Perfect doubling does not exist

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Perfect doubling does not exist"

Marjory Ball
5 years ago
Views:

1 Perfectdoublingdoesnotexist SjefBarbiers µ,υ,olafkoeneman α,marikalekakou µ MeertensInstitute µ,universityofamsterdam α,utrechtuniversity υ 1.Thephenomenon (1) a. Ikhebvandaagnognietgerookt StandardDutch Ihavetodaystillnotsmoked b. Ikhebvandaagnognietgerooktgehad DialectalDutch Ihavetodaystillnotsmokedhad (2) a. Ikhebhetgezegd StandardDutch Ihaveitsaid b. Ikhebhetgezegdgehad DialectalDutch Ihaveitsaidhad (3) Ikbentweekeergevallengeweest DialectalDutch Iamtwotimesfallenbeen Franco provençal(carruthers1994,paesani,2001): (4) Onaeumisdel eausurleschaises. onehashadputofthe.wateronthechairs Bavarian/AlemannicGerman(Poletto2009,Schaden2007): (5) Ihagässachaunddennbiniheigange IhaveeatenhadandthenamIhomegone NorthernItalian(Poletto2009): (6) Co go biomagnà, whenhave.1sghadeaten, ClaimsforDutch: (i) Thevariationbetweendoublingandnon doublingislexicalinnature. (ii) Doubling constructions are retentions of diachronic stages in the development of HAVEfromalexicaltoafunctionalelement. (iii) Thereisnoperfectorauxiliarydoublinginananalyticalsense. 2.Hypothesesandpreviousresearch THE LEADING HYPOTHESISFROMTHESYNTACTICANGLE: Perfectdoublinginvolvesactivationofa(nadditional)functionalhead(Poletto2009). o Germandialects TerminativeAspectPhrase o NorthernItaliandialects AnteriorTensePhrase 1

2 THE LEADING HYPOTHESISFROMTHESEMANTICANGLE: Perfectdoublinghasspecificsemantics(Schaden,2007) o Germandialects pastresultative o Frenchdialects perfectiveterminative Twoconsiderations: (i) ThesuggestedsemanticscannotbereplicatedfortheDutchdoublingconstructions. Ourpreviousresearch(Barbiers,Koeneman&Lekakou2008): Doubling constructions accepted in same environments as their non doubling counterparts noobvioustense semanticdifference. Difference between doubling and non doubling constructions is phonological: theyhavethesameunderlyingsyntax. Hypothesis: Gehadisnotspelledoutifitsformalfeatures(i.e.[auxiliary]and[participle]) areexpressedbyotherheadsinthesameprosodicphrase(determinedbyselkirk's1986 algorithm:xpmovementscreateadditionalprosodicboundaries). StandardDutch:1 2 3clusterorder {heeft gehad gerookt) [finite] [participle] [participle] [aux] [aux] [activity] Dialects:3 2 1and1 3 2clusterorders {gerookt} {gehad} {heeft} {heeft gerookt} {gehad} Ourrecentfieldwork:dialectsalsoaccept3 1 2(aclusterorderpervasiveinStandard Dutch). (ii) Proximity of the doubling construction with the so called undative construction (Broekhuis&Cornips1994,Cornips1994). (7) a. Ikhebdehondziek (present) Ihavethedogsick 'Mydogissick.' b. Ikhebdehondziekgehad (presentperfect) Ihavethedogsickhad 'Mydoghasbeensick.' (8) a. Ik heb de broek gewassen. (Present perfect/undative) I have the trousers washed I have washed my trousers. / I have a clean pair of trousers. 2

3 b. Ik heb [de broek gewassen] gehad. (perfect of the undative) I have the trousers washed had I have had a clean pair of trousers. doublingconstruction undativeconstruction overlap Questions: (i)doesgeographicalproximityindicategrammaticalproximity?ifso,thevariationisinthe lexicalmake upofhave. (9) HAVE lexical functional(auxiliary) possessive undative (ii)howdowefitinperfectdoubling? Hypothesis: PerfectdoublinginvolvesalexicalHAVEtoo. o Perfectdoublingisnotauxiliarydoubling. o PerfectdoublingresemblesGO doubling(westflemish;cf.haegeman1990,van Riemsdijk2002)andDO doubling(schütze2004): 3

4 (10) a. dankmorgengoangonvissenthat Itomorrowgogofish thati mgoingtogofishingtomorrow b. Bobsaysheisgoingtojointhelabourparty.Itwillbeinterestingtoseeifhe doesdo. c. Ikhebhetgehad Ihaveithad 3.Datacollectionandresults Twophases: (i)writtenquestionnaire: 70locationsinandaroundtheareawheredoublingwasattestedaccordingtoSAND (Barbiersetal2005). Questionnairesfrom55locationsreturned,ofwhich22haddoubling. Twokindsoftasks: (11) Toenmijnhondindetuinlag, [driesigarettenroken]. Whenmydoglayinthegarden, [tosmokethreecigarettes]. a. PRAETERITUM: rookteikdriesigaretten b. PRESENTPERFECT: hebikdriesigarettengerookt c. PASTPERFECT: hadikdriesigarettengerookt d. PRESENTPERFECT+DOUBLING: hebikdriesigarettengerooktgehad e. PASTPERFECT+DOUBLING: hadikdriesigarettengerooktgehad (12) a. Ikhebdeheledaghardgewerktgehad. Ihavethewholedayhardworkedhad b. Ikhebdeheledaghardgewerkt. Ihavethewholedayhardworked ISSUESUNDERINVESTIGATION: 1. Whatisthetemporal semanticcontributionofthedoublingconstruction? Unclear,butpresentperfectdoublingdoesnotequalpluperfect.Generalpattern: i. If(11d)accepted,then(11b)accepted. ii If(11e)accepted,then(11c)accepted. 2. Isperfectdoublingtheperfectoftheundativeconstruction?Isthereatransitivity constraintintheperfectdoublingconstruction? No,contrarytowhatisthecaseintheundativeconstruction. (13) a. Ikhebdebroekgewassen(gehad) b. Ikhebvandaagnognietgerookt(gehad) Notethefundamentalmeaningdifferencebetween(13a)and(13b): In(13a),anybodycouldhavedonethewashing.Thesubjectoftheparticipleis syntacticllyabsent:theparticipleispassive. 4

5 In(13b),thematrixsubjecthasdonethesmoking.Thesubjectoftheparticipleis syntacticallypresent:theparticipleisactive. 3. Isthereasensitivitytoaspectualclass? No.Wedetectednosystematic(dis)preferencewithrespecttoaparticularclass: i.achievement (14) Ikhebooiteenseenkostbarevaasgebrokengehad. Ihaveonceanexpensivevasebrokenhad ii.accomplishment (15) Ditbedrijfheeftdezemaanddriehuizengebouwdgehad. Thiscompanyhasthismonththreehousesbuilthad iii.activity (16) Ikhebnognooiteenkatgeaaidgehad. Ihavestillneveracatstrokedhad iv.stative (17) Ikhebmijnbaasaltijdgehaatgehad. Ihavemybossalwayshatedhad 4. Isdoublingrestrictedtoeventsintheremote/indeterminatepast(Carruthers1994)? No.Addingadverbswithdifferentremoteness/specificitycharacteristicshasnoeffect. (18) Ikheb eenkostbarevaasgebrokengehad. Ihave anexpensivevasebrokenhad a.ooiteens once [+remote, specific]. b.eenuurgeleden anhourago [ remote,+specific]. c.onlangs recently [ remote, specific]. d.opmijn6 e verjaardg onmy6thbirthday [+remote,+specific] (ii) Oralquestionnaire administeredin12locationsin4provinces. translationtasks,relativegrammaticalityjudgmenttasks. Issuesunderinvestigation: 1. Dothedoublingdialectslackthesimplepasttense(andwasthisobscuredinthe writtenquestionnaireduetointerferencefromstandarddutch)? No.Theyclearlyhave,anduse,asimplepast. 2. DoesdoublinginDutchdialectsdisplaythesemanticpropertiesattributedtoits FrenchandGermancounterpart(Schaden2007)? Yesandno.Twokindsofdoublecompoundperfects(Cornu,Paesani,Schaden): THEANTERIORUSE: 5

6 (19) Quand j'ai eu soupe, je suis sorti. (substandard French; Schaden 2009 ) when I have had suppered I am left 'After having had supper, I left.' (20) Wia i hamkumman bin, hot mai schwesta den opfl scho gessen ghobt. (Alemannic) As I home-come am, has my sister the apple already eaten had 'When I arrived at home, my sister had already eaten the apple.' THE'SUPERPERFECT'USE: (21) Duble,j'enairecolteduplusbeau. ofwheatiof ithaveharvestedof themorebeautiful 'I'veharvestedthemostbeautifulwheat.' (22) Ihobdbadhosschoazogakhet,abrihobsewidrwegto. I have the short already onput had but I have it again away.put 'I HAD put on my bathing shorts, but I ve put them off again.' Generalization: Presentperfect+doublingcannotbeusedtodenoteaneventthathappenedpriortoa pointinthepast:itisapresenttense. (23) Context: Ididn tseeyoueatyesterday.whynot? Answer: #Ikhebalgegetengehad. Ihavealreadyeatenhad Conclusion: Dutchdialectsonlyhavethe'superperfect'use,whichrequirespresentrelevance. Propertiesoftheperfectdoublingconstruction: Itappearsinsimilarcontextsasitsnon doublingcounterpart. Itisnotsensitivetosemanticpropertiesofthemainverb. Itisnotanundativeconstruction. Inembeddedclauses,theclusterorderispredominantly321and Synchronicvariationasdiachronicvariation Threegeneralizations: (i) HAVEdevelopedinseveralstagesfromalexicalverbintoafunctionalelement. (ii) Older versionsofhavecanberetained.hence,thesestageswerenotsuccessive,but overlapping. (iii) ThedevelopmentofHAVEshouldnotbeseeninisolationbutasadevelopment interactingwiththedevelopmentofparticiples(duinhoven1997). Twoquestions: (i) Whichdevelopmentalstagescanbedistinguished? Duinhoven 6

7 (ii) Whatarethepresentdayexamplesreflectingthesestages? ourempiricalresearch andbroekhuis&cornips(1994) 4.1 Thedevelopmentoftheparticiple(Duinhoven1997) Stage1 Theparticipleisanadjunctmodifyingtheclause.Itexpressesthecauseormannerofaction anddoesnotmodifyaparticulardp. Presentdayexample: (24) Jankomtaangelopen StandardDutch Jancomesran part. Jancomesrunning In(24), aangelopen(i) does not denote anteriority and(ii) modifies Jan s coming, not just Jan. Stage2 TheparticipleisanadnominalconstituentmodifyingaDPandexpressingresultativity.Ifthe verbisbeorbecome,theparticiplemodifiesthe subject.iftheverbishave,itmodifiesthe object.hence,weinitiallydonotfindparticiplesofunergativepredicates.syntactically,itis a secondary predicate ( bepaling van gesteldheid ) of the internal argument, without determiningtheagentoftheactiondenotedbytheverb. Ourconclusion:theparticiplehasdevelopedfromanadjunctintotheheadofan embeddedpredicationwithoutarealizedagent;theparticipleisstative. Presentdayexample:theundativeconstruction(Broekhuis&Cornips1994): (25) Zijhadd rhaargeverfd. StandardDutch Shehadherhairdyed Herhairwasdyed. (26) Hijhaddefietsgestolen. DialectalDutch hehadthebicyclestolen Hehadhisbicyclestolen. Stage3 Theparticipleisacomplementoftheverb.Incontrasttotheadnominalconstruction,the subjectofthematrixclauseisnowtheagentoftheparticiple. Ourconclusion:theparticipleheadsanembeddedpredication,andisnowactive. ThesourceoftheperfectdoublingconstructionasattestedinBrabantishdialects. Stage4 Theparticipleisnowtheonlypredicateoftheclause. 7

8 4.2 ThedevelopmentofHAVE Stage1 HAVEisfullylexical,theparticipleisanadjunct.InthespiritofKayne(1993),HAVEconsistsof anelementencodingpossessionincorporatingintobe.thedativeargumentraises. (27) BeP pure possessive HAVE BeP (Participle) Be PossP DP dat Be Poss DP acc Stage2 ThePossheadnowselectsasmallclauseheadedbytheparticiple.Theparticipleisastative predicateanditssubjectisthedp acc.thereisnoagentrole.thedativeraises.thisisthe analysisofbroekhuis&cornips(1994). (28) BeP undativehave Be PossP DP dat Poss Poss SC DP acc Part. Atthisstagethepossessiverelationbecomesmoreabstract,astheargumentsthatPoss relatestoeachotherarenolongertwodps,butadpandasmallclause. Stage3 HAVE no longer derives from Poss incorporating into BE. Three consequences: (a) HAVE becomesabase generatedraisingverb;(b)thedps,inneedofatheta role,getreanalyzed as arguments of the participle; (c) The participle becomes an active verb. 1 DP nom is the 1 Thismayhavehappenedintwostages.First,theparticipleisverbalandpassiveandthehigherDPbecomes theindirect(dative)objectofthispredicate.this givesus aconstructionclosetotheenglish Theyhadtheir suitcases packed. Second, the higher DP becomes the agent of the participle, which is now reanalyzed as active. This predicts that the English construction can also have been retained, preferably in the southern dialects.wedonotknowitthispredictionisborneout. 8

9 external argument of the underlying predicate(in contrast to previous stage, where there wasnoagentrole). (29) havep sourceof perfectdoubling have VP DP nom V DP acc V Part. Stage4 HAVEisreanalyzedasafunctionalauxiliaryheadassociatedwithaTense/Aspectprojection.It nolongerselectsaclausebutisinvolvedintheformationofcompoundtenses.atthisstage, it is possible to use auxiliary HAVE to construct the present perfect of the retained constructionsofstages1,2and3. Thisgivesthedoublingeffect. Strictlyspeaking,thisisnoperfectorauxiliarydoubling. 4.3ExtensiontoBE Thedevelopmentissimilar,themaindifferencebeingtheabsenseoftheposshead. Stage1 BE/HAVEarelexical,theparticipleisanadjunct. Stage2 BE/HAVEarelexical,participleisastativepredicateusedadnominally. (30) BeP Be SC DP Part. Stage3 9

10 ThecomplementsofBE/HAVEareverbal.Theparticipledoesnotdenoteastatepredicatedof thedp,butachangeofstateverbtakingthedpasaninternalargument. (31) BeP Be VP DP V Part. Stage4 BE/HAVEbecomefunctionalheadsassociatedwithaTense/Aspectprojection. (32) TP Be VP DP V Part. Atthisstage,itispossibletouseauxiliaryBEtoconstructthepresentperfectoftheretained constructionsofstages1,2and3. Thisgivesthedoublingeffect. Strictlyspeaking,thisisnoperfectorauxiliarydoubling. 5.Discussion/outlook Featuresoftheanalysis: PerfectdoublingreflectsaretentionofadiachronicdevelopmentaffectingHAVE:in thisrespect,itissimilartothe(perfectof)pure possessive HAVEandtheundative construction. BE/HAVEareraisingverbsthroughoutthefirstthreestages.Thisexplainswhythey cannotundergopassivization(broekhuis&cornips1994). WenowhaveaparallelbetweenHAVE/DO/GO doubling:theyallinvolvethecooccurrenceofalexicalandafunctionalhead. Unresolvedissues: Whatisthesemanticsofhaveinstage3andwhatdistinguishesitfromitsusein stage4? DoestheanalysiscarryovertootherGermanic,andRomance,dialects? o Arethedifferentpropertiesduetodifferencesinthediachronic development?cf.thedifferentdevelopmentofhaveandbeinenglish,as arguedbymcfadden&alexiadou(toappear). o Orisitthecasethatthediachronyismoreorlesssimilarbutthesemanticsof thestage3constructionisunderspecifiedenoughtoallowroomforvariation (theactualvariationbeingdeterminedbywhatothertensesareavailablein thelanguage)? 10

11 Isthereacorrelationwithverbclusterorders?Excludingdialectswithverbprojection raising,theonlypossibleordersthatwereacceptedare321and312. o Itsuggeststhatgehadislexicalratherthanfunctional. o Butraisingverbsusuallyallowreorderingwiththeheadoftheircomplement: (33) a. datjanvandaagnognietschijnt 1 teroken 2 thatjantodaynotyetseemstohavesmoked b. *datjanvandaagnognietheeft 1 gehad/hebben 2 gerookt 3 thatjantodayyetnothashad/havesmoked Note,however,thatthisisnotaminimalpair.Schijnencannotbeembeddedunder functionalhave(cf.alsowurmbrand2002): (34) *datjanvandaagnietheeftgeschenen/schijnenteroken. ThatJantodaynothasseemed/seemtosmoke References Barbiers,S.,H.Bennis,G.DeVogelaer,M.Devos&M.vanderHam(2005).SyntacticAtlas ofthedutchdialects.volume1.amsterdam:amsterdamuniversitypress. Barbiers,S.,O.Koeneman&M.Lekakou(2008). PerfectDoubling.TalkpresentedatTIN dag,utrechtuniversity,2february2008. Broekhuis,H.&L.Cornips(1994). Undativeconstructions.Linguistics32: Cornips,L.(1994).SyntactischevariatieinhetAlgemeenNederlandsvanHeerlen.PhD Dissertation,UniversityofAmsterdam. Cornu,M.(1953).Lesformessurcomposéesenfrançcais.Bern:Francke. Carruthers,J.(1994). Thepassésurcomposérégional:towardsadefinitionofitsfunctionin contemporaryspokenfrench.journaloffrenchlanguagestudies4: Duinhoven,A.(1997).Middel nederlandsesyntaxis:syhchroonendiachroon.groningen: MartinusNijhoff. Haegeman,L.(1990). ThesyntaxofmotionalgoaninWestFlemish.InR.Bok Bennema& P.Coompans(eds.),LinguisticsintheNetherlands,81 90.Dordrecht:Foris. Kayne,R.(1994). Towardsamodulartheoryofauxiliaryselection.StudiaLinguistica47:3 31. McFaddenT.&A.Alexiadou(toappear). Perfects,resultativesandauxiliariesinEarly English.LinguisticInquiry. Paesani,K.(2001).SyntaxandsemanticsofthepassésurcomposéinModernFrench.PhD Dissertation,IndianaUniversity. Poletto,C.(2009). Doubleauxiliaries,anteriorityandterminativity.JournalofComparative GermanicLinguistics12: vanriemsdijk,h.(2002). TheunbearablelightnessofGOing.JournalofComparative GermanicLinguistics5: Selkirk,E.(1986). Onderiveddomainsinsentencephonology.PholonogyYearbook3: Schaden,G.(2007).LasémantiqueduParfait.Etudedes tempscompsosés dansunchoix de langues germaniques et romanes. PhD dissertation, University Paris 8. ouvertes.fr/tel /en/ 11

12 Schütze,C.(2004). SynchronicanddiachronicmicrovariationinEnglishdo.Lingua114: Wurmbrand,S.(2002). Twotypesofrestructuring lexicalvs.functional.lingua114:

1 The structure of this exercise

CAS LX 522 Syntax I Fall 2013 Extra credit: Trees are easy to draw Due by Thu Dec 19 1 The structure of this exercise Sentences like (1) have had a long history of being pains in the neck. Let s see why,