English Auxiliaries and the Cartography of the Clause

1. English Auxiliaries and the Cartography of the Clause Gregory Campbell Ellison University of Geneva, Department of Linguistics Gregory.Ellison@lettres.unige.ch CUSO 2007, 20March, Leysin

2. Objectives • Establish the nature and the behavior of (English) auxiliary verbs • Determine the structural arrangement of three important projections: Tense, Agreement, and Negation

3. X-bar (Chomsky 1986, etc.):The conventional model of the clause CP C’ C° IP Specifier I’ I° VP V’ V° Complement complementizer subject inflection main verb object …

4. The conventional model and auxiliaries: merit • explainsproperties of auxiliaries not shared by main verbs (Palmer 1974) (6) – (9) • precedence toNegation • subjectI nversion • ‘Code’ • Emphatic affirmation

5. The conventional model and auxiliaries: shortcomings • ideal: morphology ↔ structure one auxiliary + one verb • reality: • clauseswith no auxiliary • clauseswithmultiple auxiliaries • severe restrictions on combinations and ordering

6. The modified model • auxiliaries head distinct projections • modals enter in I° • aspect / voice auxiliaries enter as heads of distinct VPs • selection via subcategorization • ad hoc modifications to fit the observations • treats aspect / voice auxiliaries as main verbs

7. Objective 1 Find a better explanationfor the syntax of auxiliaries

8. Split-IP / Cartography • Pollock (1989): IP [CP [TP [NegP [AgrP [VP … • Cartographic Syntax: CP, IP, VP  multiple FPs

9. Cinque (1999) • based on cross-linguistically fixed order of inflectional adverbs and affixes IP  a universally ordered series of some thirty functional projections (FPs), each associated with a specific semantic notion

10. Cinque’s hierarchy (partial) • MoodSPEECH ACTP > MoodEVALUATIVEP > MoodEVIDENTIALP > ModEPISTEMICP > … MoodIRREALISP > ModALETHIC NECESSITYP > ModALETHIC POSSIBILITYP > ModVOLITIONP > ModOBLIGATIONP > ModABILITY/PERMISSIONP > AspHABITUALP > … AspPERFECTP > … AspPROGRESSIVEP > … AspCOMPLETIVEP > … VoiceP …

11. Hypothesis English auxiliaries are alternate realizations of the same inflectional FPs *NB: Cinque’s hierarchy is considered here to be potentially modifiable

12. semantic equivalence Peter is certainly at home. Petermustbe at home. FP(epistemic necessity) • syntactic difference • adverbs are Specifiers (Spec, FPn) • auxiliaries are heads(Fn°)

13. How this explains the syntax of auxiliaries • a clause may contain more than one auxiliarybecause the hierarchy consists of many inflectional projections [CP C° [FP1 F1° [FP2 F2° [FP3 F3° [FP4 F4° [… [FPn Fn° [VP V° …

14. modals are lexically finite  restriction to one modal, which must be initial Mary would[+FIN] have[-FIN] read this book. *Mary would[-FIN] has[+FIN] read this book. no non-finite forms *Lisa wanted to can[-FIN] speak French. • aspect / voice auxiliariesare optionally finite occur with each other and with modals, need not be initial Mary has[+FIN]been reading this book. Mary would[+FIN]have[-FIN] read this book. have non-finite forms Mary wants to have[-FIN] read this book by tomorrow.

15. Exceptional modal constructions • multiple modal constructions (MMCs) John mightshould oughta be painting the barn. = “Perhaps John should be painting the barn.” (Southern US; Coleman (1975:73))

16. not satisfactorily explained by the conventional model • adverb + modal (Labov, Cohen, and Lewis (1968)) • lexical compounds heading single projections (Di Paolo (1989)) • merge in syntax as a single node (Boertien (1979)) • no problem for the current model • many available heads in the inflectional hierarchy of FPs • in contrast to Standard English, modals in MMC varieties are not obligatorily finite

17. Evidence of non-finiteness in MMC varieties • infinitive modal constructions I would like to could swim. = “I would like to be able to swim.” (Hawick Scots; Brown (1991:75))

18. Objective 2 Use English auxiliaries to reveal the arrangement of TP, NegP, and AgrP

19. How is IP split? • Pollock (1989): IP [CP [TP [NegP [AgrP [VP … • Belletti (1990): IP [CP [AgrP [NegP [TP [VP …

20. English has been treated as offering limited evidence because: • lack of rich verbal morphology • lexical verbs do not raise from VP

21. Claim English modal auxiliaries provide an overlooked source of syntactic evidence toward revealing the structure of IP

22. Aspect / voice auxiliaries (modal + havePERFECT + bePROGRESSIVE + bePASSIVE) all modal auxiliary FPs > FP(perfect aspect) > FP(progressive aspect) > FP(passive voice) *NB: FP(…) represents a Cinque-type projection without committing to his labeling or organization

23. Aspect / voice auxiliaries when it is not initial, an aspect / voice auxiliary is not finite and does not precede negation *Mary would hasn’t read this book. cf. Mary wouldn’t have read this book. {TP, AgrP, and NegP} > aspect / voice auxiliary FPs

24. Modal auxiliaries • tense, agreement, and negation (as well as modality) are fused as a single head in a clause with a negated modal auxiliary Warrencouldn’topen the door. FP(dynamic ability) (=“can”) tense (past) agreement (3s)negation TP ?><? AgrP ?><? NegP?><?{modal FPs}

25. Scope syntactic scope ↔ semantic scope semantic scope of tense, agreement, and negation to the modality of modal auxiliaries  relative positions of the projections

26. Semantic scope • ‘not always’ … = it is not the case that always … • ‘always not’ … = it is always the case that not …

27. Syntactic scope XP syntactic scope of X° YP X’ Y’ X° ZP Y° WP Z’ W’ Z° UP W° U’ U°

28. Modal F°s : T° & Neg° • modal auxiliaries can be categorized on the basis of the semantic scope relation of their modality to sentential negation and tense

29. FPs (I) > {NegP, TP} • Epistemic modals: mayEPISTEMIC, mightEPIST, mustEPIST, oughtEPIST, shallEPIST, shouldEPIST,wouldEPIST, willEPIST • Root modals: mustNECESSITY oughtOBLIGATION, shallOBL, shouldOBL

30. FPs (I) > {NegP, TP} • James mustn’t swim across the river. [ROOT NECESSITY [NEGATIVE+NON-PAST]] = “James is required not to swim …” • cf. past necessity: James had tonot swim across the river. = “James was required not to swim …” • cf. negated necessity: James needn’t swim across the river. = “James is not required to swim …”

31. NegP > FPs (II) > TP • Epistemic modals: canEPIST, couldEPIST • Root modals: couldHYPOTHETICAL-ABILITY, couldHYPO-PERMISSION, mightHYPO-PERM, shouldHYPO‑PREDICTION, wouldHYPO‑PRED

32. NegP > FPs (II) > TP • It couldn’t be snowing! [NEGATIVE[EPISTEMIC POSSIBILITY[NON-PAST]] = “It is not possible that it is snowing.” • cf. past possibility: It couldn’t have been snowing! = “It is not possible that it was snowing.” • cf. possibility of negation: It may not be snowing. = “It is possible that it is not snowing.”

33. {NegP, TP} >FPs (III) • Root modals: canABIL / couldPAST-ABIL, canPERM / couldPAST-PERM, mayPERM / mightPAST-PERM, dare, need, shallPRED / shouldPAST-PRED, willPRED / wouldPAST‑PRED

34. {NegP, TP} >FPs (III) • If she wanted the job, Mary couldn’t make a mistake. [NEGATIVE+PAST [ROOT ABILITY]] = “Mary was not able to…” • cf. non-past ability: If she wants the job, Mary can’t make a mistake. = “Mary is not able to…” • cf. ability of negation: When she focused, Mary could (usually) nót make a mistake. = “Mary was able not to …”

35. TP >FPs (IV) > NegP • None

36. Modal F°s : Agr° • AgrP* > all modal auxiliary FPs -agreement (φ) projects into every finite clause Martha arrives[+3s] / is[+3s] arriving tomorrow. -agreement morphology is not grammatical on a non-initial auxiliary or verb *Martha may arrives[+3s] / may is[+3s] arriving tomorrow. modal auxiliary bears agreement Martha may[+3s] arrive tomorrow. *NB: AgrP represents the projection associated with agreement features – it does not promote or deny the existence of a pre-Chomsky (1995) AgrSP.

37. Conclusion AgrP>FPs(I) >NegP>FPs(II) >TP>FPs(III) > AspPERFP>AspPROGP> VoiceP> VP Belletti: [CP [AgrP [NegP [TP [VP…

38. The End