and most recently Landau 2005). raditionally, they have posed problems for the thematic hierarchy, since experiencers occur as subjects with thematic objects, and as objects with theme subjects equally. (1) (a) John fears tigers. (b) igers frighten John. According to Belletti and Rizzi 1988, and taken up by Landau 2005, psych verbs fall into three main classes. (2) (a) CLASS I: Nominative experiencer, accusative theme. John loves Mary. (b) CLASS II: Nominative theme, accusative experiencer. he show amused Bill. (c) CLASS III: Nominative theme, dative experiencer. he idea mattered to Julie. (Class II verbs also have an eventive interpretation, but the special properties of the experiencer object only emerge on the stative version.) he kind of solution proposed has been that Experiencers are merged in a uniform syntactic position, but displacement operations create the different classes (e.g. Landau argues that experiencers have a uniform locative structure underlyingly, with subsequent locative inversion to create class I). Our suggestion: It s indeed true that Experiencers are not straightforwardly Merged as subjects or complements of psych-predicates, but it s not true that they have the same underlying structure: 1. Intransitive psych constructions are like true locatives. 1

2 2. In transitive psych constructions, experiencers are added by a functional head, and are akin to applicative argument. 3. his head has a roughly possessional semantics. 1.2 Scottish Gaelic (3) ha an cù anns a ghàradh Be-PRE the dog in the garden he dog is in the garden. (4) ha mi brònach ADJECIVAL PREDICAION;NOMINAIVE EXPERIENCER be-pres I sad I am sad. (5) ha mi fo chùram PP PREDICAION; NOMINAIVE EXPERIENCER Be-PRE I under anxiety I am anxious. (6) [Subj-Exp] Predicate (7) ha cùram orm PREPOSIIONAL EXPERIENCER be-pres anxiety on + me I am anxious. (8) ha eagal orm PREPOSIIONAL EXPERIENCER be-pres fear on + me I am afraid. (9) [Ψ-N] Predicate also possessives (10) ha am ministear aig an doras Be-PRES the minister at the door he minister is at the door. (11) ha peann aig Dàibhidh Be-PRES pen at David I have a pen. (12) [Possessee] Predicate (13) ha dragh agam Be-PRES vexation aig + me I am annoyed. he only way to form a transitive psych predication uses two PPs. 2

3 (14) ha gaol agam ort PREPOSIIONAL EXPERIENCER; PREPOSIIONAL HEME Be-PRES love at + me on + you I love you. Question: should all these structures be reduced to the same Figure Ground type structure? (See Svenonius to appear, also almy 1978). (15) FIGURE on/in/under etc. GROUND Straightforward enough for intransitives. For transitives we d have something like the following, with a complex Figure being the subject if another figure-ground construction: (16) [ [love at me] on you] (17) [Psych-Nominal/Experiencer-Subject/Possessor] Predicate 2 Structure of Auxiliary Psych Constructions Intransitives (18) ha fearg orm. Be-PRES anger on-1sg I am angry. We ll argue that this indeed has a locative structure. ransitives (19) ha gaol agam ort. Be-PRES love at-1sg on-2sg I love you. We ll argue that this can t have the recursive figure-ground structure posited above. Rather the structure is like this: (20) [ I have [love on you]] 2.1 Constituency In an Auxiliary Psych Construction, the Ψ-NP is in constituency with the theme argument: Focus 3

4 (21) Chan eil agam ach [gaol ort] Neg be at-me but love for-you I have nothing but love for you. (22) *Chan eil ort ach gaol agam Neg be on-you but love at-me Clefting (23) s e [gaol air Iain] a th agam Its love on Iain that is at-me I love Iain. (24) * s e gaol aig Iain a th orm Its love at Iain that is on-me Iain loves me. (25) (a) Experiencer [Ψ-NP heme] (b) *[Experiencer Ψ-NP] heme 2.2 Hierarchy Binding (26) ha gaol agam orm-fhèin. Be-PRES love at-1sg on-1sg-self I love myself. (27) *ha gaol agam-fhèin orm. Be-PRES love at-1sg-self on-1sg I love myself. (28) (a) Experiencer [Ψ-NP heme] (b)*[experiencer Ψ-NP] heme 2.3 Selection In transitive Psych constructions, the experiencer is almost always introduced by aig. he theme, however, can be introduced by a range of prepositions: (29) Cha robh dragh aice dhiotsa. Neg Be-PAS worry at-3fsg off-2sg She wasn t worried about you. (30) ha gaol agam ort. Be-PRES love at-1sg on-2sg I love you. 4

5 (31) ha sùil agam ann. Be-PRES eye at-1sg on-3.m.sg I fancy him. (32) ha tlachd aig Iain do Pheigi. Be-PRES attachment at Iain to Peggy Ian is fond of Peggy. (33) ha fuath aig Iain do Pheigi. Be-PRES hate at Iain to Peggy Ian hates Peggy. (34) Bha truas aice ris. Be-PRES pity at-3fs to-3ms She pities him (35) ha dòchas aca gum bidh iad trath. Be-PRES hope at-3pl that be-fu they early hey hope that they will be early. his suggests that the psych noun selects the theme, but that the experiencer is introduced by a uniform, non-selectional process. his once again supports the constituency given by the other tests. (36) (a) Experiencer [Ψ-NP heme] (b) *[Experiencer Ψ-NP] heme 2.4 Word Order: he Surface Position of the Psych Nominal Given the constituency, the core word order seems to be wrong. his suggests the Ψ-NP raises to a higher position: (37) Ψ-NP... Experiencer Ψ-NP heme he psych noun is not moving by the equivalent of head movement, because it can be complex, i.e. phrasal. (38) Bith gaol mòr aig Iain air Mairi Be love great at John on Mary John loves Mary greatly. here is evidence that the surface position is the subject position of the clause (cf McCloskey and Sells 1988): In a non-finite clause, the subject (but never an object) appears before the auxiliary bith- be. 5

6 (39) Dhùn Màiri an doras Shut Mary the door Mary shut the door. (40) Bu toigh leam [Màiri a bhith a dùnadh na dorais] be liking with-me Mary prt be-vn ASP shut-vn the door-gen I d like Mary to shut the door. (41) Bu toigh leam [gaol a bhith agam ort] Cop liking with-me love prt be at-me on-you I wish I loved you. Adverbs in SGaelic appear after the subject and before the predicate. (42) Bith Iain an comhnaidh a snamh Be John always asp swimming John is always swimming. (43) Bith gaol an comhnaidh aig Iain air Mairi Be love always at John on Mary John will always love Mary. Summary Ψ-Pred is an NP it is in constituency with the theme the Experiencer is introduced higher he Ψ-Pred raises to the canonical subject position, across the Experiencer 3 Implementing the proposal Adger and Ramchand s (2003) clause structure for Substantive Auxiliary Constructions (SACs) (44) ha Calum faiceallach. Be-PRES Calum careful Calum is (being) careful. (45) ha am ministear aig an doras. Be-PRES the minister at the door he minister is at the door. 6

7 (46) P be PredP DP am ministear/fear Pred Pred PP/AP at the door/at me Recall that we have evidence that the experiencer c-commands the theme. his suggests: (47) [aig-experiencer Poss 0 [PredP Ψ-NP [Pred Locative-heme]]] he idea, then, is that experiencers in this construction are a kind of dative, introduced by a functional head. he specifier of this head is marked with dative case, which surfaces as aig in all cases. We call the head Poss 0. (48) ha gaol agam Poss [ gaol ort] (49) ha gaol agam ort be-pres love at+me on+you I love you. 7

8 (50) P tha AspP SUBJEC gaol Asp Asp ApplP Experiencer agam Appl Appl Poss PredP DP-Subject gaol Pred Pred PP ort on you his captures the fact that the Ψ-NP behaves like a surface subject (can be modified and relativized), but that it can be shown to be in constituency with the heme and not the Experiencer. his also captures the hierarchical relationship between experiencer and theme. Passive (51) ha gaol orm. Be-PRES love on-1sg I am loved. (52) *ha gaol agam. Be-PRES love at-1sg I love. 4 Possession Recall that possessive structures in Gaelic also involved the aig preposition. hese have been treated in the literature as involving simple location (e.g in the work of Freeze or Harley). However, our analysis makes available an alternative. (53) ha peann aig Iain Be pen at John Ian has a pen (54) ha peann [ [ aig Iain] Poss 0 peann ] 8

9 rather than: (55) ha [PredP peann Pr [PP aig Iain] here is some interesting evidence that this is correct: Context: imagine that we are at a modern art exhibition where various object are displayed along with pictures of those actual objects. (56) ha am peile faisg air dealbh dheth-fhèin Be the pail close to picture of-it-self he pail is close to a picture of itself. Now, consider a situation where the picture of the pail is inside or at the pail: (57) *ha dealbh dheth-fhein aig/anns a pheile Be picture of-it-self in the pail Fact: When we have a simple locational structure, we cannot bind from the location to the locatee. (58) ha [PredP picture of itself [at the pail]] Compare this with the Possessional Construction. (59) ha dealbh dheth-fhèin aig Dàibhidh Be picture of-him-self at David David has a pictue of himself. (60) ha dealbh dhen a chèile aig Dàibhidh is Iain Be picture of each other at David and Iain David and Iain have a pictue of each other. his will follow on the alternative structure: (61) ha [peann] [ [aig Iain] Poss 0 peann ] (62) P PredP peann Pred ApplP Possessor aig Iain Poss DP peann 9

10 5 Intransitives (63) Chuir e fearg orm. Put-PAS he anger on-1sg He made me angry. (64) Chuir e cùram orm. Put-PAS he anxiety on-1sg He worried me. (65) Chuir e eagal orm. Put-PAS he fear on-1sg He frightened me. Intransitive experiencer constructions allow causativisation by substituting a cause for a stative Pred. (66) *Chuir e gaol agam air. Put-PAS he love at-1sg on-sc 3sg He made me love him. (67) *Chuir e dragh agam (dhiot). Put-PAS he worry at-1sg (on-2sg) He made me worry (about you). (68) *Chuir e peann agam. Put-PAS he worry at-1sg He gave me a pen. 6 Structure of Copular Psych Constructions 6.1 Basics Adjectives (69) Is caomh leam an duine sin. Cop-PRES likable with-1sg that man I like that man. (70) Is coma leam dè a thachras. Cop-PRES indifferent with-1sg what that happen-fu.rel I don t care what will happen. (71) Is beag orm dè a thachras. Cop-PRES little with-1sg what that happen-fu.rel I don t like what will happen. 10

11 (72) Cop A PP experiencer NP theme P is either le with or, more rarely air, on Nouns (73) Bu mhiann leam taing a thoirt dhuibh. Cop-PAS wish with-1sg thanks prt give-vn to-2pl I d like to thank you. (74) Cop N PP experiencer NP theme 6.2 Inverted Copular Constructions Adger and Ramchand 2003 (75) Is mòr an duine sin. Cop-PRES big that man hat man is big. (76) *Is an duine sin mòr. Cop-PRES that man big hat man is big. (77) Is tidsear Calum. Cop-PRES teacher Calum Calum is a teacher. (78) Bu thidsear Calum. Cop-PAS teacher Calum Calum was a teacher. (79) P PredP DP the dog Pred Pred Copula XP with me 11

12 (80) P Pred i Cop with me PredP DP the dog t i Question: Do these PP experiencers have the structure of locative complements to A (to which they are so strikingly similar), or are they similar to the experiencers in the Ψ-N constructions we have already seen? 6.3 Constituency and Hierarchy Is the Experiencer a complement of the Ψ-A/N? (81) [is toigh leam] [cofaidh is toigh leam ] (82) [is toigh] [leam [cofaidh is toigh ]] Ellipsis: (83) An coma leat dè a thachras? Cop-PRES indifferent with-2sg what that happen-fu.rel Do you care what will happen. (84) Is coma Cop-PRES indifferent Yes. (85) Cha choma Cop-NEG indifferent No. If responsives are ellipsis, then the Experiencer cannot be in constituency with the Ψ-N. Binding: (86) Is beag air Dàibhidh e-fhèin Cop small on David himself David hates himself. (87) *Is beag air-fhèin Dàibhidh Cop small on-self David 12

13 (88) Is toigh le Dàibhidh agus Iain cach a chèile Cop liking with David and Ian each other David and Ian like each other. (89) *Is toigh leis cach a chèile Dàibhidh agus Iain Cop liking with each other David and Ian (90) [Ψ-A/N [Experiencer [ heme]]] (91) * [Ψ-A/N Experiencer] heme his suggests a derivation: (92) [P [is toigh] [le-experiencer [PredP Coffaidh is toigh ]]] his actually solves a small inconsistency in Adger and Ramchand 2003, where we said that for the ICC the whole XP moved to the initial position, whereas in Gaelic usually only the head moves. We took this position because at the time we assumed without argument that the experiencer was the complement of the Ψ-A/N. If the experiencer is in fact independently introduced, as the binding and ellipsis evidence suggest, we can now just say that Ψ-N incorporates into is, and then this moves as a head to. he claim that the experiencer is introduced by a kind of applicative head accounts for the uniformity of the preposition (always being le). Since we have head movement here, we predict that the Ψ-A/N should not be modifiable. his is correct: (93) *Bu mhiann mòr leam taing a thoirt dha Cop-PAS wish big with-me thanks prt give you I d like to thank you. (94) *Is glè choma leam dè a thachras Cop very indifferent with-me what will happen for: I really don t care what will happen. his structure also predicts that the Ψ-N/A should be inaccessible to A-bar dependencies, since it is a head incorporated into. his is also correct: (95) *Am miann as leam gum biodh e ann he wish that-cop with-me that be-cond he there (96) * S e miann as leam gum biodh e ann It s wish that-cop with-me that be-cond he there (97) * S ann coma as leam dè a thachras It s indifferent that-cop with-me what will-happen 13

14 he experiencer in copular constructions is actually introduced by a high applicative head, plausibly the same one as in the transitive psych construction with bidh- be. he quirky case marking on the experiencer subject of individual level copular constructions is always le in SGaelic (while in the stage level constructions it is aig). Individual level copula constructions have no (eventive) AspP head which would attract an NP to the higher subject position, giving rise to what looks like an inversion structure. 7 Summary and Conclusions here is an abstract possess psychological state applicative head which introduces quirky marked experiencers in an internal subject position from where they c-command the thematic material. hese seem to be base generated in a high position, and the word order falls out naturally from movement processes that take place obligatorily in the language. (98) Is toil leam cofaidh Cop-PRES pleasurable with+me coffee I like coffee. (99) CopP Cop ApplP Experiencer leam Appl Poss PredP DP-Subject coffee Pred A toil pleasurable (100) ha gaol agam ort be-pres love at+me on+you I love you. 14

15 (101) P tha AspP SUBJEC gaol Asp ApplP Experiencer agam Appl Poss PredP DP-Subject gaol Pred PP ort on you Some Experiencers are Merged as specifiers (transitive), some as complements (intransitive) there is no uniform locative semantics for experiencers. he specifier experiencers are in a natural class with Gaelic possessives, while the complement ones are in a natural class with Gaelic locatives. he possessive/high experiencer PP is introduced as the specifier of an applicative head with either a DP or PredP complement ( Pylkkänen 2002) and with generalized possessional semantics here is no uniform theta-role for experiencers, but the applicative head does seem to impute a notion of mental state to its specifier. References Adger, David and Ramchand, Gillian Predication and equation. Linguistic Inquiry 34: Belletti, Adriana and Rizzi, Luigi Psych-verbs and θ-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic heory 6: Landau, Idan he locative syntax of experiencers, ms. Ben Gurion University. McCloskey, James and Sells, Peter Control and A-chains in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic heory 6:

16 McGinnis, Martha Event heads and the distribution of Psych-roots. Current work in linguistics: Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 6: Perlmutter, David M Studies in relational grammar. Chicago: University Press. Pesetsky, David Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, Ma.: MI Press. Postal, Paul Martin Crossover Phenomena. New York.: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Pylkkänen, Liina Introducing arguments. Ph.D. thesis, MI. Svenonius, Peter. to appear. Adpositions, particles, and the arguments they introduce. In anmoy Bhattacharya, Eric Reuland, and KV Subbarao, eds., Argument Structure, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, prepublication draft at almy, Leonard Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Joseph H. Greenberg, ed., Universals of Human Language, volume 4, , Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press. David Adger Queen Mary, University of London Gillian Ramchand University of romsø/casl 16

Psych Nouns and Predication. David Adger and Gillian Ramchand. Queen Mary, University of London and University of Tromsø

Psych Nouns and Predication. David Adger and Gillian Ramchand. Queen Mary, University of London and University of Tromsø Psych Nouns and Predication David Adger and Gillian Ramchand Queen Mary, University of London and University of Tromsø 1. Introduction 1.1. Experiencers Experiencers show a range of anomalous properties