Andrew Radford - Linguistics An Introduction [Second Edition]

D

T'

nobody

T

VP

can’t

V

D

beat

’em

But why should can’t undergo inversion in this way? The answer is that can’t moves from T into C in order to get into a position where it precedes the negative pronoun nobody and so can satisfy the constraint that a negative expression like nobody should be preceded by a negative auxiliary. Auxiliary inversion is used as a last resort, in order to satisfy this requirement. Since the requirement is not operative in CSE, there is no motivation for auxiliary inversion in CSE structures of this type. Instead, as is generally the case in declarative main clauses in CSE, the head C position of CP is filled by a null complementiser. Hence, the corresponding CSE sentence (368) has the structure (370):

Syntactic variation

313

(370)

CP

C

TP

ϕ

D

T'

nobody

T

VP

can

V

D

beat

’em

The null complementiser in (370) serves to mark the sentence as declarative in force.

Our brief illustration of negative auxiliary inversion reveals an interesting syntactic difference between AAVE and CSE – namely that negative clauses like (366a) in AAVE are CPs in which the head C position of CP is filled by an inverted auxiliary, whereas their counterparts in CSE are CPs in which the head C position of CP is null.

This underlines the point made at the beginning of this discussion, namely that word-order variation is often attributable to differences in movement operations.

So far, we have looked at a case where auxiliary inversion occurs in one variety of English (AAVE) in contexts where it is not allowed in CSE. Now let’s look at the opposite kind of variation – namely, where inversion is required in CSE but not in some other variety. In this connection, consider the differences between a CSE

question like (371a) below and its counterpart in Jamaican Vernacular English (JVE) in (371b), as reported in research by Beryl Bailey: (371) a.

How many coconuts did he sell?

b.

Homuch

kuoknat im en sel?

How-much coconut him did sell

The crucial syntactic difference between the two is that in CSE questions, the auxiliary did moves from its normal position in T into C, whereas in JVE

questions, its counterpart en remains in situ in T and doesn’t move to C. Thus, the two sentences (371a, b) have the respective structures (372a, b) below (to simplify discussion, we don’t show the internal structure of the determiner phrases how many coconuts/homuch kuoknat):

(372)

CP

C'

TP

T'

VP

DP C

D

T

V

D

a. How many coconuts

did

he

t

sell

t

b. Homuch kuoknat

ϕ

im

en

sell

t

314

senten ces

In both varieties, the bold wh-operator expression how many coconuts/homuch

kuoknat moves from complement position in VP into specifier position in CP

(leaving behind a silent trace copy of itself, denoted as t). However, the two varieties differ in that in the CSE structure (372a), the auxiliary did moves from T

to C, leaving behind a trace copy t in T, whereas in the JVE structure (372b), the corresponding auxiliary en remains in situ in T, so that the head C position of CP is occupied by a null complementiser φ.

The key question raised by the analysis in (372) is why auxiliaries should move from T to C in CSE questions but remain in T in JVE questions. Using an idea developed by Noam Chomsky in recent research, we might suggest that C in

questions is strong in CSE but weak in JVE, and that a strong head position has to be filled by an overt item. Since main clauses in English can’t be introduced by the overt complementisers that/for/if (which, as their very name suggests, are typically used to introduce complement clauses), the only way of filling a strong C

position in a main clause is by movement of an auxiliary out of T into C as in

(372a), thereby satisfying the requirement for the strong C in CSE questions to be filled. By contrast, in JVE, the head C position of CP is a weak position and so doesn’t need to be filled by an overt item. Hence, in consequence of the Economy Principle from the previous section, which requires us to minimise movement operations and not move anything unless it is absolutely necessary, there is no auxiliary inversion in JVE questions (exercise 1).

Syntactic parameters of variation

What the analysis in (372) claims, then, is that interrogative clauses have the same CP+TP+VP structure in JVE and in CSE (and indeed universally), but that the two languages differ in respect of whether C is a strong or a weak head in the relevant type of structure. Generalising at this point, we might suggest that languages (and varieties) vary in their structure along a number of specific parameters (i.e.

‘dimensions’), and that one such parameter of variation (which we might call the Head Strength Parameter) relates to whether a given type of functional head is strong or weak in a given language (in the case we are talking about here, the parameter relates to whether or not an interrogative C in a finite main clause is strong or weak, so we might refer to this more specifically as the C Strength Parameter).

The assumption that a functional head like C is restricted to being either strong or weak (i.e. there is no third value it can take on) also suggests that parameters may be inherently binary, i.e. they have one of two values in any given language.

We can illustrate a related kind of parametric variation in relation to

word-order differences between negative sentences containing not in CSE and

Early Modern English (EME), as reflected in Shakespeare’s plays written around the year 1600. In EME (as in CSE), clauses containing an auxiliary were typically negated by positioning not between the auxiliary and the verb (phrase) following it. The EME examples in (373) illustrate this:

Syntactic variation

315

(373) a.

She shall not see me (Falstaff, Merry Wives of Windsor, III. iii)

b.

You may not deny it (Dumain, Love’s Labour’s Lost, V. ii)

c.

I will not hear thy vain excuse (Duke, Two Gentlemen of Verona, III. i)

Not is traditionally categorised as a negative adverb (or negative particle): but what position does not occupy within the structure of clauses?

In order to try and help us answer this question, let’s briefly look at the position occupied by not in the phrase produced by speaker B in the dialogue below:

(374)

speaker a: Is the library open every day of the week?

speaker b: Only on weekdays, not at weekends.

Both of the phrases (only on weekdays and not at weekends) produced by speaker B are prepositional phrases, and both include a preposition (on/at) and its complement (weekdays/weekends). But both also include an adverb (only/not) which

precedes the preposition+complement structure (on weekdays/at weekends). Since specifiers precede head+complement structures, it therefore seems plausible to suppose that only and not in (374) are adverbs which serve as the specifiers for the relevant prepositional phrases. This being so, it seems equally plausible to suppose that not in clauses like those in (373) functions as the specifier of the verb phrases containing the expressions see me, deny it, and hear thy vain excuse. On this view, not see me in (373a) is a (negated) verb phrase which is formed by merging the verb see with its D-pronoun complement me to form the V0 see me, and then merging the resulting V0 with the negative adverb not to form the VP not see me. This VP is in turn merged with the T-auxiliary shall to form the T0 shall not see me, and this T0 is merged with the subject she to form the TP she shall not see me. This TP is in turn merged with a null complementiser marking the sentence as declarative, so forming the CP below: