Dutch modal complement ellipsis
Gisela Grohne & Erlinde Meertens
december 21st 2016
1
Introduction
ˆ Dutch displays a limited kind of VP ellipsis: the infinitival complement of deontic modal
verbs can be elided.
(1)
A: Wie wast er vanavond af? B: Ik kan niet [afwassen]
who washes there tonight off? - I can not [wash off]
’Who’s doing the dishes tonight? - I can’t.’
(2)
A: Wie wast er vanavond af? B: *Ik ga niet [afwassen]
who washes there tonight off? - I go not [wash off]
’Who’s doing the dishes tonight? - I’m not going to.’
ˆ There are three ways to analyze a problem like this.
(i) the full structure is present, but not pronounced (Merchant 2001,2007)
(ii) the modal is intransitive (Napoli 1985)
(iii) there is a null verbal proform (Lobeck 1995, Depiante 2000)
ˆ This paper focuses on (i).
2
Dutch Modal Complement Ellipsis vs. English VP Ellipsis
ˆ The most important argument for Merchant’s (2001, 2007) approach is that extraction is
possible:
(3)
I don’t know who Mina should invite, but I know who she shouldn’t [invite twho ]
ˆ In English VPE, wh-extraction, pseudo-gapping and object scrambling can be attested. If
Dutch MCE is the result of the same mechanism, we expect extraction to be allowed as well.
(4)
*Ik weet niet wie Katrien moet uitnodigen, maar ik weet wie ze niet moet [twie
uitnodigen].
I know not who Katrien must invite, but I know who she not must [twho invite].
intended reading: ’I don’t know who Katrien should invite, but I know who she
shouldn’t.
ˆ Dutch MCE does allow subject extraction
1
(5)
A: Niet alle studenten moeten aanwezig zijn bij Syntax 3. - B: Oh welke moeten dan
niet?
not all students must attend present be at Syntax 3. - oh which must then not?
’Not all students have to attend Syntax 3. - Oh, which ones don’t have to?’
ˆ The subject is base-generated inside the vP of the verb selecting it as its argument. In (5),
the subject is extracted from the complement position of the lexical verb (attending).
ˆ Deontic modal verbs are raising verbs.
(6)
a. Jean seems [tJean to leave]. raising
b. Jeani tries [PROi to leave]. control
(7)
a. De auto lijkt gewassen te zijn.
the car seems washed to be
’The car seems to be washed.’
b. *De auto probeert gewassen te worden.
the car tries wash to become
c. De auto moet gewassen worden.
the car must washed become
’The car has to be washed.’
(8)
a. Er lijkt gedanst te worden.
there seems danced to become
’There seems to be dancing going on.’
b. *Er probeert gedanst te worden.
there tries danced to become
c. Er moet gedanst worden.
there must dance become
’Someone must dance’
ˆ Thus, Dutch MCE differs from English VPE in not allowing object extraction. But we do
see subject extraction, which suggests that there is indeed syntactic structure.
3
Analysis
ˆ Reminder: Lexical verbs have a full projection V > v > Voice > T > C
ˆ Deontic Modals have a reduced projection V > T > C
ˆ Deontic Modals take a TP complement, out of which the subject is raised.
ˆ The analysis proposed here is based on Merchant’s (2001) [E] feature.
ˆ In Dutch MCE, the VoiceP is elided, and this ellipsis is licensed by a deontic modal.
infl [uV[deon]]
EM CE
sel
[Voice]
2
ˆ When a constituent bearing V[deon] is merged, the VoiceP will be sent off to Spell-Out for
non-pronunciation.
ˆ Everything inside the VoiceP is no longer available in the derivation at this point.
(9)
VP
V’
V0
modal
[cat[V[deon]]]
TP
...
T’
T0
VoiceP
Voice’
Voice0
infl[uV[deon]]
v
...
ˆ There is only one free position for any remnants of ellipsis between the elided constituent
(VoiceP) and its licenser (V0 with [cat[V[deon]]]). This position is the specifier of the TP.
ˆ T carries the [EPP]-feature, which triggers movement of the subject to this position.
3.1
Wh-object extraction in Dutch MCE
ˆ Dutch MCE does not allow wh-object extraction. Can this be derived?
(10)
*Ik weet niet wie Katrien moet uitnodigen, maar ik weet wie ze niet moet [twie
uitnodigen].
I know not who Katrien must invite, but I know who she not must [twho invite].
intended reading: ’I don’t know who Katrien should invite, but I know who she
shouldn’t.
ˆ Voice is a phase: All heads with unchecked features move to its specifier.
→ Both the subject (EPP) and the wh-object (uQ) will move to this position.
ˆ The [EPP]-feature causes the subject to move to the specifier of T.
ˆ When the modal is merged, VoiceP is elided with the wh-object inside.
ˆ Because it is a question, the matrix C head will carry [uwh,i Q].
ˆ The [uwh] on C cannot be checked by the wh-object because it is located in the VoiceP which
was already sent off to Spell-Out for non-pronunciation.
→ Sentence cannot be parsed /
3
3.2
For comparison: English VPE
ˆ In English VPE, the vP is elided, which is licensed by a T head.
infl [uT]
EV P E
sel
[v]
ˆ When the T head is merged, the vP will be sent off to Spell-Out for non-pronunciation,
making its content unavailable for the rest of the derivation.
(11)
TP
T’
T0
[cat[T]]
VoiceP
Voice’
Voice0
vP
v’
v0
[E[infl[uT]]]
VP
...
ˆ The phase edge (specifier of VoiceP) is not contained in the elided constituent.
→ There are no restrictions on movement out of the ellipsis site.
4
Summary
ˆ Dutch MCE and English VPE can be analysed with the same basic approach of an [E] feature.
ˆ The crucial difference is that in MCE the phase head (VoiceP) is elided, and in English VPE
it is not.
References
Aelbrecht, Lobke (2008) Dutch Modal Complement Ellipsis. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7,
pp. 7-33.
Carnie, Andrew (2007) Syntax: A generative Introduction. Blackwell Publishing.
Depiante, M. (2000) The syntax of deep and surface anaphora: a study of null complement anaphora and
stripping/bare argument ellipsis. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut.
Lockeck, Anne (1995) Ellipsis. Functional heads, licensing, and identification. Oxford University Press.
Merchant, Jason (2001) The syntax of Silence. Oxford University Press.
Merchant, Jason (2007) Voice and ellipsis. ms.
Napoli, Donna Jo (1985) Complementation in Italian: Phonetically null vs totally absent complements.
Language 61, pp. 73-94.
4