On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules *

1. Introduction

On a descriptive plane this paper deals with an anti-root rule in Swedish (Ha deletion) and its German counterpart (Haben/Sein Deletion) and with the ordering of Wh-Movement and Subject Aux Inversion in English, which is commonly assumed to be 1. Wh-Movement 2. Subject AUX Inversion. It can be shown that the apparently extrinsic ordering of the English rules is a natural consequence of the theory, given the appropriate assumptions, and will be imposed only in those contexts where the subject is preposed by Wh-Movement. It can also be shown that the theory is able to predict that under certain conditions the output of grammars defined by the theory will exhibit anti-root phenomena - for instance the deletion phenomena referred to above -, which happen to be special cases of a larger set of phenomena brought about by the interaction of root transformations and specified deletion rules. This, again, given the appropriate assumptions.

The exposition of the argument will be in two steps. First the formal properties of root transformations will be established on the basis of data from Dutch and German (section 3.). The pertinent section, which is a paper in itself, will also briefly deal with root phenomena in French (subsection 3.4.), whereas subsection 3.5. will present a revision of Emonds's division of English root phenomena in the light of the preceding discussion. In section 4. the resulting analysis will be applied to the anti-root phenomena from German and Swedish mentioned above. The solution for the German case of Haben/Sein Deletion is based upon the Counterdeletive Ordering Principle (CDOP) which is independently motivated (Den Besten 1975). The combined insights gained from German and Dutch suffice as an indication for the solution of the Swedish case of Ha Deletion, which is less simple than its German counterpart. The general tenor of this paper will be that anti-root

phenomena result from an interaction between Verb Second (a root transformation) and the relevant auxiliary deletion rules. The theory of applicational domains (Williams 1974) has an important role to play here. However, it is possible to develop an explanation which goes beyond simply stating the applicational domains for the pertinent rules. The theory of applicational domains can be given a stronger footing by predicting the applicational domain of a rule on the basis of the relevant terms mentioned in its structural index by means of a condition called the Base-Generability Principle. This principle seems to be tacitly assumed in Williams (1974) and it will be shown in section 5. that it predicts an ordering between Wh-Movement and Subject Aux Inversion for exactly that subset of English interrogatives which linguists normally assume needs that ordering. This result serves as independent evidence for the principle at hand. Thus, while at a descriptive level this paper addresses some problems in the description of German, Swedish and English, at a more general plane this paper deals with the definition of root transformations (Emonds 1976) and the theory of applicational domains (Williams 1974).

2. Setting the problem

Edmond's notion of root transformations can be brought under attack from two sides, I think. Root transformations are supposed to operate on so-called root sentences (Emonds 1976). So a possible critique could be that rules that are regarded as root transformations do operate in subordinate clauses too. Furthermore Emonds's Structure Preserving Hypothesis (Emonds 1976) implies that there are no rules that are by definition confined to embedded clauses. So one could show that such rules do exist.

The first line of attack is followed by Hooper and Thompson (1973). They claim that the emphatic root transformations are applicable in Ss that are asserted, whether these Ss are subordinate clauses or root sentences. Their claim is substantiated with a wealth of examples where root phenomena show up in subordinate clauses. It does not necessarily follow, though, that Emonds is wrong in stating that root transformations apply to root sentences only. The data Hooper and Thompson present can be interpreted either way: Instead of taking these data as an indication to the effect that Emonds's position is untenable, one might turn the argument around and conclude from the fact that speakers of English accept subordinate clauses with root phenomena only if these clauses are asserted, that these clauses do not belong to the central parts - or core (cf. Chomsky 1976b) - of English grammar and that the

conditions Hooper and Thompson specify define contexts where subordinate clauses or the S-parts of them may be redefined or reanalyzed as root sentences. I hesitate between reanalysis of S̄ or reanalysis of S, although I think it should be reanalysis of S. Hooper and Thompson did not consider the question of whether it is of any relevance that root sentences do not exhibit a phonological COMP, whereas these root constructions in subordinates are preceded by complementizers. 1 This is understandable, since their approach basically is an informal one. The observation that surface sequences of simple declarative root sentences without root phenomena are identical to the surface sequences of corresponding subordinate Ss should cause some caution, as should the observation that a language like Dutch with its drastic distinction between root word order and subordinate word order 2 does not apply any root transformation to subordinate clauses. 3 The same holds for

German. 4 These data about English, Dutch and German may be viewed as pure accidents, quirks of Mother Language, that do not deserve any further attention. But another interpretation might be that in general root phenomena do not occur in subordinate clauses, which is in accordance

with the definition of root transformations. From that point of view, Dutch and German represent the unmarked case of languages defined by the theory. English on the other hand will be the marked case with root phenomena in subordinate clauses. However the occurrence of root phenomena in subordinate clauses is facilitated by the fact that subordinate Ss do not differ from root S̄s in word order, provided no root movement transformation has applied to the root S̄s. This interpretation of Hooper and Thompson's data may be viewed as an elaboration of Chomsky's idea of grammars as consisting of a core, a central part defined by and in accordance with the theory, and in periphery (Chomsky 1976b, class lectures fall 1976). A confirmation is found in the fact that subordinate clauses do not freely allow root phenomena. Peripheral rules do not, though, have to yield bad results under all circumstances. Hooper and Thompsons's paper contradicts that. Peripheral sentences are acceptable depending upon the context. Nevertheless, it is possible that Hooper and Thompson's data are counterexamples to Emonds's hypothesis of root transformations as rules that apply to root sentences only. But mere data never decide a theoretical debate. Chomsky (1976b) has put it this way that unanalyzed data cannot be counterexamples. True though that may be, I would like to stress that it is also possible that a theory needs to be more precisely articulated before it can be tested. And that will be the avenue I follow in this paper. I will not pay attention to Hooper and Thompson (1973) anymore, but I would like to point out in advance that given the formulation for a large set of root transformations I propose in this paper it is doubtful whether the data Hooper and Thompson present could ever serve as counterexamples to the theory.

More interesting is the criticism of Emonds which one can deduce from the case presented by Andersson and Dahl (1974). Their squib contains the following sentences ((6)-(9) in their numbering), to which I add glosses instead of the original translations in order to facilitate the perception of what is going on syntactically:

(1)

Nixon sade/säger att han redan på ett tidigt stadium

Nixon said/says that he already at an early stage

hade insett att han måste förstöra banden

had realized that he had-to destroy tapes-the

(2)

Nixon sade/säger att han redan på ett tidigt stadium

insett att han måste förstöra banden

(3)

Han hade insett på ett tidigt stadium att han måste förstöra banden

He had realized at an early stage that he had-to destroy tapes-the

(4)

*Han insett på ett tidigt stadium att han måste förstöra banden

What happens in these sentences is the following. There is an optional rule in Swedish that deletes the auxiliary ha (have) in subordinate clauses only. That is why sentence (4) is ungrammatical. Andersson and Dahl present their sentences as counterexamples to the Penthouse Principle of Ross (1973). But it is clear that these are counterexamples to Emonds's theory as well. This does not come as a surprise, since Ross formulates a theory of upper clause and lower clause syntactic processes which is a weakened version of the theory of the distinction between root and nonroot rules. 5

To the Swedish examples I add a similar case from German. In German an archaic rule can be found that deletes the auxiliaries haben and sein (both = ‘have’) in subordinate clauses only:

(5)

--, weil er gelacht (hat) (hat: 3rd p. sing., pres. tense

--, because he laughed (has) of haben)

(6)

Er *(hat) gelacht

He *(has) laughed

(7)

--, ob er gekommen (ist) (ist: 3rd p. sing., pres. tense

--, whether he come (has) of sein)

(8)

*(Ist) er gekommen?

*(Has) he come

Although the solution for the German case seems to be relatively straightforward, the solution for its Swedish counterpart is not. One might want to say that in German there is an ordering 1. Verb Preposing (root transformation) 2. Haben/sein Deletion (nonroot) such that Verb Preposing bleeds the deletion rule. 6 And one might want to propose a similar ordering 1. Verb Preposing 2. Ha Deletion for Swedish. This proposal does not suffice, though, to explain the inapplicability of Ha Deletion to main clauses. Whether or not Verb Proposing is applied to (3) and (4), ha is still to the left of the participle which happens to be the trigger for the relevant deletion rule:

(9)

X - ha - PART - Y → 1,Ø,3,4

I would like to show that contrary to what one might expect the pertinent rule ordering does suffice given the proper formulation of transforma-

tions in terms of domains. This will be done in section 4. The definition of the applicational domain of Verb Proposing and other root transformations as well as other properties of root transformations will be extensively discussed in section 3. Furthermore, it will be shown, also in section 4., that the rule orderings proposed for German and Swedish follow from a general ordering principle. Thus, a theory which encompasses the root - nonroot distinction plus a number of general theoretical principles can predict how under the proper circumstances languages may present us with anti-root phenomena.

3. Defining root transformations

3.1. Introduction: Two sets of root transformations

Emonds contends (Emonds 1976: II.8) that all the root transformations that front phrasal constituents without inducing comma intonation are substitutions for the sentence-initial COMP node, following a suggestion by Higgins (1973). Similar ideas can be found in Koster (1975a) and Den Besten (1975). And last but not least, the same idea is expressed in Williams (1974), ch. 4, section 2. However, this author notes some problems. I shall return to that later. Den Besten (1975) and Williams agree in that both assume that the Verb Proposing rules of Dutch (and German) and English move a finite verb into COMP, just like other root transformations. This assumption is in apparent contradiction with the general assumption that there is only one root transformation per sentence. I would not say that this conflict is a real problem. Observationally speaking the assumption that there is only one root transformation per sentence is wrong, as can be concluded from the following examples:

(10)

Never have I been in Cockaigne

(11)

Dit boek heb ik aan mijn moeder gegeven

This book have I to my mother given

In (10) both Negated Constituent Preposing and Subject AUX Inversion (SAI) are applied. Something similar happens in the Dutch example (11). There Topicalization and Verb Proposing 7 are applied. Yet it is clear

that those who assume that there is only one root transformation per sentence are on the right track. This idea merely needs a slight reformulation: There are two sets of root preposings, one set with only one member, i.e. Verb Preposing (or SAI in the case of English), and one set with all other root preposings. Per sentence and per set only one rule may be chosen. Thus there are four possibilities: No rule is chosen at all; SAI is applied and no rule is chosen from the set of other preposings; SAI is not applied and one rule is chosen from the other set; both SAI and another preposing are applied. These four options are exemplified in (12) through (15):

(12) He will not come

(13) Is he coming?

(14) Here he comes

(15) Only on weekends do I see her

Languages are free in choosing their options. Substituting Verb Proposing for SAI we may say that Dutch does not use the first option at all and relies heavily upon the fourth one. The second option is used for unmarked yes/no-questions and the third one for a declarative construction that is stylistically marked. Compare (16):

(16)

Gelachen dat we hebben

Laughed that we have

Other languages may follow different strategies. 8 The situation is complicated by the fact that an application of the cyclic rule of Wh-Movement to a root sentence counts as the application of a member of the second set of root transformations. One can draw different conclusions from that observation. Higgins (1973) and Emonds (1976) claim that this observation implies that root transformations move a constituent into the same position as does Wh-Movement. 9 Alternatively one might want to retain a sharp distinction between root transformations and cyclic rules and therefore one might want to deny that an application of Wh-Movement to a root sentence counts as an application of a root preposing transforma-

tion. In that case the observations that underly this assumption may be reanalyzed as follows: It is not true that English yes/no-questions are defined by the second option (SAI only) and English interrogatives by the fourth option (SAI plus Wh-Movement which becomes a root transformation in root sentences). Both yes/no-questions and interrogatives are defined by the second option (SAI only). This means that both types of questions are regarded as root variations on sentences with an initial WH-complementizer that have been processed by the relevant cyclic rules. One of these rules is Wh-Movement and so yes/no-questions are root variants of clauses introduced by whether and interrogatives are root variants of Wh-clauses. Echo questions, then, have to be regarded as intonational variants of declaratives. Something similar can be said about Dutch: All questions are defined in terms of the second option (Verb Preposing only) and special questions (i.e. echo questions and questions which the speaker expects to be answered positively) are supposed to be intonational variants of declaratives and so to be defined in terms of the fourth option (Verb Preposing plus another root rule). 10 Since an echo question can echo a preceding sentence that involves Topicalization, it is possible in Dutch to have Verb Preposing plus Topicalization in an echo question (compare Koster (1975a)):

(17)

Dat boek had u gelezen, zei u?

That book had you read, said you

(18)

Karel mag je niet?

Charles like you not

And the following sentence, which is an echo question, does not involve Wh-Movement (cf. fn. 10) but only Topicalization:

(19)

De vrouw die met wie getrouwd is, ken je niet?

The woman who to whom married is know you not?

This hypothesis about sentence types is not incompatible with the position Higgins and Emonds take. But it is also compatible with the view I want to defend in this paper, namely that Complementizer Attraction Rules are adjunctions and not substitutions.

Before I turn to the touchy question of whether Complementizer Attraction Rules are adjunction rules or substitutions, I would like to establish whether it is possible to formulate all root transformations, and especially the fronting rules among them, as rules moving constituents to COMP. And it is also necessary to know whether there is any evidence in favor of such a description. The evidence will be taken from Dutch and German (section 3.2.). This will be generalized in section 3.3., which will also consider the question of the substitutive or adjunctive nature of Complementizer Attraction Rules.

3.2. Some data on root transformations in Dutch and German

3.2.1. Dutch

The description of Dutch (and German) root phenomena I will present below does not essentially differ from the description argued for in Den Besten (1975). Let us make the following assumptions: First, the grammar of Dutch contains the following base rule that has been taken over from Bresnan (1970 and 1972):

(20)

S̄ → COMP S

Second, elementary transformations are substitution, adjunction and deletion (and maybe permutation) and all transformations are defined in terms of these elementary transformations such that the maximal number of elementaries involved is two and such that any deletion elementary may be accompanied by a substitution or adjunction of the deletee elsewhere in the transformation without there being any other combination of elementaries.

Consider the following sentences:

(21)

a. --, of je broer nog komt

--, whether your brother yet comes

b. --, welk boek (of) hij wil lezen

--, which book (whether) he wants read

(22)

a. Komt je broer nog?

Comes your brother yet

b. Welk boek wil hij lezen?

Which book wants he read

Dutch happens to have an optional rule of Whether Deletion (Of Deletion) instead of its obligatory counterpart in English. Thus is evident that the verb preposings that relate (22)a and b to (21)a and b respectively can be described by one rule moving the finite verb towards the complementizer. After the movement of the verb into complementizer position the phonological representative of the complementizer will be deleted.

Now consider the following sentences:

(23)

--, dat ik dat boek niet gelezen heb

--, that I that book not read have

(24)

a. Ik heb dat boek niet gelezen

I have that book not read

b. Dat boek heb ik niet gelezen

That book have I not read

c. Gelezen heb ik dat boek niet

Read have I that book not

All of the examples in (24) are related to (23). Now, we do not have to devise a separate verb preposing rule to account for that. The same rule that can account for the position of the finite verb in yes/no-questions and interrogatives, i.e. in (22)a and b respectively, can also be used to derive the examples in (24). In that case we have to assume that the elements to the left of heb in (24)a-c, namely ik, dat boek and gelezen respectively, have been preposed by a rule which is similar in effect to Wh-Movement. That Topicalization moves dat boek and gelezen into COMP position will be uncontroversial. However the assumption that also the Subject phrase ik - which is in some sort of first position in (23), i.e. the first position of S - moves into a new first position, i.e. the first position of S̄, will be less evident, witness the way linguists sometimes speak of Verb Preposing as being a Verb Second rule which puts the finite verb in second position, no matter where that second position is. 11

Nevertheless, it is clear that - if one does not want to prepose the Subject in (24)a - a special verb preposing rule Verb Second will be needed which adjoins the finite verb to whatever constituent happens to be in first position in the declarative sentence. The two verb preposing rules would be incomparable in formulation. On the other hand the description I favor involves only one Verb Preposing rule and therefore requires one extra rule of Subject Preposing (or maybe First Constituent Preposing) which is comparable in formalization to a rule like Topicalization so that it is possible to collapse Subject Preposing and Topicalization into one rule: Constituent Preposing.

The argumentation I have given above is rather formal, but there is some evidence in favor of the idea that Verb Preposing moves the finite verb towards the complementizer both in declaratives and in questions. This evidence involves certain descriptive advantages that follow from the uniform formalization of Verb Preposing as a Complementizer Attraction Rule. This evidence is neutral as regards the proper description of (24)a but that does not bother me, since the superiority of a grammar of Dutch that accounts for all verb preposings by means of one rule that moves the finite verb from a VP-final position (compare (21) and (23)) to one specified position in COMP, is evident.

Dutch possesses two sets of Subject pronouns: a set of strong pronouns which contains i.a. jij ‘you’, hij ‘he’, zij ‘she’ and wij ‘we’ and a set of weak pronouns which contains i.a. je ‘you’, hij/ie ‘he’, ze ‘she’ and we ‘we’ (the e's represent shwas). The weak pronouns have to be adjacent to the COMP, as can be learned from (25):

(25)

a. --, dat je/ze gisteren ziek was

--, that you/she yesterday ill were/was

b. *--, dat gisteren je/ze ziek was

--, that yesterday you/she ill were/was

Strong pronouns on the other hand behave like nonpronominal NPs in that they may be seperated from the complementizer by a suitable adverb, as can be seen in (26) and (27):

(26)

a. --, dat jij/zij gisteren ziek was

--, that you/she yesterday ill were/was

b. --, dat gisteren jij/zij ziek was

--, that yesterday you/she ill were/was

(27)

a. --, dat mijn oom gisteren ziek was

--, that my uncle yesterday ill was

b. --, dat gisteren mijn oom ziek was

--, that yesterday my uncle ill was

A description that moves the finite verb into complementizer position by means of a root transformation predicts that weak Subject pronouns in Dutch are obligatorily adjacent to the verb in yes/no-questions (see (28)), in interrogatives with a nonsubject in first position (see (29)) and in declaratives with a nonsubject in first position (see (30)). It is predicted as well that strong Subject pronouns and nonpronominal Subject-NPs may be seperated from the verb in yes/no-questions (see (31) and (32)), in interrogatives with a nonsubject in first position (see (33) and (34)) and in declaratives with a nonsubject in first position (see (35) and (36)). These predictions are confirmed by the following examples:

(28)

a. Was ze gisteren ziek

Was she yesterday ill

b. *Was gisteren ze ziek?

(29)

a. Waarom was ze gisteren ziek?

Why was she yesterday ill

b. *Waarom was gisteren ze ziek?

(30)

a. Toch was ze gisteren ziek

Yet was she yesterday ill

b. *Toch was gisteren ze ziek

(31)

a. Was zij gisteren ziek?

Was she yesterday ill

b. Was gisteren zij ziek?

(32)

a. Was je oom gisteren ziek?

Was your uncle yesterday ill

b. Was gisteren je oom ziek?

(33)

a. Waarom was zij gisteren ziek?

Why was she yesterday ill

b. Waarom was gisteren zij ziek?

(34)

a. Waarom was je oom gisteren ziek?

Why was your uncle yesterday ill

b. Waarom was gisteren je oom ziek?

(35)

a. Toch was zij gisteren ziek

Yet was she yesterday ill

b. Toch was gisteren zij ziek

(36)

a. Toch was mijn oom gisteren ziek

Yet was my uncle yesterday ill

b. Toch was gisteren mijn oom ziek

Given the state of affairs observed it does not come as a surprise that additional minor facts about weak pronouns hold both for the position adjacent to the COMP in subordinate clauses and for the position adjacent to the finite verb in main clauses. Consider the following sentences where hij stands for the weak pronoun and HIJ for the strong one:

(37)

a. *--, dat hij niet kan komen

--, that he not can come

b. --, dat ie niet kan komen

c. --, dat HIJ niet kan komen

(38)

a. Hij wil niet komen

He wants not come

b. *Ie wil niet komen

HIJ wil niet komen

It is clear that the strong pronoun HIJ may occur both to the right of a complementizer in subordinate clauses and to the left of the finite verb in main clauses. The weak pronouns hij and ie however are in complementary distribution: Hij occurs to the left of the finite verb in root sentences and ie to the right of the complementizer in subordinate clauses. Given what we have seen above we can expect that ie and not hij can occur to the right of the preposed verb in main clauses, which is the case indeed:

(39)

a. *Daarom wil hij niet komen

Therefore wants he not come

b. Daarom wil ie niet komen

The last phenomenon I want to deal with concerns two of the many different pronouns er in Dutch that roughly translate as there. 12 The constellation of facts I want to consider is somewhat more complicated than in the case of hij vs ie. First consider the er of Dutch There Insertion. This pronoun counts as a weak pronoun and so has to be adjacent to the complementizer or the preposed finite verb:

(40)

a. --, dat er gisteren al veel gasten vertrokken zijn

--, that there yesterday already many guests left have

b. *--, dat gisteren er al veel gasten vertrokken zijn

(41)

a. Daarom zijn er gisteren al veel gasten vertrokken

Therefore have there yesterday already many guests left

b. *Daarom zijn gisteren er al veel gasten vertrokken

These facts are not surprising. Now consider the usage of the so-called quantitative er. This er has to cooccur with a NP which is empty but for its QP. 13 Compare the following sentences:

(42)

a. --, dat hij er tien heeft gekocht

--, that he there ten has bought

b. *--, dat hij tien heeft gekocht

--, that he ten has bought

(43)

a. --, dat het er negen zijn

--, that it there nine are

b. *--, dat het negen zijn

Now these quantified empty NPs can be Subjects too. But since they are indefinite and unspecific we may expect them to cooccur not only with quantitative er but also with the er of There Insertion, i.e. we expect quantified, empty Subject-NPs to move to the right. And that they do, witness (44):

(44)

a. Er waren er gisteren nog vijftien over

There were there yesterday still fifteen left

b. *Er waren gisteren nog vijftien over

It is not possible to demonstrate the cooccurrence of quantitative er and the er of There Insertion with an example of a subordinate clause, witnesss (45):

(45)

a. *--, dat er er gisteren nog vijftien over waren

--, that there there yesterday still fifteen left were

b. --, dat er gisteren nog vijftien over waren

Yet, we have to conclude from a comparison of (44) and (45) that there have been two ers underlyingly in (45) that have been collapsed by a rule of

Er-er Contraction. 14 It is important to note that the two ers may not be separated by an adverb, so that there is no way to force these pronouns to show up in a subordinate clause:

(46)

*--, dat er gisteren er nog vijftien over waren

Consequently it is not possible to construct a variant of (44)a where gisteren shows up between the finite verb and quantitative er:

(47)

*Er waren gisteren er nog vijftien over

Thus we may conclude that in a clause which contains both quantitative er and the er of There Insertion the latter has to be adjacent to the complementizer and the first to the latter. This sequence of elements will invoke Er-er Contraction, unless the Subject pronoun is preposed into COMP. And so, given the description of root sentences presented above, it is predicted that the two ers contract immediately to the right of the preposed verb in yes/no-questions (see (48)), in interrogatives with a nonsubject in first position (see (49)) and in declaratives with a nonsubject in first position (see (50)). These predictions are confirmed.

(48)

a. *Waren er er gisteren nog vijftien over?

Were there there yesterday still fifteen left

b. Waren er gisteren nog vijftien over?

(49)

a. *Hoeveel dagen geleden waren er er nog vijftien over?

How many days ago were there there still fifteen left

b. Hoeveel dagen geleden waren er nog vijftien over?

(50)

a. *Volgens mij waren er er gisteren nog vijftien over

According to me were there there yesterday still fifteen left

b. Volgens mij waren er gisteren nog vijftien over

This concludes my discussion of Dutch root sentences. I have proposed a description which involves one Verb Preposing rule that moves the finite verb to the complementizer in root sentences plus two or one root transformations transferring a constituent into the leftmost position inside COMP. The latter rules are comparable to the cyclic rule of Wh-Movement

that also moves a constituent, the wh-phrase, into the leftmost position inside COMP (see again (21)b and (22)b). Pending a discussion about the substitutive or adjunctive nature of Complementizer Attraction Rules there are two ways to formalize these rules. A substitution solution assumes the following base rules: 15

Wh-Movement and the root transformations of the second set (see above) substitute the preposee for X̿. Verb Preposing substitutes the finite verb for the V inside C̅O̅M̅P̅. 16 On the other hand an adjunction solution will formalize Wh-Movement, Constituent Preposing and Verb Preposing as follows:

(54)

Wh-Movement

(55)

Constituent Preposing 17

(56)

Verb Preposing

It is not clear whether the features employed in (54) and (55) are necessary. Envisageable is a filter mechanism as proposed in Chomsky (1973). It is tempting to collapse Wh-Movement and Constituent Preposing in view of the complementarity of their formalizations (however see n. 17) but that cannot be right because Wh-Movement is a cyclic rule and Constituent Preposing is a root transformation. Thus, their applicability conditions differ accordingly. Wh-Movement may ‘violate’ Subjacency, the Subject Condition and the Propositional Island Constraint (Tensed S Condition), whereas Constituent Preposing may not. 18 Compare (57) with the next examples:

(57)

a. Wie heeft Jan gezien?

Whom has John seen

b. Wie zei je, dat Jan gezien had?

Whom said you that John seen had

(58)

a. Jan heeft ie gezien

John has he seen

b. *Jan zei Piet, dat hij had gezien

John said Pete that he had seen

(59)

a. Gelachen heeft ie niet

Laughed has he not

b. *Gelachen zei Piet, dat hij niet had

Laughed said Pete that he not had

I return to this in the next subsection. But these observations suffice as an argument against collapsing Wh-Movement and Constituent Preposing in whatever form. Of course the transformations (54)-(56) are complemented by the following base rules:

(60) S̄ → COMP S

(61) COMP → ± wh

Furthermore, my description presupposes that under either description, whether substitutive or adjunctive in nature, root constructions are defined in terms of applications of the relevant root transformations. I refer to the pertinent remarks in subsection 3.1. above. Root constructions are defined upon those structures that are defined in terms of base rule and cyclic rules themselves. Questions are brought about by the application of Verb Preposing to structures with an underlying initial Q-complementizer.- This is the unmarked case. Declaratives are brought about by application of Verb Preposing and Constituent Preposing to structures with an underlying dat-complementizer. This, again, is the unmarked case. Echo questions, which constitute one set of marked questions, are intonational variants of unmarked declaratives.

This approach has the advantage that we can easily generate marked root constructions. Ideally, there are three marked variants for declarative sentences: Either one of the two root preposing rules is not applied or both rules are not applied. Questions would have only one variant: nonapplication of Verb Preposing. Above I have presented one example of a marked declarative: a Topicalization structure to which Verb Preposing has not applied. Here are some other examples:

(62)

a. Gelachen dat we hebben (i.e. (16))

Laughed that we have

b. Lang dat ie is

Tall that he is

c. Een platen dat ie heeft

A records that he has

‘So many records he has’

The pertinent structure is used in order to express one's indignation, surprise, or whatever, about the quantity or quality of something.

Another marked declarative would be a structure to which Constituent Preposing does not apply, unlike Verb Preposing which does apply. Examples of such a structure can be easily found in Dutch. The pertinent structure is used for several purposes. First of all, there is a narrative style in Dutch, mainly in the spoken language, I think, which makes use of verb initial declaratives:

(63)

Ging ik laatst naar De Swart. Raakte ik aan de praat met

Went I to De Swart's. Got I into a chat with

die advokaat, die dronkelap.

that lawyer, that alcoholic

Such sentences are extremely effective as an opening for a story. Yet similar sentences have special functions in more formal language, if combined with another independent clause of the immarked type. For instance, a verb initial declarative followed by an unmarked declarative constitutes a minimal text that expresses some sort of opposition:

(64)

a. Was de vorige lezing al moeilijk, van dit verhaal zul

Was the last lecture already difficult of this talk will

je helemaal niets meer begrijpen.

you totally nothing anymore understand

b. Stortte Jan zich in de muziek, Aukje was

Threw John himself into music, Aukje was

helemaal wild van poëzie

completely crazy about poetry

And my guess is that the so-called conditional clauses to which Verb Preposing is applied are verb initial declaratives (see n. 3).

Although there are all sorts of that-clauses that are independently used, I hesitate to call them marked declaratives to which no root transformation has applied at all. On the other hand the case of marked questions that are defined by nonapplication of Verb Preposing seems to me to be attested. Such sentences, that are pronounced with question intonation, express the dubitative:

(65)

a. Gewoonlijk is hij niet te laat. Maar of hij vandaag nog

Usually is he not late. But whether he today yet

komt? (Dat weet ik niet/Daar ben ik niet zeker van.)

comes. (That know I not/There am I not sure about.)

b. Er is suiker in de erwtensoep gedaan.

There has-been sugar in the peasoup put.

Maar wie (of) het gedaan heeft? (Ik heb geen

But who (whether) it done has. (I have no

idee/Ik zou het niet weten.)

idea/I would it not know.)

My main reason for calling these sentences marked questions derives from the fact that these structures do not need the tags I have added within parentheses, which is in accordance with the fact that not all of these tags are possible main clauses, witness (66):

(66)

*Wie (of) het gedaan heeft, heb ik geen idee.

Who (whether) it done has, have I no idea

whereas all of these tags are possible independent sentences. This counterweighs the observations that several of these tags could be main clauses of left dislocation structures like in (67):

(67)

Of hij vandaag nog komt, dat weet ik niet

However, the of-clause in (67) does not need a question intonation. 19

As I mentioned above, a description which defines sentence types in terms of application viz. nonapplication of root transformations, is useful both for the substitutive and for the adjunctive approach of root phenomena. Nothing follows as far as the substitution solution is concerned. The theory requires that X̿ and V not be generated in the base in the case that they are not filled during the transformational derivation, otherwise the pertinent derivations are filtered out. That is why X̿ and V are optional daughters of C̅O̅M̅P̅ (compare (52)). On the other hand there is an important consequence for the adjunctive approach. A description which decides which transformations define which root structures enables us to set an upper bound for the number of complementizer attraction transformations that are applied to one clause. This description will restrict the number of root transformations to two or less, and will tell us which combinations of root transformations are allowed. Thus the transformational component plus the relevant stipulations about (non)-applications of root rules has the same filter function as does base rule (52) of the substitutive approach. There will be no double Topicalization, for instance. It cannot be denied, though, that the adjunctive approach does not explain why the actual combinations are chosen and why there are no combinations like double Constituent Preposing or double Constituent Preposing plus Verb Preposing. This problem is a very important question, which I cannot answer. This question cannot be used against the adjunctive approach, however, because the same question applies to base rule (52) of the substitutive approach: Why that rule and not another one?

3.2.2. Some additional data about German

After this long excursus about Dutch I have relatively little to say about German. I assume that a description similar to the one proposed for Dutch can be applied to German. German word order is by no means equivalent to Dutch word order, but there are similarities: German is a SOV-language which moves the finite verb to first or second position in root sentences. Yes/no-questions are verb first sentences: interrogatives and declaratives put the verb in second position. All other verbs stay in VP-final position. I have not studied German marked root structures in great detail, but I do know that dubitative questions without Verb Preposing (compare the

Dutch examples in (65)) are frequently used. 20 German does not retain the Q-complementizer ob in wh-clauses (compare (68)), but that does not have to prevent us from assuming that basically in German the same root transformations are used as in Dutch, namely Constituent Preposing and Verb Preposing (compare (55) and (56)), and that there too the complementizer is involved.

(68)

--, warum (*ob) er das geschrieben hat

--, why (*whether) het that written has

(In fact, combinations like warum daβ ‘why that’ instead of *warum ob are known from substandard German.) And also in German the syntax of weak pronouns confirms the description proposed.

The sets of German weak and strong pronouns are nearly overlapping. The strong set contains i.a. ich (I), du ‘you (sing.)’, er ‘he;’, sie ‘she’, das ‘that’, wir ‘we’, all of them being nominative, and mir ‘me (dat.)’, dir ‘you (sing., dat)’, dich ‘you (sing., acc.)’, ihm ‘him, (dat.)’., ihn ‘him, (acc.)’. The weak set contains the same forms but adds es ‘it’ and leaves out das. There are some enclitic forms, but they do not concern us here. Weak Subject pronouns must be adjacent to COMP. In this respect there is no difference between German and Dutch. But these languages do differ in the way they deal with weak object pronouns. In Dutch weak Object pronouns have to be adjacent to the subject NP, whether that NP is nominal or pronominal:

(69)

a. *--, dat Karel zonder enig probleem het kon oplossen

--, that Charles without any problem it could solve

--, dat Karel het zonder enig probleem kon oplossen

(70)

*--, dat ie zonder enig probleem het kon oplossen

--, that he without any problem it could solve

--, dat ie het zonder enig probleem kon oplossen

In German weak Object pronouns have to be adjacent to the Subject NP, if that NP is a weak pronoun itself. If the Subject contains a noun or a strong pronoun, however, weak Object pronouns preferably occur immediately to the right of the complementizer:

(71)

a. --, daβ ihm Karl ein Buch geschenkt hat

--, that to-him Charles a book given has

b. --, daβ Karl ihm ein Buch geschenkt hat

(72)

a. --, ob es Karl dem Johann geschenkt hat

--, whether it Charles to-John given has

b. --, ob Karl es dem Johann geschenkt hat

(73)

a. --, daβ es ihm der Johann schon gesagt hat

-- that it to-him John already said has

b. --, daβ der Johann es ihm schon gesagt hat

(74)

a. --, daβ sich einst die Intellektuellen mit der

--, that themselves once the intellectuals with the

Armee vereinen werden

army unite will

b. --, daβ einst die Intellektuellen sich mit der Armee vereinen

werden

It does not come as a surprise that in German yes/no-questions, in German interrogatives with a nonsubject in first position and in German declaratives with a nonsubject in first position weak Object pronouns have to be adjacent to the Subject or to the preposed verb. This is what is predicted by a description that puts the preposed verb in complementizer position:

(75)

a. Werden sich diese Leute verteidigen oder nicht?

Will themselves these people defend or not?

b. Werden diese Leute sich verteidigen oder nicht?

(76)

a. Warum würden sich die Intellektuellen mit der

Why would themselves the intellectuals with the

Armee vereinen?

army unite?

b. Warum würden die Intellektuellen sich mit der Armee vereinen?

(77)

a. Gestern hat ihm Karl ein Buch geschenkt

Yesterday has to-him Charles a book given

b. Gestern hat Karl ihm ein Buch geschenkt

(78)

a. Gestern hat es ihm der Johann schon gesagt

Yesterday has it to-him John already said

b. Gestern hat der Johann es ihm schon gesagt

Finally, there is one little fact about the behaviour of the weak, indefinite Subject pronoun es which generally translates with there, because it is the German counterpart of the there of There Insertion in English. Compare the following example:

(79)

Es standen zwei Baume im Garten

There stood two trees in-the garden

This es is also used in impersonal passives:

(80)

Es wurde gelacht im Ratskeller

There was laughed in-the rathskeller

This es is probably the same as the expletive es used in passive structures like the following one:

(81)

Es wurde behauptet, daβ der Strauβ ein Faschist sei

There was contended that Strauβ a fascist is (conj.)

For ease of reference I have called the es of sentence (79)-(81) the indefinite es. It must be distinguished from the definite pronoun es (in (82)) and weather-es (in (83)):

(82)

Es ist eigentlich idiotisch (also: Das ist…)

It is actually idiotic

(83)

Es hat wieder gehagelt

It has again hailed

For ease of reference I subsume both definite (referential) es and weather-es under the name ‘definite es’.

Syntactically, definite and indefinite es behave differently. Indefinite es deletes, if it is preceded by a complementizer, which is the usual word order in subordinate clauses, because es is a weak pronoun (compare (84)). Definite es in the same position does not delete (compare (85)):

(84)

a. --, dass (*es) voriges Jahr noch zwei Bäume im

--, that (*there) last year still two trees in-the

Garten standen

garden stood

b. --, ob (*es) im Ratskeller gelacht wurde

--, whether (*there) in-the rathskeller laughed was

c. --, daβ (*es) behauptet worden ist, daβ der Strauβ

--, that (*there) contended been has that Straus

ein Faschist wäre

a fascist was (conj.)

(85)

a. --, ob *(es) eigentlich nicht idiotisch wäre

--, whether *(it) actually not idiotic was (conj.)

b. --, daβ *(es) wieder gehagelt hat

--, that *(it) again hailed has

Of course it is predicted that indefinite es will delete in yes/no-questions, in interrogatives (indefinite es does not have a wh-form) and in declaratives with nonsubjects in first position, whereas definite es, when retained in its original Subject position in root sentences, will not delete. These predictions are confirmed:

(86)

a. Standen (*es) voriges Jahr noch zwei Bäume

Stood (*there) last year still two trees

im Garten?

in-the garden?

b. Wurde (*es) gelacht im Ratskeller?

Was (*there) laughed in-the rathskeller?

c. Wurde (*es) behauptet, daβ der Strauβ ein Faschist

Was (*there) contended that Strauβ a fascist

wäre?

was (conj.)

(87)

a. Ist *(es) idiotisch?

Is *(it) idiotic?

b. Hat *(es) gestern gehagelt?

Has *(it) yesterday hailed?

(88)

a. In welchem Garten standen (*es) voriges Jahr noch

In which garden stood (*there) last year still

zwei Bäume?

two trees?

b. Wo wurde (*es) gelacht?

Where was (*there) laughed?

c. In welchem Blatt wurde (*es) behauptet, daβ.

In which paper was (*there) contended that

der Strauβ ein Faschist wäre

Strauβ a fascist was (conj.)

(89)

a. Warum wäre *(es) idiotisch?

Why would-be *(it) idiotic?

b. Wann hat *(es) gehagelt?

When has *(it) hailed?

(90)

a. Voriges Jahr standen (*es) noch zwei Bäume in

Last year stood (*there) still two trees in

unserm Garten

our garden

b. Im Ratskeller wurde (*es) gelacht

In-the rathskeller was (*there) laughed

c. In irgendeinem sozialistischen Blatt wurde (*es)

In some socialist paper was (*there)

behauptet, daβ der Strauβ eigentlich ein Faschist wäre

contended that Strauβ actually a fascist was (conj.)

(91)

a. Meines Erachtens ist *(es) idiotisch

In my opinion is *(it) idiotic

b. Gestern has *(es) gehagelt

Yesterday has *(it) hailed

Thus we may conclude that the occurrence of indefinite es in sentence-initial position in declarative sentences, although being a root phenomenon, does not need a special root transformation for inserting it in front

of a preposed verb, 21 but can be generated via the interaction of Constituent Preposing, a root transformation that is independently motivated, and Es Deletion, a cyclic rule. 22 More will be said about the ordering of these rules in section 4.1.

3.2.3. Conclusion and questions

In sum: It has been shown that Dutch and German root phenomena can be described in terms of movement rules that transport constituents to COMP. Now one may wonder whether it is a mere accident that in the grammars of German and Dutch COMP is the landing site for preposing rules. Or, to put it this way, how can we constrain Grammar such that root transformations that prepose constituents will necessarily move such constituents into COMP? This is a valid question, since it is always possible to construct other grammars than the one proposed here that would account for the acts. One example of such a grammar is the one which I shortly talked about in the first paragraphs of this subsection, where I used it to contrast it with the grammar I wanted to propose. This grammar does not necessarily violate the conditions for root transformation of Emonds

(1976), ch. 1. 23 It needs all sorts of extra conditions for the pronoun rules I talked about, but that can be done. However, a simple evaluation will show that the grammar using COMP for root transformations is more highly valued than the grammar I am now talking about. So, it would be desirable to have a theory which enforces us to describe root preposing rules as Complementizer Attraction Rules.

3.3 The function of COMP in root transformations

Emonds (1976) defines root transformations as follows (p. 3):

(92)

root transformation: A transformation (or a transformational operation, in the case of a transformation performing several operations) that moves, copies or inserts a node C into a position in which C is immediately dominated by a root S in derived structure is a ‘root transformation’ (or a root transformational operation).

Suppose we regard English root preposings as substitutions of some constituent for COMP and SAI as a permutation of NP and AUX, immediately to the right of COMP. In that case condition (92) is fulfilled. However, it is also possible to regard SAI as another Complimentizer Attraction Rule and we have seen that Verb Preposing in Dutch and German has to be a Complementizer Attraction Rule. So, unless one wants to do some hocus-pocus by somehow substituting two preposees for one Complementizer, a base rule like (52) seems to be justified. And the definition of root transformations has to be changed accordingly. Therefore I propose the following definition:

(92)'

Root transformation: A transformation such that its landing site is immediately dominated by a root S or the COMP of that S.

Now Emonds (1976) contains two competing proposals for expanding Ss. The consequences of these proposals under definition (92)' are quite different. First consider the older proposal which is most frequently used for drawing trees in Emonds (1976):

(93)

S → COMP NP AUX VP (seep. 206)

Both definition (92) and definition (92)' allow a lot, if this is the base rule for expanding Ss in English. Let us assume that adjunction is defined as sister adjunction. In that case, although something would have to be done about the definition of landing site in (92)', nine different landing sites are possible: one to the left of COMP, three between the respective constituents, one to the right of VP, and the four constituents themselves. Furthermore, it is predicted that a root transformation raising a NP out of a complement towards the root Subject-NP, is a possible rule, which I think is wrong prediction. Of course, this can be countered by assuming that root transformations, structure-preserving rules and local transformations are properly seperated in that no rule of one set will exhibit features of rules belonging to the other sets. In that case noncyclic Complementizer Attraction Rules cannot be substitutions. If one wants to leave open the option of root substitutions this assumption will not do. Besides that the number of possible landing sites is too large. A first step to reduce their number would be assuming that adjunctions are defined as chomsky-adjunctions (following Chomsky 1975). In that case there are four possibe landing sites left: the four constituents of (93) themselves. However, VP does not seem to be a landing site. Root movements are concentrated around the front of a sentence, and Tag Formation, which might serve as an argument for calling VP a landing site of sorts, is certainly not a transformation. As for NP and AUX, only if SAI is defined as a permutation of NP and AUX would there be a reason for calling these constituents landing sites, albeit strange landing sites: there is no constituent to land at. Since a permutation formulation of SAI is not necessary, there is no reason for regarding NP, AUX and VP as landing sites at all. And we are left with the COMP. However it does not follow from either (92) or (92)' that COMP is the sole landing site, as long as we maintain base rule (93). Here Bresnan's proposal for describing the expansion of the S (Bresnan (1970) and (1972)), that is also considered by Emonds (1976), comes into play. We assume that S̄ is the initial category and is expanded as follows:

(94)

Now we are left with two root landing sites: COMP and S. I shall not go into the question of how S can be excluded as a possible landing site. S does not seem to be a cyclic landing site either. So, there will be independent reasons for excluding S.

The argument given above can also be found in Williams (1974), ch. 4, section 2 (introduction). Also Williams notes that base rule (93) makes many more positions available than does base rule (94)a. However he notes

some problems with Intraposition, a root transformation in Emonds (1970) substituting an extraposed S for the subject-NP. I shall come back to that later. Williams's statements about root transformations are embedded in a larger theory about applicational domains and rule ordering in syntax. His central thesis runs as follows:

(95)

Wherever in a language there is a phrasing internal to cyclic nodes, the transformations of that language can be partitioned and the partitions labeled with phrase nodes such that no rule that is a member of partition X ever need analyze material outside of phrase X, and for all partitions Y bigger than but including X, the rules of X are ordered before the rules of Y. (Williams (1974), ch. 1, 6.0.)

Williams accepts rule (94)a and (94)b. Thus Passive, which has to analyze a subject NP and so, is a S-rule, has to be ordered before Wh-Movement, which is a S̄-rule because it has to analyze COMP. Similarly, Dative, if that is a syntactic rule, will be ordered before Passive because it has to analyze material inside the VP. Principle (95) generalizes strict cyclicity for all rules inside one cycle. 24 In fact, ordering evidence of the sort that is required for (95) is scanty. Suppose Dative is an interchange of two NPs via double substitution. In that case, the ordering 1. Dative 2. Passive will not be one of necessity. Either ordering, Dative before Passive or Passive before Dative, will do. Since Dative is an optional rule and nonapplication of Object Preposing will cause the filtering out of the pertinent derivation, the former ordering will derive both (97)a and (97)b from (96), whereas the latter ordering yields (97)b:

(96) COMP [_s * PAST be + en give a book to John]

(97)

a. John was given a book

b. A book was given to John

Similarly, the ordering 1. Passive 2. Wh-Movement is not necessary if Passive and Wh-Movement do not analyze the same material. And if they do, general requirements for NP-movements, trace theory and the like, will enforce the ordering of Passive before Wh-Movement. Actually, the best argument in favor of (95) I know of is not discussed by Williams. I mean the ordering of Passive before SAI. A free ordering of these rules would also derive (98), an ungrammatical interrogative:

(98) *In which paper you have been criticized for your statemtents?

Trace theory cannot impose this order upon the pertinent rules. But even here general considerations about the definition of sentence types of the

kind I presented in the preceding subsection can destroy the evidence. So, there does not seem to be any independent evidence in favor of principle (95), but note that there is no clear counterevidence either. And since theoretical considerations of a different type can impose orderings where these are necessary, we might claim that maybe principle (95) is not an axiom of the theory but that it will be a theorem of the theory for those cases where an ordering is required in order to derive a specific sentence. Therefore I will not pay any attention anymore to problems of rule ordering. I will concentrate upon another aspect of subcyclic strict cyclicity, i.e. the relationship between domain statement and rule application. There is something to be gained from a closer look at the relationship between material analyzed by a rule and material involved in a transformation.

According to Williams all root transformations are S̄-rules and so have to analyze material at S̄-level. While discussing SAI he hits a little problem which he does not say very much about:

The only evidence we have given that SAI is an S̄ rule is that the statements of its affective environment includes the complementizer; nothing need be moved into or out of the complementizer. A stronger position may be taken - SAI actually moves the auxiliary into the complementizer - hence a structural change takes place at the S̄ level. (Williams (1974), ch. 4, section 2.1.)

We can generalize the problem we meet here as follows: If a rule analyzes a constituent C which is properly contained in domain X and not in domain Y which is properly contained in domain X too, there is no reason for assuming that this implies that C must be involved in the application of the pertinent rule. Principle (95) does not impose that restriction. Williams makes an ad hoc decision for the case of SAI, but he does not formulate a principle that might decide this case. However, such a principle is easy to formulate. I propose the following definition of ‘X-domain rule’:

(99)

A rule R_i is a X-domain rule iff the structural index of R_i contains a constant C_k such that

a. C_k is properly contained in X and

b. there is no Y such that X properly contains Y and Y properly contains C_k and

c. C_k is satisfied by a factor changed by the rule.

This definition of the relationship between constants that are analyzed by and involved in a rule and the domain of that rule ensures the subcyclic strict cyclicity that underlies (95). 25 Now root preposings will move a

constituent into complementizer position, provided root transformations are S̄-rules. Nice though this result may be, we may ask whether (99) guarantees that root preposing rules always choose COMP as a landing site. The answer is, no. If one prefers base rule (93) over base rule (94)a, definition (99) allows four landing sites for a root transformation: COMP, NP, AUX, and VP. And so we are back at the problem I started this subsection with, the problem Williams tried to evade by assuming the distinction between S and S̄. And furthermore we are back at the problem Williams (1974) noted as regards SAI, since now a permutation of NP and AUX is within the range of possibilities again. Therefore it is important to establish whether the initial base rule for English must be (94)a or not. That will be easier than considering the question of whether SAI in its familiar formalization mentioning both COMP and NP and AUX is an admissible permutation. Nor do I want to go into the question of whether permutations are admissible at all. These questions go way beyond the goals of this paper and would give rise to all sorts of technicalities, which is quite boring.

It has been noticed that usually movement rules ‘upgrade’ the constituents they transfer (cf. Chomsky 1976a, pp. 106-110), in that they move a constituent closer to the root of the sentence. Suppose we define ‘upgrading’ in terms of superiority (for this term: Chomsky 1973), which is quite natural an interpretation:

(100)

A rule R_i upgrades a constituent C_k iff C_k in the output of R_i is superior to its trace. 26

It is assumed that every constituent, whether it is a NP or not leaves a trace. This assumption is not counterintuitive. But counterintuitive might be the assumption that the relation that obtains between a preposed V or PP and its trace is the same as the anaphoric relation that holds between a NP and its trace (compare Chomsky 1976a, p. 110). The latter assumption would imply that all movement rules are subject to trace theory. Although I think something could be gained from such a hypothesis, I take a weaker stance and adopt Chomsky's definition of the Upgrading Principle: 27

(101)

Movement rules may upgrade, but they cannot downgrade unless the position they vacate is filled by a later rule, or unless the item downgraded is not a noun phrase. (Chomsky 1976a, p. 110)

I interpret upgrading as specified in definition (100). The corresponding definition, of ‘downgrading’ requires that the trace of C_k be superior to C_k itself. The Upgrading Principle under the interpretation intended can be used as a criterion for the choice between base rule (93) and (94)a. Once we have found a rule that enables us to choose for (94)a, the definition of domains, i.e. (99), guarantees that AUX moves into COMP, since then COMP and only COMP will be the landing site for root preposings. What we need is a rule that moves NPs across variables into COMP and so has to move Subject NPs too. Such a rule cannot use base rule (93), since a movement of a sister of COMP into COMP does not count as upgrading, according to (101) + (100). On the other hand base rule (94)a does not conflict with the Upgrading Principle.

The obvious candidate for the choice between (93) and (94) a is Wh-Movement. This rules moves constituents like AP and PP, but also NP, across a variable. And a Subject-NP is one of the possible wh-phrases. Note that adjunction of a wh-phrase to the Subject NP is excluded by the Upgrading Principle. So the sole landing site left is COMP. This is the constellation of facts we need: a rule moving over a constituent, which may be the Subject-NP, a sister of COMP, the landing site of the rule. Thus (93) is rejected and (94)a is chosen as the base rule for English and in fact for any language that fronts wh-phrases, i.a. Dutch and German. And by (99) we know that any root preposing rule in such a language must move the pertinent constituent to COMP. 28

Now that it has been established that the theory can be constrained so that all root preposing rules are Complementizer Attraction Rules, one may wonder whether this hypothesis is also applicable to the other root phenomena as discussed by Emonds (1976). Therefore, the foliowing

section will briefly deal with French (section 3.4.). The subsequent section 3.5. will present an extensive discussion of the pertinent phenomena in English.

3.4. Rules moving finite verbs in French

The hypothesis outlined above makes certain predictions for French. This language has a rule of Wh-Movement and so its grammar must contain base rule (94)a. Now there are two root phenomena in French that are strikingly similar to SAI in English. Emonds (1976) discusses these rules at pp. 202 and 203 of his book. The observations he owes to Kayne. The first rule Kayne calls Subject-Clitic Inversion. This rule applies in root sentences whenever a wh-element or some other suitable trigger is present to the left of the Subject-clitic and the first (finite) verb in the verbal complex. Some examples taken from Emonds are:

(102)

a. Quand parlerez-vous à Jean?

When will-talk-you to John?

b. Ne s' est-il pas souvenu de nous?

Not himself has-he not remembered of us?

‘Didn't he remember us?’

c. Vous y ont-ils amenés à temps?

You there have-they brought in time?

‘Did they bring you there in time?’

A more accurate name for this transformation may be Subject-Clitic V̄ Inversion. V̄ is a category used by Emonds (1976) that dominates the verb proper and its proclitic companions. Examples of a preposed verb accompanied by clitics can be found in (102)b and c. Subject-Clitic V̄ Inversion looks like SAI, but there are also similarities with Dutch and German Verb Preposing. The feature that Subject-Clitic V̄ Inversion shares with SAI is the pseudolocal nature of the process involved. And the fact that both auxiliaries and main verbs can move under Subject-Clitic V̄ Inversion is a property shared by this rule with West Germanic Verb Preposing. The rule cannot be local since its application is dependent upon the presence of certain material outside the sequence ‘Subject-clitic Verb’. And it cannot be structure-preserving either since there is no clitic or NP position between the auxiliary and the main verb (compare (102)b and c). For some reason or another Emonds took only one possible technical variant of the pertinent rule into consideration, i.e. movement of the Subject-clitic, probably because his assumption of there being only one position inside COMP to be filled prevented him from assuming that V̄ moves into complementizer position - since that position can be taken by

a wh-phrase (compare (102)a). Since we know from the analysis of German and Dutch in section 3.2. that that does not constitute a real problem, I would like to propose the following formalization: 29

(103)

Subject-Clitic V̄ Inversion

An objection to the effect that clitics are some sort of affixes and so would be orphaned after the application of this transformation is not strong enough a reason for rejecting rule (103). Confirming evidence for my hypothesis can be found in Dubuisson and Goldsmith (1976). These authors note that many Subject-clitic inversion constructions have variants without Subject-Clitic Inversion (terminology theirs) in which a complementizer shows up (generally que ‘that’, sometimes si ‘whether, if’). This observation does not apply to yes/no-questions, but it does to interrogatives:

(104)

a. Comment dit-il, qu'il s'appelle? (D&G(14))

How says-he that-he is called?

b. Comment qu'il dit qu'il s'appelle?

How that-he says that-he is called?

Similarly for parentheticals (see (105)), certain preposed adverbs (see (106) and (107)), certain concessives (see (108)) and exclamatives (see (109)):

(105)

a. Benoit a un nouvel ami, dit-elle (D&G(17))

Benoit has a new friend says-he

b. Benoit a un nouvel ami, qu'elle dit

Benoit has a new friend that-she says

(106)

a. A peine était-il parti, Marie arrivait (D&G (18))

Hardly had-he left, Mary arrived

b. A peine s'il était parti, Marie arrivait

Hardly if-he had left, Mary arrived

(107)

a. Peut-être préfèrait-elle l'oublier (D&G (20))

Maybe preferred-she him-forget

b. Peut-être qu'elle préfèrait l'oublier

Maybe that-she preferred him-forget

(108)

a. Si grande soit-elle, elle n'atteindra pas

So tall is (subj.)-she she not-will-reach not

la branche (D&G (23))

to the branch

b. Si grande qu'elle soit, elle n'atteindra pas

So tall that-she is (subj.), she not-will-reach not

la branche

to the branch

(109)

a. Mais est-il grossier! (D&G (28))

But is-he rude!

b. Mais qu'il est grossier!

But that-he is rude!

Dubuisson and Goldsmith conclude that Subject-Clitic Inversion can be formalized as follows:

(110)

Furthermore, they claim that this rule is independent from the preposing rules and the rule of Complementizer Deletion. Therefore, if I understand their claim correctly, they contend that Complementizer Deletion and Subject-Clitic Inversion are not related, i.e. independent processes. This contradicts the observational conclusion we may draw from the examples Dubuisson and Goldsmith present, namely: If Subject-Clitic Inversion occurs then the Complementizer is absent. The converse does not hold, because in a sentence like tu manges ‘you are eating’ the complementizer is absent while Subject-Clitic Inversion does not apply. This relationship is easy to formalize by means of the rule of Subject-Clitic V̄ Inversion formalized in (103) and subsequent deletion of the Complementizer triggered by the preposed V̄. This ordering is enforced by the Counter-deletive Ordering Principle which I will introducé in section 4.1.

I would like to propose a similar analysis for the second root transformation discussed by Emonds (1976), i.e. the rule of Affirmative Imperative Inversion (terminology Emonds's). This rule interchanges the verb proper and its clitics in affirmative imperatives. Some examples taken from Emonds (1976):

(111)

a. Donnez-moi ces cigares!

Give-me those cigars!

b. Conduisez-les-y dans mon auto

Drive-them-there in my car

There is no inversion in negative imperatives. Compare:

(112)

a. Donne-le-moi

Give-it-(to) me

b. Ne me le donne pas

Not (to) me it give not

The root status of Affirmative Imperative Inversion need not be argued for at length. The rule applies to root sentences only. It cannot be a local rule, since the inversion is dependent upon material outside of the sequence ‘Clitic - Verb’. It cannot be a structure-preserving rule either, because Direct Object clitics may not move to the Direct Object position, witness the following examples taken from Emonds (1976):

(113)

a. Gardez toujours ce souvenir!

Keep always that remembrance

b. Gardez-le toujours!

Keep-it always

c. *Gardez toujours le!

Also in this case Emonds thinks in terms of a rule moving the clitic(s). But I believe that a Complementizer Attraction analysis as required by my hypothesis is possible as well. Therefore I propose the following rule:

(114)

Affirmative Imperative Inversion

This analysis presupposes a node C̅L̅ inside V̄ which contains all pronominal and adverbial clitics but not the negative clitic ne: [_V̄ ne C̅L̅ V]. Although the node CL cannot be found in Emonds's analysis of French clitics, I do not think that the problems are insurmountable. What is more, it is worthwhile trying out this category, because this way we can make Affirmative Clitic Inversion part of the theory of root transformations as outlined above. 30

This having been established, I think it useful to compare the hypothesis about root transformations outlined in sections 3.1. through 3.3. with the theory presented by Emonds (1976), more specifically with his analysis of English root phenomena. This will be done in section 3.5.

3.5. Repartitioning Emonds's root transformations

3.5.1. Introduction: Two ways to partition the root transformations of English

If the hypothesis about root transformations outlined in this paper is compared with the theory presented in Emonds (1976), some differences can be perceived. That my assumption that all Complementizer Attraction Transformations, including the cyclic rule of Wh-Movement, are adjunction rules, conflicts with Emonds's theory, will be clear. A theoretical argument in favor of an adjunction approach will be discussed in section 4.2. More important at this moment is the question in which respects our theories differ as to which root transformations are Complementizer Attraction Transformations and which are not. I think the differences are a matter of degree and not one of principle. For instance, I have shown that it is not impossible to describe SAI and Verb Preposing etc. as root transformations substituting a verb for a V inside C̅O̅M̅P̅. So the fact that I want to move AUX in English into complementizer position, whereas Emonds describes SAI as a permutation, may not be exaggerated. Nevertheless, there are some more remarks I would like to make about Emonds's division of root transformations.

I quote Emonds (1976):

The root transformations are now divisible into three categories: 1. Those that induce comma intonation - the tag question rule, left and right dislocation, certain transformations that produce parentheticals of various sorts (discussed in the following sections). 2. The COMP substitutions rules, which do not induce comma intonation. 3. The two ‘inversion’ rules - subject-auxiliary inversion and subject-simple verb inversion. Like local rules, these rules

interchange two adjacent constituents, one of which is not a phrase node. (Unlike local rules, they depend on conditions external to the two interchanged nodes.) (Emonds (1976), chapter 2.8.)

The COMP substitution rules of Emonds's are: Negated Constituent Preposing, Directional Adverb Preposing, Topicalization, VP Preposing, Comparative Substitution, Participle Preposing and PP Substitution. Although I agree with Emonds at many points I have my doubts about this division. Therefore I present the following division of root phenomena. Some discussion of that division will enable me to defend a different view at English root phenomena.

For sake of discussion I partition the root phenomena of English as follows:

There is one point where Emonds and I clearly agree: Parentheticals cannot be described in terms of Complementizer Attraction Transformations, because the pertinent phenomena differ too much - if a special Parenthetical transformation is the right way to deal with parenthetical phenomena at all. Therefore, I leave out a discussion of my number 2. Section 3.5.2. will deal with my number 1., while my numbers 4. and 5. will be discussed in section 3.5.3., The Compementizer Attraction phenomena of my number 3. do not require any further discussion.

3.5.2. No root transformations needed

The reason why I want to collect under one number phenomena like tag questions, left and right dislocation, topicalization and VP Preposing, is that I believe that all of them can be described in terms of existing rules and do not need novel transformational rules. At various points in his book (1976) Emonds himself refers to a nontransformational solution for

left and right dislocation by means of base rules generating a dislocated category to the left or the right of an independent sentence as well as a special requirement for such structures to the effect that there be an anaphoric pronoun in the sentence referring to the left or right dislocated element. Compare Hirschbühler (1974) and Van Riemsdijk and Zwarts (1974). A similar solution has been proposed for Topicalization by Chomsky (1977). I come back to that in a moment.

Something similar can be said about Tag Questions. Consider the following examples:

(115)

a. You are May, aren't you?

b. Peter won't buy that book, will he?

We know that a Tag Question is a declarative sentence followed by a repetition of the first auxiliary and the subject plus or minus the negation. Emonds proposes an analysis involving a rule of Tag Formation copying an entire declarative sentence with addition of whether and with deletion of the negative if the declarative is negative and with addition of the negative if the declarative is affirmative. Subsequent application of the well-known rules of VP Deletion and Subject Aux Inversion will do the remaining work. The power of rules like Tag Formation is enormous and so undesirable. But we do not need that rule at all, since the devices necessary for generating tags are given by the theory. I mean, of course, the base rules. This means that all rules for generating tags, i.e. base rules, SAI and VP Deletion, are present, and that we do not need any additional transformation for generating Tag Questions. What we need is a textgrammatical requirement for minitexts like (115) that have a special function, i.e. the function of a question that one expects to be answered positively. Such a text grammar rule requires that the first sentence of such a text be a simple declarative, whereas the second sentence be a yes/no-question reflecting the propositional content of the declarative while changing the truth value of the declarative, which must delete its VP. Such text rules can be found in other languages too. In this paper I have cited several examples. I refer to the independent conditionals and concessives, discussed in n. 3. These examples are taken from Dutch. I also refer to the Dutch contrastive minitexts quoted in (64), where the first one of the constituting sentences must be a marked declarative with the finite verb in first position. Some of the French examples I quoted from Dubuisson and Goldsmith (1976) seem to me to have the same characteristics, especially (106) and (108). These are combinations of two independent sentences, the first of which must be marked in that some constituent is preposed and Subject-Clitic V̄ Inversion has applied. Thus we can discard Tag Formation as a transformational rule and so, as a

root transformation. The sole thing that is root-transformational about tag questions is the fact that SAI is applied to the second constituting sentence of a tag question. But that follows from the requirement that the second sentence be a yes/no-question.

In Chomsky (1977) it is suggested that Topicalization in English be described as a derivative of Wh-Movement. The topicalized element is supposed to be base-generated under a node TOP that is generated by base rule (116)a:

(116)

a. S̿ → TOP S̄

b. S̄ → COMP S

The gap in the sentence that is adjacent to TOP is left behind by a wh-element moving into COMP position, which is deleted in the course of the derivation. The theory, as developed in Chomsky (1973), (1976)a, (1976)b and (1977), does not allow the movement of an element out of a cyclic S̄, unless it is the subject of an infinitival S̄ that is a clause mate of the landing site (COMP, NP), or unless it can move into, and later out of, the complementizer that is a clause mate of the mover. Thus COMP serves as a second escape hatch for cyclic S̄, whether infinitival or not. Only one cyclic rule is known to satisfy the latter requirement of moving into and out of COMP, i.e. Wh-Movement. Now Topicalization coincides with Wh-Movement in most respects: It leaves a gap; there is an apparent violation of Subjacency, The Subject Condition and the Propositional Island Constraint; the Complex Noun Phrase Constraint and the Wh-Island Constraint are obeyed. However, there is an important difference: Wh-Movement can leave behind its preposee at any point in a cyclic derivation. Topicalization can not. Being a root transformation, Topicalization must move its preposee into topmost position. Therefore Chomsky proposes to split up the process of Topicalization into two parts: one part defined by the base rules and a pronominalization requirement and one part defined by Wh-Movement. Of course, this idea can be put aside as ‘Chomskyan fancies’ because of the initial strangeness of the proposal and one can continue describing Topicalization as a Complementizer Attraction Transformation. I do not think it is wise to do that. Chomsky's theory predicts that root transformations, which are not able to apply cyclically, will be constrained by Subjacency and related conditions, i.e. it is predicted that the preposee of a root transformation that moves that consituent over a variable into complementizer position will be the clause mate of the COMP it moves into (or the subject of an infinitival complement that is a clause mate of the pertinent COMP). This prediction is borne out in quite some cases. In section 3.2.1. I have pointed out that Constituent Preposing in Dutch, which subsumes

Topicalization, is a bounded rule. The same applies to the rule of Verb Preposing. 31 Most root transformations in English seem to be bounded rules. I refer to Negated Constituent Preposing, Directional Adverb Preposing and if the Double Movements (terminology mine, see my number 4) may be split up in a root preposing and a stylistic postposing, then all root preposings obey the theory. Something similar was noted by Chomsky (1976)a who remarks that what he calls Adverb Preposing does not permit construal of the preposed adverb and an embedded clause. Most of his examples involve Negated Constituent Preposing, only one involves the use of a preposed adverbial PP. So the sole exception seems to be Topicalization, an unbounded phenomenon. But this rule looses its exceptional status if we accept the description of Topicalization proposed in Chomsky (1977). 32

Intraposition, a rule Emonds does not talk about anymore in his book (1976), is another candidate for description in terms of existing rules. Koster (1975)b proposes a description of Dutch Intraposition (see (117)) in terms of a left dislocation node and topicalization of a coreferent pronoun that is optionally deleted. This description predicts that also object complements can undergo these rules, which is the case indeed (see (118)):

(117)

Dat ie komt, (dat) is vreemd

That he comes, (that) is strange

(118)

Dat ie zou komen, (dat) wist ik niet

That he would come, (that) knew I not

In Williams (1974), ch. 4, section 2.6, it was noted that Intraposition is a clear counterexample to the claim that all root preposings move a constituent into COMP, if one assumes that extraposed sentences are substituted for the subject-NP. The description in Koster (1975)b solves this problem for Dutch. Now Higgins (1973) has noted that English object complements may topicalize, whether they hail from an embedded sentence or not, (see (119)) and that subject complements from lower clauses may topicalize as well (see (120)). In both cases the expletive

pronoun must be absent. This fact corresponds with the fact that the expletive pronoun must be absent in Intraposition sentences too (see (121)). Emonds (1976) has adopted Higgins's description and assumes that sentences dominated by NP may topicalize, in which case the pronoun accompanying the S inside the NP will delete in GOMP position. Compare the following examples, which are taken from Higgins (1973) ((119) and (120)) and Emonds (1976) (example (121)):

(119)

a. That you refuse even to discuss the matter I most certainly do resent (*it)

b. That we won't abandon him you may definitely depend on (*it)

(120)

That Susan would be late John didn't think (*it) was very likely

(121)

That the boys were dancing together (*it) was amusing John

It is evident that we can apply Chomsky's (1977) solution for Topicalization here too. The difference in description between Dutch and English is motivated by the fact that Dutch sentence topicalization is not an unbounded phenomenon, witness (122):

(122)

a. Dat zijn oma ziek was, heeft ie niet meer

That his grandmother ill was, has he not anymore

op tijd vernomen

in time heard

b. *Dat zijn oma ziek was, denk ik (niet), dat

That his grandmother ill was, think I (not), that

ie nog op tijd heeft vernomen

he still in time has heard

Thus the moral of this discussion of tag questions, left and right dislocation, topicalization and sentence topicalization (Intraposition) is that not all root phenomena have to be described in terms of special root transformations. Existing rules (SAI, Wh-Movement, base rule, VP Deletion) plus an extension in the area of base rules and text grammar will do the job. Furthermore, within the framework of the theory of Chomsky (1973), (1976)a and b and (1977) it is expected that root transformations are bounded. Unbounded root phenomena can be described by means of other rules.

Now I come to a less clear case, the rule of VP Preposing, which is the last rule mentioned under my number 1. Compare the following examples of VP Preposing (123) and of Participle Preposing (124):

(123)

a. John intends to make a table, and make one he will

b. We thought someone would fail the exam, and fail it many people have

(124)

a. Speaking at today's lunch will be our local congressman

b. Taking turns, as usual, were his two sisters

c. Examined today and found in good health was our nation's chief executive

All examples are taken from Emonds (1976). As regards Participle Preposing Emonds remarks that here too VPs have been preposed. One might want to collapse VP Preposing with the preposing part of Participle Preposing, were it not the case that the cyclic rule of Affix Hopping must apply before the rule of Participle Preposing whereas Affix Hopping must be ordered after VP Preposing because the en-affix of have does not show up in preposed VPs. Compare (124) with (123)b. It is not easy to solve this problem. The weird ordering of Affix Hopping is not something that is expected since all applications of Affix Hopping are supposed to occur in one block. Another way out might be the proposal to base-generate VP in TOP position while deleting (or interpreting) an identical VP in the corresponding sentence. This proposal will do for the sentences cited in (123) and it would explain why the preposed VP in (123)b does not have an affix on the verb. However this proposal also predicts that the following sentences should be good, which they are not:

(125)

a. *Speak at today's lunch our local chairman was (or: will be)

b. *Speak at today's lunch was our local chairman (or: will be)

(126)

a. *Examine today and find in good health our nation's chief executive was

b. *Examine today and find in good health was our nation's chief executive

Thus there is a descriptive dilemma: Either we accept a weird ordering or we must base generate VP (at least for the cases in (123)) and filter out sentences that are wrongly predicted to be grammatical. This deadlock can be solved however, if we make one more assumption and accept a categorial differentiation between verbs and participles. Participles governed by be are either adjectives or an intermediate category that has its own projection within X̄-theory. In the latter case the preposees in (124) are Participle Phrases. Either choice can be combined with the assumption that so-called preposed VPs are base-generated in TOP and bind a VP that is emptied (or interpreted) by the rule of VP Deletion. Thus, again we may conclude that a root phenomenon can be described in terms of existing rules.

3.5.3. Inversion phenomena

Finally something about certain inversions between a Subject and the

verbal sequence in the case of Double Movements and Directional Adverb Preposing. I agree with Emonds (1976) that the inversion of Subject and verbal sequence in the case of the Double Movements, or, as Emonds calls them, Preposings around Be, can be attained by means of the rule of Stylistic Inversion (see Emonds (1976), ch. 2, segtion 7). This stylistic rule accompanies the preposing rules of Comparative Substitution, Participle Preposing and PP Substitution, which can all be described in terms of a Complementizer Attraction Rule. Compare the following examples:

(127)

a. More important for the local populace has been the invasion in Zaire

b. Dancing at the table was my cousin Florimund

c. On the wall hangs a portrait of Hua, that revisionist!

Such a description would explain the bounded nature of the Double Mo