Andrew Radford - Linguistics An Introduction [Second Edition]

(375)

CP

C

TP

ϕ

D

T'

she

T

VP

shall

ADV

V'

not

V

D

see

me

Now, what is particularly interesting about Shakespearean English is that in auxiliariless finite clauses, the (italicised) finite verb is positioned in front of not: (376) a.

My master seeks not me (Speed, Two Gentlemen of Verona, I. i)

b.

I care not for her (Thurio, Two Gentlemen of Verona, V. iv)

c.

Thou thinkest not of this now (Launce, Two Gentlemen of Verona, IV. iv)

316

senten ces

If we take not in (376) to be the specifier (and hence leftmost constituent) of the VP in these examples, how can we account for the fact that the verb (which would otherwise be expected to follow the negative not) ends up positioned in front of not in sentences like (376)? An obvious answer is that when T is not filled by an auxiliary, the verb moves out of the head V position in VP into the head T position in TP, so moving across the negative particle not which occupies the specifier position within VP. If this is what happens, (376a) has the derivation in (377): (377)

CP

C

TP

ϕ

DP

T'

my master

T

VP

seeks

ADV

V'

not

V

D

seeks

me

Interestingly, questions in EME seem to have involved the same inversion

operation as in CSE. Now, if (as we showed in the previous section) inversion in questions involves movement from T to C, an obvious prediction made by the assumption that verbs move from V to T in EME is that they can subsequently

move from T to C, so resulting in sentences such as those in (378):

(378) a.

Saw you my master? (Speed, Two Gentlemen of Verona, I. i)

b.

Speakest thou in sober meanings? (Orlando, As You Like It, V. ii)

c.

Know you not the cause? (Tranio, Taming of the Shrew, IV. ii)

d.

Spake you not these words plain …? (Grumio, Taming of the Shrew, I. ii)

It follows from this suggestion that an EME question such as (378c) is derived in the manner represented in (379) (with the question mark in the specifier position of CP denoting a null yes–no question operator):

(379)

CP

ADV

C'

?

C

TP

Know

D

T'

you

T

VP

(II)

know

ADV

V'

not

V

DP

(I)

know

the cause

Syntactic variation

317

The fact that the verb know is positioned to the left of the subject you indicates that it is raised first from V to T and then from T to C by two successive applications of head movement (numbered I and II respectively in 379).

Why should it be that negatives like (376) and interrogatives like (378) are no longer grammatical in CSE? What is the nature of the change that has taken place in the course of the evolution of the language? The answer seems to be that it was possible for finite (non-auxiliary) verbs to move from V to T in EME, but that this is no longer possible in CSE; hence, for example, verbs could move from V to T

across an intervening not in EME structures such as (377), and from T subsequently move to C, as in interrogatives like (379); but no movement from V to T

(and from there to C) is possible for verbs in CSE.

But why should finite non-auxiliary verbs be able to move from V to T in

EME, but not in CSE? The answer is that T was strong in EME but is weak

in CSE. A strong T, just like a strong C, has to be filled by an overt item, and so if the T position isn’t occupied by an auxiliary, a strong T will ‘lure’ the verb out of the head V position in VP into the empty head T position in TP, as in EME structures such as (377) above (more precisely, we should say that a strong T has to be filled at some stage of derivation, since a verb which moves into T doesn’t have to stay there but can go on to move to C, as in 379). By contrast, a weak T does not have to be filled: if it contains an auxiliary, it will be filled, but a weak T doesn’t have the strength to ‘lure’ a non-auxiliary verb out of V into T, so that T in such a language will remain unfilled in auxiliariless clauses.

Generalising at this point, we can say that a further parameter of structural variation between languages (which we might refer to as the T Strength Parameter) relates to whether T is strong or weak. Like the C Strength Parameter, this too turns out to be binary (in that T can be either strong or weak – it cannot be both or neither). In EME, T and C are both strong, whereas in CSE, T is weak but C (in main clause questions) is strong.

An interesting question which arises at this point is why we can’t form questions in CSE by directly moving a verb from the head V position in VP to the head C position in CP, as in (380):

(380)

CP

ADV

C'

?

C

TP

Enjoys

D

T'

he

T

VP

ϕ

V

D

enjoys

it

318

senten ces

After all, C is strong in CSE questions and so needs to be filled: so why can’t we fill C by moving the verb enjoys directly from V to C? Why is the resulting

sentence *Enjoys he it? ungrammatical?

The most satisfying answer we can give to this question is to suppose that

some universal grammatical principle rules out the type of movement indicated in (380). But what principle? Some years ago, Lisa Travis suggested that head movement is universally subject to the constraint stated informally in (381) (a constraint being a principle which imposes restrictions on how grammatical

operations work):

(381)

Head Movement Constraint (HMC)

A moved head can move only into the head position in the next higher phrase

containing it.

Given this constraint, we can provide a principled account of why the move-

ment arrowed in (380) leads to ungrammaticality: the movement of enjoys from V to C violates HMC because the V enjoys is contained within the VP enjoys it, the next higher phrase containing this VP is TP, and the head of TP is the unfilled T constituent. This means that HMC rules out the possibility of enjoys moving directly from V to C because the verb would thereby be moving too far

‘in one go’. In fact, the Economy Principle from the previous section provides us with an alternative account of the same restriction, since the movement from V to C can be regarded as ‘too long’ in the context of a possible shorter move from V to T.

But this in turn raises the question of why we can’t move enjoys into C in two successive steps as in (382):

(382)

CP

ADV

C'

?

C

TP

Enjoys

D

T'

he

T VP

(II)

enjoys

V D

(I)

enjoys

it

Here, enjoys moves first from V to T, and then from T to C, just as in the EME

structure (379). This would involve two successive applications of head movement; each application would itself satisfy HMC since in moving from V to T, enjoys moves into the head position in the next higher phrase above VP (namely TP) and in moving from T to C, it moves into the head position within the next higher phrase above TP (namely CP). Equally, these moves are the ‘shortest’

available, so this proposal appears to be consistent with the Economy Principle.

Syntactic variation

319

So why is the resulting sentence *Enjoys he it? ungrammatical? The answer is in fact provided by the Economy Principle. Movement (I) of enjoys from V to T in (382) is ruled out because T is a weak head in CSE, and this means that it doesn’t have to be filled. Given that it doesn’t have to be filled, by the Economy Principle, it won’t be filled by movement since any move to fill it is unnecessary.