•
THE DISTRIBUTION OF CLITICS IN FRENCH CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS
BY
ALBERT PICARD
J,
\
'
~
A THESIS SUBHITTED TO
THE PACULTY OP GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEAllCB,
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUlREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF HASTER OF ARTS
1
,!
!
1
r
1
,
:,
1
.
i
.)
,.
f
1
1
,0
DEPARTMENT OF. LINGUISTICS
MCGILL UNIVERS ITY
MlNTREAL, CANADA
@
MAY, 1984
. ,,
i
}
ABSTRACT
(
In the Government and Binding framework, l will analyse the intrinsic properties of the so-called "causative constructions" in French.
In particular, l
will study the distribution of the clitics' in these kinds of constructions.
l
shall show the underlying mechanisms which will enable us to better pnderstand
these properties, consisting essentially in verb mQvement in complement infinitivals
in the insertion of a preposition (à/par), and in the distribution of these clitic
pronouns.
As we shall see, the grammar of causative sentences in French which we
will construct constitutes, in fact, an original and significant proposaI for the
grammatical
theo~y
for, if adequately formulated, this grammar emphasizes the
correlation that exists between these properties.
Indeed, given the rule of Hove X
of the transformational component of the model of grammar which we have adopted,
namely, the generative grammar, it follows as a direct consequence that these
properties are intrinsically related.
Il
..
RESUME
Dans le cadre de la théorie du gouvernement et du liage, nous proposons
ici d'analyser les propriétés intrinsèques qui caractérisent les constructions
di tes "causatives" en français.
à la
Et plus part iculièrement, nous nous intéressons
distributions des pronoms c1itiques à l'intérieur de ce type de structures.
Nous allons démontrer en détails les mécanismes sous-j acents pour dès lors permet tre une compréhension intéressante vis-à-vis ces proprié tés qui, notons-le,
sont le déplacement
d~
verbe enchassé, l'insertion d'une préposition spécifique
(!./par) et la distribution de ces pronoms clitiques à l'intérieure de la structure.
Comme on le verra, la grammaire des phrases causatives du français que nous allons
construire constitue, en fait, une proposition originale et significative pour la
-
•
1
~
r~ortir
théorie grammaticale car, adéquatement formulée, cette grammaire fait
la correlation qui existe entre les propriétés mentionnées ci-haut.
(
Effectivement,-
étant donné la règle du Déplacement X de la composante transformationnelle du
modèle de grammaire auquel nous avons Bouscri t, à savoir la grammaire générative,
~s
i l s'ensuit comme étant une conséquence directe que ces propriétés
causatives'
sont étroitement reliées.
,,'
.
!
\
/
/
l
.,.
/
.
/
/
/
=-
THE DISTRIBUTION OF CLITICS IN FRENCH CAUSATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS
.G
CHAPTER l
1.
Introduction
2.
Pre1.iminaries
CHAPTER II - Causative Constructions Without Clitics
1.
General Princip les
2.
Rouveret and Vergnaud' s Analysis
3.1.
'3.2.
Causative Verbs and Subcategorization
VP-Mand à-Insertion
CHAPT ER III - Causative Construc tians With Clitlc8
(
l.
General Principles
2.
Clitic Placement in Rouveret and Vergnaud' s Syst. .
3.l.
The Analysis
3.2.
The Faire-Paradigm
3.3.
The Laisser-Paradigm
3.4.
The Voir-Paradigm
~I--
CHAPTER IV -- Conclusion
,
1
,
.'
/
1
\
.,
1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTs..
(5
1
1
l cannot exaggerate my indebtedness to Robert Freidln. my thesi:s .
d1rector.
Much of what we have written is based upon the teaching of
his during my
~ears
at McGlll University, and l am deeply grateful to
him for his willingness to share his knowledge of linguistics with me.
My thesis 'W'ould not be what it is
1- J
w~thout
his cooperacion, his comments,
his advice. ,He must ,therefore be responsible to some extent for che
content of this thesis.
But of course we take full responsibility for
errora and questions of interpretations.
(
l wou1d also like to take the opportunity here to express my sincere gratitude to Myrna Gopnik who kindly admitted me as a research
a .. sistant on the Tex,t Linguistics Project which she supervises.
With-
out her, ·1 would have had to fJ.ce financial difficul t1es whose effects
could have reflected on my thesis.
l
\
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-
f'
t
CHAPTER 1
· ..
1. Introduction •
·.
1
2
2. Preliminaries
CHAPTER II - Causative Constructions, Without Clitics
1.
General Principles
2.
Rouveret and Vergnaud' 9 Analysis
•
· . . . . ..
3.1.
Causative Verbs and Subcategorization
3.2.
VP-M and à-Insertion
·· · · · ·
12
···
·· ·
15
···
26
·
·
·
· ..
19
/1
fi.
CBAPTER- III - Causative Constructions With Clitics
(
· ... .... " .. ... ..
1.
General Principles
2.
Clitic Placement in Rouveret and Vergnaud' s Systea
37
·····
39
· ···
· .. · • · · ··
·•·····
45
~
· .•
3.1.
The Ana.lysis
3.2.
The Faire-Paradigm
3.3.
The Lai'sser-Paradlgm
3.4.
The
· ··. ·
J
···
· .. · ··. ·
·..
46
·50
····
53
... . .. . .. .
... . ... . .. . .. . ...
56
•
•
S9
~-Paradip
•
CBAPTEll IV
Conclusion
FOOTNOTES
•
•
l
f
i
BIBLIOGRAPHY •
•
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
tt
•
•
....
•
•
•
•
•
•
. ... . .. . .. . . .. . ... · .. . ..
dO
•
•
·.
64
1
1
,
...
CHAPTER
r
r
1. Introduction
t.
In what follows, we want to develop a theoretical system which achieves
(
a significant degree of explanatory adequacy and provides an
integrate~
account of a considerable range of phenomena ôbserved in French "causative
constructions".
\ole
will maintain the use of this term in our s'tudy since
'J
it is widely if not universally the accepted terro in the literature pertaining to these constructions.
However the term "causative construction",
in our view, embraces aIl the sentences in (1):
(1) a. J'ai fait douter Marie de ça
"r made Marie wonder about lt ll
b. Nous laisson Grégoire partir à la chasse
"We let Grégoire go hunting lt
c. Il est capable d'aimer Marie \
"He can love Marie"
,
d. Nous voyons Gilles partir
"We see Gilles going"
l
e. Nous avons le désir de voir les gens s'arrêter
"We hope to see people stop"
f. Un ouvrier se trouvait dans un trou à creuser un trou,
"A worker was in the di tch to d ig a weIl"
,
1
g. Jacques permet~~Jit à l'ours de rejoindre Pierre
"Jacques let t~ bear catch Pierre"
in the l1terature the term "causative construction" has been used to deslg~ate
the well-known cases of
faire-constructi9~
in (1) a. and b. respectively.
and laisser-construction, as
But our analysis of causative construction
will extend to other constructions as in (l) c.-g., i.e. regardless of
whether or not the matrix verb is a "causative" verb (in the sense that the
subject or AGENT of the matrix verb is responsible (i.e. causing) for the
action or state of affairs being described by the embedded clause).
(
This ls
justified theoretically in that the current and fundamental move is to build
a theory with maximal explanatory power, i.e. capable of capturing generallzations.
And it is justified also
emp~rical11
for aIl the sentences in (1)
2
syntactically behave the same, in a manner predicted by a unified analysis.
at least as far as the phenomena of clitic distribution, subject-verb inversion and preposition insertion
1
are concerned.
One of our major motives in che present work is to shdW that an analysie
"
of the distribution of c1itics in French causatives, can do without specifie
statements in the grammar concerning the placement of these clitics, i.e.
without specifie transformations of clitic placement (e.g. CLITIC PLACEMENT
in Kayne (1975), Emonds (1978)).
The present thesis will show that verb
movement observed in the causatives (c. Nous laissons Grégoire partir/Nous
laissons partir Grégoire) does not require a specifie statement either, for
it is subsumed
under the generic ru le MOve X (much as in Rouveret and
Vergnaud (1980»).
.,
One immediate implication 'Of chis approach is that the
grammar overgenerates.
But instead of stating basic ordering for rule
application, such as cyclic versus postcyclic rules, or even specifie ordering
(
statementB, as in Kayne (1975) or Fiengo and Gitterman (1978), we will assume
<'
that the grammar contains well-formedness conditions on representations.
2
We
will conaider an analysis of the distribution of clitics in the causative constructions within the Goverpment-Binding framework of Chomsky (1981).
2. Preliminaries
The approach to linguistic theory to which we have suscribed is referred
as the Extended Standard Theory, sometimes ca11ed the Government-Binding (GB)
Theory because of the central roles pIayed by the notions of government and
binding.
In particular, this framework assumes the following model of
(A) Base Component
(_
i. Lexlcon
ii. Phrase Struc ture Rules
Transformational Component
i. Hove X
gramma~:
"3
,
"
Interpretive Components
i. PF oomponen t
il. LF component
The lexicon specifies the inherent and idiosyncratic properties of lexica1
items.
o
•
"J
)'
(F"o,\
It contains various word formation rules such as affixation rules. and
lexical insertion rules.
The rule Move X of the transformationa! component
assigns ta each D-structure representation an associattd S-structure.
Thus
,the S-structure associated with the sentence in l is II:
1. Jean semble être devenue fou
11. [s [NP.
"John seems to be crazy"
Jean] semble [s [rvp eiJ être devenu fou]]
1
By convention. when the rule Move X moves a term, in this case tlie NP
Jean it leaves behind a trace coindexed wi th that term.
Given "that' a-structure
is derived trom the D-structure, ft follows by stipulation that at D-structure
the antecedent (Le.
l
~)
-trace relation will he lacking.
Note that the rule
Hove X may a1so appear in the PF or LF component, but for the purpose of the
\
discussion in tl;tis thesis we need not go into these consi.derations.
The ,,5-
structure representations are assigned PF- and Lf-representationsby specifie
rules, such as Deletion ru1es or Quantifier Raising- (QR) respectively.
~,ve
littIe' to say about these representations.
We will
We may think of (A) as the set
of rule systems.
The Government-Binding framework includes yarious subsystema of principles
"
"
including, among others, the following (cf. Chomsky. 1981, 1982):
,(B) 1.
i1.
lil.
lv.
X-bar theory
Case' theory
Government theory
Blnding theory
X-bar theory cons trains the development of the base comp~nent in (A)" and
imposes limita
on the phrase structure rules in assigning them some specifie
!,}
(
form that they must take.
In partieular, i t "limi ts the possible
'Synt~c tlc
categories by imposing th~m a small number of Categorial features, namely,
+v,
-V, +N. -N.
In eombination these categorial features deffne a set of
0
(,
,
4
lexical categories:
,\.}
[+v, -N] :: Verb, [+V, +N]~:: Adjective, [-v, +N] :: Noun, I-v,-NJ
'
D
The lexical categories are of the type X
= Preposition
a
and thea syntactic categories
1
(or phrasaI constructions), ·which are protections of lexical categories, ,are
v
0
_.max. or _..max-l
h i
"
o
f te
h ty'pe
À
X
, etc., d'epen ding on ter"
pos i t i on in t h e syn-
•
tac tic structures, as shawn in the following schema:
,CC) ~x
"
jrnax-l
..
'
~-2
So it is assumed that X in (C) 1s define~ in tenns of the categorial
O
features and' nothi.ng eise.
In Freidin (1983) this assumption i8 forma1ized
c
(
!
8S
,
1n (D):
(D) Categoria1 Composition: syntactic categories are
'determi~ed solely on the basis of categorial
features.
g
0, !
,
,
In addition ta containing the princip1e of Category Composition, X-bar
theory also includes the followirlg principle (cf. Freidin, op. cit.):
(E)
"
,
Phras~l
Projection: each lexical head (=N, A, V, P)
in a phrase-marker projects a maxi:mai phrasaI
category.
i
This theory presents a rest7,rictive working hypothesis, which excludes
certain analyses of the infini/ival
compl~ent in causative constructions.
"As a preview, consider (1) b., which we repeat here:
•
(1)
b'~
Nous laissons [
S
Grégoire partir à, la chasse].
Given the version of X-bar theory àssumed here,. (1) b. is ill-formed.
Since Nous laissons Grégoire partir à la chasse is nevertheless a grammatical
sentence which must be accounted for, we' will assume in conformi,ty with X-bar
éJ
'r
-~
t'l
,
--
0
,
--~--- -"'-~---­
'.
----------~--------
5
Il
theory that the verb laisser subcategorizes for an s or an NP followed by
c
an s (cf. .section 3.1 Chapter II: Causative Verbs and Subc*gorization,
Œ»
below) •
While the first subcategorization per.mits to account for the cases where
the inversion of subject and verb occurs (e.g. Nous laissons partir Gré &0 ire
o
à la chasse),
the second subcategoriz8tion representation permits an under-
. standing of the cases which have not -uruiergone the inversion process (e. g'.
Nous laissons Grégoire partir à la chasse).
According to Case theory (to
which we return directly), laisser, if subcategorized by an S, will not
~ld a _well-for.med sentential representation unl~ss inversion applies.
inJersion does not apply in these constructions the embedded subject
If
r~mains
Caseless, i.e. *Nous laissons'Is Grégoire partir à la chasse] is ill~formed
because the NP
c
Gré~oire
receives
n~Case.
However, if laisser subcategorizes
for an NP followed by an 5 then this problem does not arise at aIl and (1) b.
is predicted to be well-formed, as required.
"
Note that this version of X-bar
theory in conjunction with Case theory explain why cases like *3'ai fait Marie
\
douter de ça are ungrammatical, for faire only subcategorizes for an s.
As
..
to the cases like (1) a. above, where subject-verb inversion is "obligatory",
~ee
section 3.3 Chapter II and section VII, belowe
So X-bar theory, as represented here, permits a reduction in the class of
possible grammars by restricting the outputs of the base component, and as
'such is desirable in a general framework where the notions of stmplicity and
economy play an important raIe in the evaluation metric.
Case theory has to do with the assignment of abstract Case to elements
that are in Case-marked positions.
The basic principle of this theory 1s the
Case Filter, ~nd its formulation i8 as follows:
Case Filter: *NP, unless it is uniquely assigned Case
Moreover, let us suppose that the fundamental propertles of Case-assignment
are as in (F):
6
\
(F) ~ NP 1s Nominative (Nom) i f governed by AGR
NP 1s Obj ectivé (Obj.) i f governed by and
adjacent to ,[ +V, -N]
(or DATIVE) i f governed by
and adjacent to [-V, -N]
NP 1s Oblique
The definition of govemment we assume here is the following (cf, '
Chomsky, 1981):
(G) if in the configuration [~ ..•. y .... X •••• Y••••
..
J,
where 1. X = l -N, '±VJ
H. where ~ is a ...maximal p~ojection, if t
domina tes Y then 4! dominates :x
'" Hi. X C-commands y
then X governs Y
\
And C-collllUlll4. ià defined as;, f ollows :
(H) X C-commands y if and ooly i f oeither X nor
""
Y
contains the other and the first maximal
projection dominating X also dominates Y.
These la8t two, definitions are the main characteristica of the theory of
goverment we need retain here for our study.
Finally,the theorY"l>f binding
includes the following three 'c- principles (cf. Chomsky, op. cit.):
(I) An anaphor, i8 b~und in its Governing category
A p'roiiominal is free in its Governing category
'"
An R-expression i8 free
mere governing category is defined as follows:
X is a governing ca tegory for Y if and only if X ta the
minimal category containing Y and a governor of Y, where
X = NP or S.
From the binding theory,. what ve need retain for the purpose of this study 18
the foHoving implication:
assuming tbat PRO can be regarded as a pronominal
anaphor, in tbat PRO is like an overt pronoun since it never has an antecedent
within its clause (or NP) and,. alao, in tbat PRO resembles an anaphor finoce
.
•
1t has no intrinsic referential content, 1t follows from the binding theory
tbat PRO must be ungoverned and there'foxe must have no governing category,.
()
i.e. 1t cannot be both bound and free in its governing catego,y.
To illustrate the above principles, consider the fo11owing (wbere
trace of 1nanger les biscuits):
•
"v" •
7
a. Nous envoyons [NP Marie] [pp à l'école]
c
b. *Nous envoyons l pp à l'école] [NP Marie]
c. *Nous faisons
['5 Grégoire partir [pp à la classeJ]
l'
\J
,d. Nous fa~:i:~ns ['5 PRO laver [NP la voiture]]
e. Nous partons [pp pour la chasse J
f. Nous partons
g. *Nous pouvons manger les biscuits
[s PRO devoir ['5 Grégoire V']]]
Is
In ,a. , Marie is adjacent to and governed
Case, as required by the Case Filter.
govern, envoyer,
b~
adjacent to envoyer.
a maximal
PRO supporter
b~
envoyer.
It therefore rece1ves
The NP l'école is seperated from its
projectio~,
namely, the PP, .and 1s also non-
Therefore l'école cannot receive Case from envoyer.
Bowever the preposition à, a Case-assigner, does' govern this NP and is aIso
adjacent to it.
c
Consequent1y l'école receives Case from the preposition à,
as required by the Case Filter.
formed, a correct prediction.
The structure is thus predicted to be wellOn the other band, in b. Marie is separated
from"envoyer by the intervening PP à l'école.
So, even though Marie i5 governed
b}""" the verb i t is nevertheless nonadjacent to it.
,
As a result Marie remains
~
Caseless, thus violating the Case Filter.
Rence b. is il1-formed. as required.
In c., Grégoire is in a nonCase-governed position for it cannot receive Case
inside the embedded infinitival.
Le. the AGR node not being generated in
("
the infinitival, nordoes it receive Case fram the matrix clause since the
maximal projection 5 lntervenes to block government.
remains Caseless and the structure ls ill-formed.
prediction.
If
50
Therefore Grégoire
This 15 again a desirable
then we should expect a PRO showing up in a structural
configuration siInilar to that of c.
This ls the situation in d. A PRO shows
/
up in the embedded subject position.
Since that position is nonCase-governed,
PRO does ,not violate the Binding Theory.
ls well-formed, as required.
Bence, in this respect, the structure
Note that an analysis (cf. Quicoli, 1982-b.)
c..,
8
..
where one assumes an embedded s rather than 5 would run into difficulty with
such cases, for government of PRO would be allowed and therefore the structure
would incorrectly be rejected, and it would also be inconsistent with X-bar
theory, i. e. \Je expect an 5" rather than an s from the principle of Phasal
Projection (cf. section 2, The Preliminoaries).
intransiti"ve verb.
f. shows that partir is an
And in e., the NP la chasse is contained in a PP; thus
government from outside into this PP 15 impossible (cf. the definitlon of
government above).
NP 1a chasse.
As a result the verb partir cannot assign Case to the
But the preposition pour cano
Therefore la chasse is uniquely
marked for Case, as required by the Case Filter.
Finally, in g. which is
more complex and which requires us ta preview again what will be said in
detail later, we observe that the construction [manger les biscuits] has
moved to a position adjacent to the higher verb pouvoir.
In fact, this
construction is "Chomsky-adjoined" ta the right of the matrix head verb,
thus creating a configuration like the follo';Ving: [yP
biscuits]] ..
1.
[
v
V] [- manger les
v
We assume that the transformation responsible for this
movement is Move X of the transfQrmatj.onal component (cf. (A) above).
convenience in our study we will
~all
the present instance of the univeral
rule Move X Verb Phrase Movement (henceforth VP-M).
moved manger les biscuits (Le.
3.2,. VP-M and à-Insertion)
v or
outside
For
50 VP-M in g. has
VP, cf. belowand Chapter ,II, section
of the containing s.
And crucially~
the result of this application of VP-M makes it such that govemment into
the adjacent (to the moved phrase)
s,
-in g., is made possible (cf. below
and also Chapter II, section 3.1, Causative Verbs and 5ubcategorization).
As a result, the subject position in this
5 i8 now governed.
But this ia
prohibited by the binding theory for the embedded subject of the verb
(
,
supporter Is occupied by PRO.
desired.
Therefore the structure is ill-formed, as
Note that according ta the present analysis the only possible
prediction available (if the optional VP-H holds) is where the verb phraae
l'_'<<-'>~''
••_____....________...., ....._ .........
_""'~'!:I-,,~
.~
.
,.1O;/C It
._,~
.'
manger les biscuits moves outside of the most embedded
(
s
but not "higher"
than that, i.e. if manger les biscuits is adjoined to voir:
nous pouvons
supporter de voir manger les biscuits par Grégoire (concerning the insertion
of par c.L Chapter II, section 3.2).
This is a welcome prediction since the
sentence is perfectly grammatical.
The general organization of this thesis is as follows.
The
prel~i-
nary remarks above state the general assumptions needed for our study (cf.
Chapter III, section 3.1, for more specifie assumptions).
These assumptions
have been widely discussed in the literature and have often been argued to
be independently motivated.
We take it for granted that they are needed
somewhere else in the grammar, and it will be shown that their application
is extremely useful and significant in a theory
Whic~
concerned with the
causative constructions.
In Ch~Pt~r fI. section 1., we expose sorne naive assumptions and very
(
basic facts concerning the derivation of causatives without clitics.
We
assume, for example, that there is a ''verb movement" iule (VP-.M), which
accounts for the inversion of the subject and the verb regularly observed
in this type of construction.
This rule i9 an extraction operation and
takes any projection of the embedded verb (Le. V, V-bar, V-double bar) out
of this clause and "Chomsky-adjoins" it to the matrix verb. thus creating a
verbal complex:
Je [V [V ferai]
Iy.
douter de ça]J
[s
à Marie ,e j J.
Our
1
analysis will make it possible to assume that VP-M cau be subsumed under
IÂ
the more generic rule MOve X, hence need not be stipulated in the grammar
of French causative constructions.
Ta preview sorne of the consequences of
the analysis to be developed, we will show that only after VP-M has applied
i8 it possible ta account of the Case-marking of the embedded subject in
terms of the insertion of a preposition (either à or l'ar).
~is,
we
will assume that VP-M creates the necessary structural condition for CaseMaking or preposition insertion, i.e. VP-M by adjoining the embedded verb
10
to the matrix verb, "crosses" the embedded '5-boundary and as a result
affècts this boundary, in the sense that either it gets deleted ('5deletion) or it loses its
i~permeab11ity
to government fram the matrix
clause (see Chapter II. section 3.1., below) •. We will therefore provide
a principled account for the subject-verb inversion phenomenon. as weIl as
for the phenomena of preposition insertion,-€ase-Alternation (cf. Chapter III,
section 3.2., below) and clitic distribution.
Our discussion then shifts ta the critical review of the very interesting
analysis of Rouveret and Vergnaud (1980).
Our proposaI is in fact a modifi-
cation of Rouveret and Vergnaud's analysis, in that our rule of VP-M is a
"Chomsky-adjunction" operation which obeys the Basic Analysability principle
of Lasnik and Kupin (1977); our analysis is different also from the point of
view that it assumes no transformations for the placemeni
, of the clitics.
Rather, we assume that clitics are based-generated, affixed to the verb, like
,
'-.-'
other affixes, where they appear at surface structure.
In section 3.1., we start constructing our grammar.
lt is shown that for
verbs like laisser a double subcategorization representations must be assumed,
while verbs like faire require
only one.
This, as we will
~ee,
accounts for
the fact that with faire, but not with laisser, the "verb movelllent" process
seems to be obligatory.
Also, in this section, a crucial assumption is expressed,
i.e. only after VP-M has applied, is s allowed to apply.
This, as will be seen in
cl'
later sections, has very interesting consequences.
For example, from this crucial
assumption we will be in a better position to understand why the process of preposition insertion takes place only after VP-M, or why indeed.the inversion of the
subject and the verb seems to be necessary or obligatory with faire. "These facts
as weIl as others ta be pointed out in later sections, will be significantly
rellated from the point of view of the notion of government.
In Chapter II still, section 3.2. we show that the verb movement rule we
propose (VP-H) bas interesting consequences t in
add~tion
to making just
cor~
Il
predictions.
(
In particular, it i8 shown that the assumption concerning 5-
deletion le ad to a simple formulation of the rule responsible for preposition
insertion in causatives.
A detailed discussion Is presente.d of the various
output structures with laisser- and faire-type verbs, where processes of
Case-marking. Preposition Insertion and VP-M interact.
We close this section
with a discussion of problematic cases, a priori. and we argue they need not be
seem as counter-examples to our proposaI.
In Chapter III, section 1. we expose the general facts of causative
constructions with clitics.
We observe that depending on whether or not
VP-M applies some clitic configurations are allowed while others are excluded.
We also observe that whether or not the embedded subject i5 PRO or a lexical
-
NP, the complement obj ect clitics may or .may not appear on the matrix verb.
We then proceed by once more looking at Rouveret and Vergnaud' s an~lysis.
This is section 2 .• Chapter III.
We discussed the paradigm of cases reviewed
in this
ar~
arise.
And in the next section (section 3.1) we introduce the specifie
as weIl as others not discussed, pointing out where problems
assumptions needed to aecount for the distributions of elitics within eausatives.
Finally, for the sake of clarity, we d:!:vide the rest of the chapter
into three sections, section 3.2. The Faire-paradigm. section 3.3. The La!sserparadigm, and section 3.4 The Voir-paradigm.
In sum, the analysis we propose for
the faire-paradigm is extended in a unified way to the other paradigms.
We
wish to emphasize, here, that syntaetically speaking all these paradigms
behave more or less the same and that this typology should not be understood
as having any significant empirical or theoretical statua.
It i8 simply a
matter of making the discussion clear, sinee we will show. that the proposed
analysis accounts for a11 of them in a unified way.
IV we drawour conclusions.
And finally, in Chapter
12
CBAPTER II - Causative
f
! \.
!
1. General Principles
J
(1) b.
Con8tructio~s
Without Clitics
Let us assume with Rouveret and Vergnaud (1980)
3
that structures 1ike
and (1) c., which 1llustrate the phenomenon of "verb movement", are
derived from underlying structures like (1) q., via movement of the
1
~m-
bedded verb alone, as in (1) b., or via movement of the verb dong vith
1
the obj ect, as in (1) c. (details as ide) :
(1) a.
,
~---
.
*Je ferai [s Marie douter de ça]
[V
douterJ][ }1arie e. de ça]
1
1
s
c. Je [V[V ferai] [V douter de ça] J[ s à Marie el]
1
d. *Je [V[V ferai J[ V. douter] J[ s à Marie el de ça]
b. Je [V[V ferai]
1
V
douter de çaJ[ 5 Marie e. ]
1
1
We return directly to the fact that a preposition (Le.
e. *Je
[iv
ferài][
inserted in both (1) c. and d.
!)
has been
Concerning the fact that 5 has deleted in
(1) b. - e. see sections 3.1 and 3.2 (this chapter).
We further aSSume
that the moved phrase, which can be any proj ection of V (in the sense of
the X-bar system) is "Chomsky-adjoined" to the matrix verb, as illustrated
in (1) b. - e.
analysis.
4
As we shall see this last assumption is crucial for our
We will refer to the verb movement rule, as the rule of Verb
Phrase Movement (VP-M) , which i8 in fact an
instantiation of the more
general rule Move X of the transformational component (cf. Chapter I,
section 2.).
What
i~
interesting concerning (1) i8 that when the subject of the
embedded clause is lexical, as in (1) a., the structure i8 ill-formed.
However, when "verb movement" (Le. VP-M) takes place, as in (1) b.,
moving the verb alone, the resulting structure, in which the moved verb
and the embedded subject are adjacent, is well-formed.
In (1) e., where
VP-M has applied, if the verb along with its object i8 moved the resulting
(;
structure, in which the moved verb and the embedded subject are unadjacent,
13
is ill-formed.
But if a preposition ls
1ns~rted
before the embedded sub-
I
<.
ject when VP-M has moved the verb and its object, then the resulting struc(l
ture 1s well-formed, as in (1) c.
Finally, when the embedded verb alone is
moved v1a VP-M, hence when the moved verb and -the embedded subject are adjacent, and then the preposition insertion takes place, the resulting structure 1a ill-formed, as in (1) d.
The following chart summarizes the facts
Just reviewed (where "PI" me ans preposition insertion):
Complement lexical subject
+PI
-PI
'"
+ adjacency
*
adjacency
O.K.
O.K.
*
Whenever adjacenc>: between the moved verb and the embedded subject
(
obtains as a result of VP-M moving the verb only (Le. +adjacency) the
preposition must not be inserted (Le. -PI) for a well-formed structure
to obtain (i. e. O. K.).
As noted, i f the preposition i8 nevertheless
}
1nserted (Le. +PI) an ill-formed structure obtains (1. e. *).
Conversely,
whenever nonadjacency between the moved verb and the embedded subj ect obtains as a result of
~-M
moving the verb along the PP (Le. -adjacency)
the preposition must be inserted (i.e. +PI) for a well-formed structure
•
(1. e. O.K.) to obtain.
Consider now the structures in (2):
(2) a. *Nous pouvons supporter [5 PRO de voir [5 Grégoire manger J]
1
b. Nous pouvons supporter [5 PRO de vo~r [NP Grégoire J[ 5 PRO manger J ]
c. Nous pouvons supporter [5 PRO [V[ V de vOir][v. mangerJ[s Grégoire el]]
1
d. ~Nous pouvons supporter [5 PRO [V[V de voir ][V. manger]][ NP Grégoire J
1
"
[s PRO el
._r___"
__
~""··"'''''''_'''''''f
''''''''''''''''''~·~-''''~
..
~-'>.-
~4
As will be discussed in details (cf. section 3.1. of this chapter) two
D-structure representations, which happen to be like the structures in (2) a.
and b., are required for sorne causative verbs in French, e. g. laisser, voir.
We have already seen what happens when the embedded subject is a
~exical
NP.
For example, the structure in (2) c. 1s derived from aD-structure similar
to une structure
i~ (2)
a., via VP-M.
The moved verb has been adjoined to
voir and is adjacent to the embedded subject Grégoire.
formed.
The' structure is well- •
If nothing "happens" to the D-structure, (2) a. 15 derlved.
embedded subject 15 lexical and the structure is"ill-formed.
The
However, what
ls interesting concerning the cases where the embedded subject la nonlexical,
i.e. PRO,
is that VP-M cannot apply, for otherwise an ill-formed structure
obtains.
The ill-formed structure in (2) d. is derived from an underlying
structure similar to the structure in (2) b. , via VP-M, and contains a PRO
subject.
The following chart summarizes these facts:
(
+VP-M
*
O. K.
O.K.
*
PRO subject
:
Lexical subject
.
-VP-M
That is to say, when VP-M applies (Le. +VP-M) then the embedded subject
must be a nonPRO subject (Le: lexical subject) for a well-formed structure
,
to obtain.
If VP-M does not apply (i.e. -VP-M) when the embedded subject is
lexical then an ill-formed structure ob tains •
Th1s implies that if VP-M
applies and that the resulting structure 1s ill-formed, then the embedded
subject is nonlexical (Le. PRO), and if VP-M does not apply and the resulting structure is well-formed, then the embedded subject is nonlexical (Le.
(
,,
PRO).
1
15
The grammar we will construct below (cf. sections 3.1. and 3.2.
of this chapter) relates the phenomena of verb movement, of preposition
'insertion in a way such that they fall out as a direct consequence of a
unique process, namely VP-M.
Before we do that however, we will turn our
attention to the very interesting analysis of Rouveret and Vergnaud (1980).
2. Rouveret and Vergnaud's Analysis (1980)
The grammar Rouveret and Vergnaud construct does not cover Case-assignment, but incorpora tes a fiiter that lists the contexts where an NP i9 allowed
in outer structure.
Its formulation i5 as follows:
(3) *NP, unless a. NP is governed by Tense
b. NP is governed by -wh or
5
~h
c. NP is governed by [a category -A. P. ]
A nondistinct from [-N], wher~ A
dominates lexical material.
In addition this analysis incorporates a VP-Preposing rule (hencefortb
(
VP-P), which moves the embedded verbal constituent (symbo1ized as *V) and
adjoins *V ta the embedded S.
Moreover, VP-P is restricted ta complements
of the verbs in the class of faire, laisser, voir, etc. 6
VP-P is illustrated in the following configuration:
(4)
/5"",
NP
VP
/~s
/~s
COMP
V
,/""
Verbal
S
constituen~~
NP
*v
The effec te. of
16
More specifically, VP-Preposing takes place in the following derivation:
(5) a. *On fait [5 Marie sortir du bureau]
b. On fait [5 [s sortir [s Marie V du bureau]]]
c. *On fait [5 [5 sortir du bureau [5 Marie V]]]
If one focuses on the verbal constituent adjoined to the embedded
S node (cf. (4», one can understand why (5) c. is ill-formed. According
ç
7
to the definition of C-command adopted by Rouveret and Vergnaud. \~en
the verbal constituent "branches" government of the embedded subject Ce.g.
Marie in (5) c.) is blocked.
As a result, the NP Marie is in none of the
permitted contexts of the filter (3).
ill-formed.
Renee the structure i8 rejected as
That i8, the moved verbal constituent (via VP-Preposing) in
(5) b. and (5) c. have the following representation, respectively (where
*V is the verbal constituent):
S
*v
.;)
/
SORTIR
= (5) b.
/""-s
IV
/"
NP
V
VP
/
1
MARIE
SORTIR
As we can see the
verb~l
to (5) b. does not branch.
constituent
~
DU BUREAU
c.
~
NP
1
VP
:
1
MARIE
*v in the structure corresponding
Also, the NP Marie in this structure is in the
C-command domain of the verb sortir.
text allowed by filter (3).
/
= (5)
Therefore, Marie is in a proper con-
On the other hand, the verbal constituent *V
in the structure corresponding to (5) c. does braneh, ainee the NP du bureau
is a constituent of the Node *v.
Therefore, the NP Marie in this structure ia not in the C-c?mmand domain
~
of the verb sortir.
As a result, tbe NP Màrie rem.ains ungoverned.
Bence, it
, •;
.---------------~~~~-~~~~~-
~~~----~--~-
11
is not in any of the permitted contexts of fHter 0).
(,
structure is rejected.
Consequently, th!:!
That explains the difference between'structure
(5) c. and structure (5) b •• Le. a starred versus a nons,tarred structure.
Note that VP-P :Ls an optional rule, in (5) b. and c. VP-P did apply and in
(5) a. it did -not.
In (5) a., Mariê remains ungoverned, being separated
from the matrix verb faire by an
5
boundary.
a context permitted by f1lter (3).
Therefore. Marie is not in
Bence, (5)
8.
1s
ill-for~.
Thus,
in (5), the only well-formed structure is (5) b., as required.
To illustrate further. consider the following:
<;1
(6) a. *Marie fera [5 Jean Jire le livre]
a
b. *Marie fera [s [s lire le livre [5 'Jean
'"
V]]J
"
------
[s
[s lire le livre [s à Jean
In (6) a. VP-Prepesing did not apply.
(
fore contains an NP,
~,
which i8
,a
a
c. *Marie fera [5 [s lire [s Jean V le livre]]]
d. Marie fera
o~
0
\"
I?
<>
VJ JJ.
The resulting stlllucture there-
un~overned.
and th~ structure is Cre je ete d' by filter (3).
"
Rencoe the" derivation
blocks"
In (6) b .• VP-Preposing has
moved the embedded V. which is branching, 'thus preventing Jean from 'being
allowed by filter (3).
Aga in , the dedva tion blocks and the resul'1:ing
structure is rejected by filter (3).
In (6) c. the category governing the
(~
embedded object is not lexically filled.
1
But filter (3) requires that it
be filled, for otherwise, the abject NP is not in a context permitted by
fiiter (3).
Therefore c. is an ill-formed structure.
Interestingly, in
(6) d., in addition to the application of VP-Preposing a preposition has
..
been inserted (we return directly to the formulation ~f the rule)".
VP-
Preposing has moved the v'erb lire along with the subcategorizing NP
U
le livre.
l'
Therefore, le livre is in a context permitted by fliter (3).
the insertion of the preposition à creates a permissible context for the
(
NP
.:!!:.!!!.
vis-à-vis filter (3).
The resulting o structure 1s therefore cor-
rectIy predicteq te 1>e well-formed.
J
18
..
In sum, VP-Preposing differs from our: ru1e VP-M in three significant
G
respects: i) it does not extract the verbal constituent from the complement
~
5;
ii~
it is independent of the ru1e !-insertion; iii)
Basic Ana1yz'abi1ity of Lasnik and Kupin (19'77).
~t
does not obey
(cf. Footnote 15)
1~ ,
Turning now to the rule of
!-Inser~ion,
the analysis of Rouveret and
Vergnaud
incorporates
the fo1lowing: '
,
,
(7) !-Insersertion (Hencerorth à-Ins.)
v
NP
NP
l
2
3
~ 1
2
[pp Prepx 3]
Conditions: i) 2 is Accusative
"
ii) Prepx is nondistinct from à: Cit ia à if it
dominates lexical materia1: otherwise,,;lt i8
8
.' the nul1 element.
0
In other words, the rule of à-Ins. is merely saying that in (6) d., or
examples of that type where the structural description (SD) ia met, if the
'r
'-,'î
moved\verb is followed by an Accusative object NP which, in turn, is followed
by another NP, then this last NP must be yreceded by a preposition nondistinct
from à (cf. Footnote 8).
t~nce-to ie grammatical:
This ana1ysiso correctly predicts the following senMarie fera lire le livre à Jean.
counts for the facts "to sorne extent.
The ana1ysis ac-
That is, it predicts for instance that
in (6) c. above a preposition (à) will not be inserted before the NP le livre
for, presumably, Jean is not assigned Accusative Case.
9,
Nonetheless, this
.;
analysis is more
de~criptive
than explanatory.
The rule in (7) stipulates
what the ,,facts are, - but they do not follow from, more general princip1es.
best the rule is simply description.
The theory does not exp la in , for in8-
tance, why i t is that à-Insertion cannot apply prior ta the application of
VP-Preposing, as in (6) a. above (aside from the fact that the stipulative
SD of rule (7) is not met).
Moreover, it 15 not clear why the application
of à-Insertion should create a Prepositional Phrase (PP), why an NP should
turn int9 a PP.
Therefore one is prompted to look for a revis10n of the
'"
At
19
analysis as a whole.
c
For instance, is there 'not a way of construing the
facts of verb movement, preposition insertion as being intrinsically
related?
(cf. next section).
To put this in ather terms, ls there any
advantage to building a theory where these facts are correlated?
We
will assume that the answer is affirmative and will show how that can be.
Le~
us then turn to the analysis we would like ta propose to account
_for the properties of causatives discussed in section 1 above, and see how
the problems of the Rouveret and Vergnaud' s analysis can be avoided.
3.1 Causative Verbs and Subca tegorization
One of the major facts observed in causative constructions that has
to be accounte.d for concerns fI,verb movement", characterized in Rouveret and
Vergnaud' s system by VP-Preposing, and in our analysis by Verb Phrase Move-
c
ment.
This phenomenon is again illustrated in (8):
(8) a. Je laisse retomber la responsabilité sur lui
1
b. Je fais retomber la responsabilité sur lui.
Leav1ng aside for the moment the exact characteristics of the resulting 8truc-
.
ture underlying (8), let .us nevertheles8 cons1der the corresponding partial
\
s-structure in (9) (where "e" 1s the trace left by the moved verb retomber):
(9) a. Je laisse retomber [5 la r~sponsabilité [e] sur luiJ
b. Je fais retomber [5 ~a responsabilité [e J sur lui]
As illustrated in (9),
these structures aHow the embedded subject to be
Case-marked, for there i8 no major maximal projection (i. e. S) to block govern"
\
.
ment.
Now one may speculate about the structures corresponding to (9) but
just prior "verb movement" takes
p~ace.
Suppose that they are as in (10):
(10). a. Je laisse [5 la responsabilité :tïetomber sur lui]
\
(~;
.
b. Je fais [s ~a responsabilité retomber sur luiJ
~1
/
"In (10), the embedded subj ec t, la
responsabi~ité,
)
cannoF be Case--
20
marked via INFL, for the embedded clause is an 1nfinitiva1.
The on1y pos-
sibility for i t to receive Case, as required by the Case Filter (cf. section
()
2, The Preliminaries), is from the matrix verb.
And it can, for the verb
laisser or faire govern the the embedded subject.
This Is so because there
1.s no s-boundary, an absolute barrier to government, between laisser or
f aire and the embedded subj ec t.
However this immediately runs into d1ff1culty,
for one of the sentences generated by these structures 1s grammatical, the
other ungrammat1cal, contrary to predictions:
(11) a. Je laisse la responsabilité retomber sur lui
b. *Je fais la responsabilité retomber sur lui
!',
Note that it obviously will not do to assume that both verbs subcategorize for an,
s;
the structure in (12) a. is ruled out for the Bam~ reason that
(12) b. is - namely, the infinitive subject 1s not governed and hence Caseless:
(12) a. ~Je laisse [5' la responsabilité retomber sur lui]
C_ '
\'
*Je fais [s la responsabilité retomber sur lui]
While the analysis in (10) correctly predicts (11) -a. to be grammatical,
the analys1s in (12) incorrec tly pred1cts the same sentence to be ungrammatical;
~d
while (12) correctly predicts (11)
predicts (11) b. to be grammatical.
bl.em.
a
b.
to be ungrammatical,
(10) incorrect1y
It thus seems that we are facing a pro-
It 1s important to see that what we are trying to do is t,o captpre
genera11zat1on - name1y, the genera1izat1on that the verb movement pheno-
menon occurs in both "types" of constructions.
If the proper way to dea1
with this fact i8 to assume an identical D-structure representation for both
constructions, it clear1y seems that something more is requ1red, an additional
assumption must be made..
Note that with the verb faire if "verb movement"
does not hold then an ungrammat1cal sentence arises, whi1e w1th verbs 1ike
laisser, whether or not "verb movement" takes place, a granunatical sentence
-
(
a lways surfaces.
It is as if with the former "verb movement" were obligatory
but not with the latter.
Consider the follow1ng:
•
~>
"
21
'(13) a. Je ferai manger cette pomme à Jean/*Je ferai Jean manger cette pODlDe
b. Je laisserai manger cette pomme à Jean/Je laisserai Jean manger
cette pomme
As shown in (13), whether or not "verb ~ovemè~t" occurs, in b. a perfectly
1
grammatical sentence i5 obtained while, on the other hand, a positively ungrammatical sentence is obtained if "verb movement" does no.t occur in a.
Hitherto, what this discussion suggests is that a different analysis
should b~ advanced, one for each type of verb.
That is, one ls prompted ta
assume that faire subcategorizes for an 5 and that laisser subcategorizes
for ,an s or, if it subcategorizes for an
5 also then
i t i8 marked by some
featureO (presumably) to undergo optional s-delition.
However, concerning laisser t one immediate difficulty with the tirst
alternative 1s tbat it is inconsiStant with X-bar theory.
This theory
pred1cts that aIl lexical heads project a maximal phrasaI projection -
o
c
hence St for sentential complements.
Thus what we should have as the
embedded clause of laisser is an St not an s.
As to the other alternative
'Vith laisser, it is a priori not excluded but introduces laisser as being
"
. special, i. e. as being marked by a fea ture presumably. Moreover, we would
like to avoid assuming an S deletion process with verbs like laisser.
Shortly we shall see why this position i8 preferable.
Let us therefore
propose that laisser has a double subcategorization representation and faire
as mentioned, a unique subcategorization representation:
(14) a. [
V
J
laisser
b. [
V
[ +_NP, SJ
laisser ]
[+_5J
(--,
(
]
j. C' [ V faire
[+
We then except
5]
the following representations:
(
,
...
G
22
(15) a. Je laisserai [NP Jean ][S' PRO monter sur la chaise]
b. Je laisserai [S' Jean monter sur la chaise]
c. Je ferai [S' Jean monter sur la chaise]
Although partial, these D-structures should suffice for the purpose
of this discussion.
From Case Theory. it follows that i f nothing "happens"
to these structures, only a. will be allowed to surface.
that
s,
That is, given
but not NP, is an abso1ute barrier to government and that the embedded
clause 18 an infinitival S'-complement (cf. Footnote 26, below) the NP Jean
c
i8 in a nonCase-governed position in b. and c.
results.
A Case Fil 'ter violation
The predictions are therefore the following:
Je laisserai Jean
monter sur la chaise; *Je ferai Jean monter sur la chaise, which is what
we want.
Now what about the cases where
II
verb movement" takes place? -
name1y, those in (16) (cf. (8) above):
(16) a. Je laikserai monter Jean sur la chaise
b. Je ferai monter Jean sur la chaise
()
What is to be discussed now i8 why the absence of the application of
"verb movement" with laisser does not produce an ungraunnatical sentence,
while it does with faire."
Earlier we have assumed that what charac terizes
the verb movement phenomenon is the rule of Verb Phrase Movement (VP-M).
This ru le extracts the verb or any of its projection (in the sense of the
X-bar system) out of !ts s-domain and .fChomsky-adjoined" it to the matrix
verbe
This, we assume, affects the V level.
as shown in the following configurations:
c
•
So the effects of VP-H are
23
(17) a.
$
b.
c
~
,
The structure in (17) a. obtains as a res1ut of VP-M moving the verb
on1y (i.e. V), whi1e that in b. obtains as a result of VP-M moving, this
l
- 10
time, the verb and its subcategorizing objects (Le. V).
assumption of this point i8
that~
A very critica1
in extracting some projection of V outside
24
of its s-domain, VP-M creates a configuration such that government into
this domain is made
possib~e.
So the moved head in both (17) a. and b.,
as weIl as the matrix verb, can now govern into the embedded s-domain.
This government relationship could plausibly be seen as resulting from the
application of VP-M.
That is, the application of VP-M crea tes a configura-
tion that triggers s-deletion.
This means that prior to VP-M s-deletion
is unappl1cable, as required (cf. (10), (11), (12) and related discussion).
Note, if we are to assume an s-deletion process for causative constructions
in order to obtain governmertt of the embedded subject NP, then we must
assume that this s-deletion process i8 sensitive to the application of
VP-M, or to the configuration created as a result of VP-M applying.
is
50
This
-
because of cases like (18) b. below, which become grammatical when
the "verb-movement" process takes place (cf. (8), (9), (10), (11), (12)
above).
(
Consequently, the position subject (i.e. NP, S) of the embedded
clause can possibly (i.e. s-deletion is optional) become governed only
after VP-M has applied.
Indirectly then, the effects of
VP-~I
is to allow
the embedded subject to be governed.
Now, consider the noted contrastive behavior between laisser and
faire vis-à-vis the nonapplication of "verb movement", Le. VP-M:
(18) a. Je laisse Jean monter sur la chaise
b. *Je fais Jean monter sur la chaise.
Recall that we are assuming that verbs like laisser have a double
subcategorization representation while the verb faire has only one (cf. (14».
If laisser subcategorizes as represented in (14) a., then Jean is easily
assigned Case from the matrix verb, as required by the Case Filter.
correct1y prediets (18)
a.
to be grammatical.
This
However, in (18) b., if the
verb faire takes an s, as it always does in the context of causatives, then
government betwen this verb and the embedded subjeet is bloeked.
Case-marking.
As a result, Jean remains Caseless.
And
50
is
The sentence, is therefore
rejectcdby the Case Fi1ter.
lt fo11ows th en from the Case Fllter that
"verb movement" is ob1igatory with faire.
More explicitely. consider
the structure ln (19):
(19) a. *Je [VP[V[V laisse][V monter][NP Jean][s PRO V sur la chaise]]
b. Je [vp[v[V fais][v monter]][s Jean V sur la chaise]]
Suppose, as in (19). that VP-M has applied.
to take place.
As a result, in b., Jean ls now adjacent to and governed
by the verb monter.
The NP Jean is thus correct1y assigned Case.
fore the structure is well-formed.
a. is the fol1owing.
government.
This al1ow8 s-deletion
There-
The reason for the il1-formedness of
Prior to VP-M, as said above, s remains opaque to
After VP-M, however, this 5 is allowed to de1ete.
th:1t the embedded subject in (19) a.
But given
i8 PRO, the structure is immediately
,..
rejected, for from the Binding Theory PRO cannot be governed.
i8 starred.
Rence (.19) a.
Not that regardless of whether or not VP-M applies here the
NP Jean would still receive Case.
Therefore, the ill-formedness of (19) a.
cannot be credited to a Case Filter violation.
,/
Suppose now that laisser does subcategorized for an 5 as in (14) b.
above.
(20)
The fo11owing is generated:
Je laisse [s Jean monter sur la chaise]
If nothing "happens" to (20)
Fi1ter.
t
the structure is rejected by the Case
This indicates that (18) a. is obtained in a unique way, though
our grammar allows laisser to have two different representations of Dstructure.
If VP-M applies in (20). then s may delete.
NP Jean iB assigned Case and, contrary to
ob tains •
If it does the
(19) a., a wel1-formed structure
Thus we correctly predict the fol1owing sentence to be grammatical:
Je laisse monter Jean sur la chaise (= (16) a.).
(:
Summarizing we have been arguing that both representations (1'4) a.
and
(14) b. are required to generate the causatives wi th laisser (cf. section
The laisser-paradigm for more evidence for this requirement).
With faire
/
Lb
only one representation is required, namely (14) c.
We have hypothesized
that VP-'M as a result of its application creates the configuration that
allows 5 to delete. allowing the ~mbedded subj ect to be Case-marked.
Given this assumption, it follows from the Case Fllter that verb movement
i8 obligatory with faire but optional with laisser.
We thus do not need
to stipulate that the "verb movement" rule is obligatory with faire.
The next issue we would like to explore concerns the insertion of a
preposition (e.g. à) in causative constructions, Le. we will pose the
following question:
Why it is that ,the preposition gets inserted only
after VP-M has applied?
To be more precise, what 18 the nature of the
relation between the "verb movement" process and the preposition insertian process?
3.2. VP-M and à-Insertion
For the purpose of the discussion in this section, we
the following rule:
ne~
introduce
Il
(21) Preposition Insertion (Henceforth PI)
Adjoin a preposition (Le. à/par) ta a governed NP
12
The phenomenon of preposition insertion in causatives applying only
•
after "verb movement" falls out as a consequence of the VP-M process.
That
is, we have seen in the previous section that a verb movement rule was needed
for the causatives with !aire and laisser and, DOW, we will argue that the
same rule (VP-M) is further needed to permit a simple and minimal formulat ion of the rule of PI (21).
Moreover, we explain why PI occurs only
aiter "verb movement".
In the previous section one of the possibilities offered by VP-H we
have been facing consisted in assuming that VP-M moves only the head of
the verb phrase.
Suppose now tha t VP-M moves the whole VP, i. e. cODsider
27
1
1
the following possibilities in (22) an(:)<24), with the partial a-structure
(
representations in (23) and (25) respec tively:
,
(22) a. Je fais lire le livre par Jean
b. *Je fais Jean lire le livre
c. *Je fais lire le livre Jean
d. *Je fais lire à Jean le livre.
(23) a. Je, [vp[iv fais][v. lire le livre)[s par Jean el]]
1
b. *Je [vp fais [s Jean lire le livre)]
c. *Je [vp[ V[ V fais
J[ V.
d. *Je o[vp[V[ V fais
J[ V.
lire le livre] ][
1
Jean e ])
i
5
lire)][s à Jean e. le livre]]
1
1
(24) a. Je fais douter de ça à Marie
b. *Je fais Marie douter de ça
c. *Je fais douter de ça Marie
d. *Je fais douter à Marie de ça.
(
V
douter de çaJJ[ à Marie el )]
s
1
b. *Je [vp fais [s Marie douter de ça]]
(25) a. Je" [vp[V[ V fais][
c. *Je [vp[v[ V fais][V
[vive V
douter de ça] J[ 5 Marie el]]
1
douter ]][
à Marie el de ça]]
S
~
1
Among other things, what we want to know is why it ia that the process
d. *Je
fais][ V
of preposition insertion takes place only after the occurence of the process
of verb movement.
lt i8 insufficient to state that a cerbain structural
description triggera the rule of preposition, namely, •... V-NP ACC-NP ....
(e. g. (22) s.) because on the one hand, it does not explain the facts but
merely describes them and on the other, ft runs into difficulty with cases
like (24) a., where the structural description is not met but the preposition
i8 nevertheless required for a well-formed structure to obtain (cf. also
(26) b. be1ow).
However, given our assumptions a11 the facts in (22) -
l
(25) faU out.
In (22) b. and (24) b., partia1ly characterized at s-struc,ture in (23) b.
-
and (25) b., respectively, VP-M did not apply even though the embedded sub-
28
ject i5 lexical (cf. section l, thisCchapter).
for the rule VP-M is optional.
This option is possible
Consequently. 5 remains opaque to govern-
ment from the matrix clause, i.e. 5 does not delete.
As a result the
embedded subject is in a nonCase-governed position and hence Caseless.
Given that this NP is ungoverned, Preposition Insertion is unapplicable.
Therefore (23) b. and (25) b. are ill-formed.
are ungrammatical.
In sum, if verb
mo~ment
Thus (22) b. and (24) b.
(i.e. VP-M) does not take
place and the embedded subject is lexical, then Preposition Insertion will
not take place as weIl.
This explains why the preposition i8 not inserted
when verb movement does not take place (cf. section l, this chapter).
The structures in (23) a. and (25) a., representing the sentences in
(22) a. and (24) a., respectively, show that VP-M has applied.
show that s-deletion has applie cl •
NP is now governed.
This means that the embedded subject
As one can see, VP-M
object (be it an NP or PP).
the complement subject.
They also'
ha~
moved the verb along its
As a result, the moved verb is unadjacent to
Therefore, the governed complement subject cannat
receive Case unless Preposition Insertion applies, inserting the preposition.
The subject ls then assigned Case by the preposition.
therefore well-formed.
The structures are
Hence (22) a. and (24) a. are grammatical.
If
Preposition Insertion does not apply, being an optional rule, as in (23) c.
and (25) c., the embedded subject remains Caseless.
Therefore, (23) c. and
(25) c. are rejected by the Case Fifter as ill-formed.
(24) c. are ungrwmmatical.
Henc~
(22) c. and
Again this explains why Preposition Insertion
applies when VP-M has applied and when the moved verb i8 unadjacent to the
embedded lexical subject (cf. section 1, this chapter).
Finally, in (23) d. and (25) d. VP-M has applied, moving the verb
(
as weIl as s-deletion.
The embedded subject is therefore governed by and
adjacent to the moved verbe
douter.
only~
The embedded subject i8 then Case-marked by
Since the embedded subject is governed, Preposition Insertion is
allowed to apply, adjoining the preposition to the subject.
(~
this subject is also Case-marked by the preposition.
embedded subject is doubly marke4 for Case.
This means that the
This constitutes a Case Filter
violation (as discussed in section 2, Chapter 1).
in (23) d. and (25) d. are rejected as ill-formed.
are ungrammatical.
As a result
Therefore the structures
Hence (22) d. and (24) d.
Thus this explains why Preposition Insertion cannot
apply when the moved verb is adjacent to the embedded subject (cf.
se~!o~
1, this chapter).
Interestingly this ana1ysis a1so extends to the laisser-paradigm.
For
instance consider (26) and (27):
(26) a. Je laisserai Jean accompagner Marie au commissariat.
b. *Je laisserai accompagner Marie au commissariat par Jean
c. Je laisserai accompagner Marie par Jean au commissariat
d. *Je laisserai accompagner par Jean Marie au commissariat.
(27) a. 1. Je [vp laisserai [NP Jean][s PRO accompagner Marie au commissariatr
ii. *Je [vp[v[V laisserai][Vp. accompagner Marie au commissariat]]
1
[NP Jean][
5
PRO e. ]]
1
b. i. *Je (vp laisserai [s Jean accompagner Marie au commiss~riat]]
accompagner Marie au commissariat] ]
ii. Je [vp[v[v laisserai][vp
1
[s par Jean el
11L Je
J]
[VP[V[V laisserai][V. accompagner Marie]][s par Jean e.1
1
au commissariat] ]
iv. *Je [vp[v[v laisserai][v. accompagner]][s par Jean el Marie au
1
commissariat]] •
Since laisser may be subcategorized either for an NP followed by an
or for an
S
5
(cf. (14) in section 3.1, this chapter), we consequent1y end up
with two possible types of structural representation, name1y, that in (27) a.
and that in (27) b.
Among other things, what we must show is that aIl the
JV
sentences in (26) are unambiguously (in a unique way) derived by our
grammar, even though two D-structure representations are provided.
In (27) a.-l. Jean is straightforwardly assigned Accusative Case by
the verb laisser.
VP-M did not apply here and, consequently, 5 deletion
did not apply either.
This structure is therefore well-formed.
(26) a. is grammatical.
Renee
In (27) a.-ii. VP-M has applied. moving the
whole Verb Phrase out of the embedded clause, s-deletion has then applied.
As a result, the embedded subject PRO is governed.
But since PRO cannot
have a governing category. the structure is rejected as ill-formed.
This
means that (26) b. cannot be derived from aD-structure similar to that in
(27) a.-i., and explains why VP-M cannot apply when the embedded subject is PRO
for
othe~ise
an ill formed structure obtains
~cf.
section l, this chapter).
In (27) b.-i., where laisser takes an s-complement, VP-M did
s-deletion, therefore, cannot apply.
l
apply.
As a result. the embedded s?bject
Jean remains ungoverned and thus Caseless.
as ill-formed by the Case Filter.
n~t
Rence the structure is rejected
This shows then that (26) a. can only be
derived from an underlying structure similar to that in (27) a.-i.
We there-
fore have an explanation for the fact that when the embedded subject iB lexical and that when VP-M does not apply. an ill-formed structure obtains
(cf. section 1, this chapter).
In (27) b.-ii. VP-M has applied, moving the
whole verb phrase accompagner Marie au commissariat out of the embedded
claUSe.
This allows s-deletion to apply.
As a resuIt, the embedded sub-
ject NP is now governed by the moved verb as weIl as by the matrix verbe
But since none of these two verbs i8 adjacent to the embedded subject, Case
cannot be assigned to Jean unless Preposition Insertion applies, adjoining
f
l
•
~
~
a preposition (i.e.
l
Jean.
~)
to this NP.
The preposition then assigns Case to
Therefore the structure in (27) b.-ii. passes the Case Filter.
(26) b. i8 grammatical.
Rence
Again, this shows that (26) b. can only be derived
~
1
via an underlying structure similar to that in (27) b.-ii., and explains the
31
fact that a welf-formed structure will obtain, if VP'::'M applies when the
('
emb~dded
subject is lexical (cf. section l, this chapter).
In (27) b.-HL, VP-M has applied, moving this time V only, Le.
accompagner Marie.
This indicates that the pp au' commissariat is not a
j
constituent of V-bar but, rather, of
lowing the embedded subj ec t
by the matrix verb.
B~t
W.
s-de1etion then applies, a1-
to be governed
by
the moved verb, as weIl as
'since none of these verbs is adjacent to the NP
Jean, Case cannot be assigned to Jean, un1ess P,reposition Insertion appliE!s,
<
adjoin'ing a preposition (1. e. par) to the NP Jean.
The NP Jean therefore
receives Case and the struc ture passes the Case' Filter.
ls well-formed and (26) c. is granunatical.
Hence (27) b 'o-iiL
This thus shows that (26) c."
has 'a unique derivation.
" '
Finally, in (27) b.-iv., VP-M has app1ied, moving the verb accompagner
o
li II
only.. s-deletion has then app1ied.
C
As a result the embedded subject
~
~
"
1s now governed by and adj acent to the moved verb accompagner.
~
is assigned Case by accompagner.
Therefore
But sinee this NP is governed, Pre-
pos1 tion Insertioft is allowed to apply, adj oining the preposi tion to the
NP Jean.
[c
NP
This adjunct10n creates, (as in (25) d.), the' following structure:
par [NP Jean]].
Given that the whole NP is adjacent to and governed by
the moved verb, it also receives Case from accompagner (and, presumably,
this Case percolates down to the he ad Jean).
ject Jean is doubly marked for Case.
As a result, the embedded sub-
This consti tutes a Case Filter violation
(as discussed in section 2, Chapter 1).
Therefore (27) b.-iv. 18 ill-formed.'
Hence, (26) d. 1s ungrammatical.
In sum, this ana1ysis holds for both types of verb, laisser and faire.
It shows that the double subcategorization representations for laisser, but
d
"
not for faire, are justified on the basis of sentences' such as those in
\,
c
(26) •
Moreover, it shows that each of the sentences ln (26) is derived in a
!
, ...
,
. '" _ ..
~
r .,
L'
32
unique way.
Given this unified analysis we have seen that a very principled
formulation of the rule of Preposition Insertion
may be provided.
7
_
We have
sêen that the notion of government is the basic parameter around which the
processes of VP-M and PI are intrinsically correlated.
mar overgenerates.
,
As seen, this gram-
But depending on whether dr not the embedded subject
is lexical and depending on whether or not the moved verb i8 adjacent to
the embedded subj ect, the "wrong" structures are immediately rej ected by
independent princip1es of the theory, namely, those of the Binding Theory
and Case Theory.
Hitherto, sorne of the structures we have focussed our attention on were
the causatives containing the faire-type or the laisser-type verb, which were
optionally subject to VP-M.
Indeed, among the output structures discussed
so far, are shematica1ly, the following:
e pp ] -:;::> VP-M only
A)
NP
V V [s NP
B)
NP
V
V NP [5 [NP
P
C)
NP
V
V PP [5
P N ]
D)
NP
V
[s
NP
NP
NP ]
e
e
J-';;:'
VP-M, s-deletion"
PI
] -;> VP-M, s-de1etion, PI
---- "
V]
To give an example for each, respectively we find the follow:1ng:
Je fais
Q
monter Jean sur la chaise; Je fais lire le livre par Jean; Je fais douter de
ça à,Marie; and *Je fais Jean aCC0mpagner au commissariat par Marie.
Another
possibility which we have not addressed is as in E):
E)
NP
V
V [s
NP,
e
NP] -;;> VP-M and s-deletion ("NP." = subj eet)
To illustrate, the following is an
1
ex~mp1e
which, of course, is ungram-
matieal:
(28)
*Je ferai/laisserai manger Jean cette pomme
The question that ârises is why it is that this sentence is ungrammatical?
>li
Jean being adjacent to and' governed by manger is uniquely marked for Case'.
How-
33
,\
c;J..
~;ver ,-even though cette pomme is goyerned by manger. or for that matter by.
the matrix yerb, it cannot receive Case from it,
jacent to this verbe
the Case
Filte~.
fo~
cette.pomme 1s unad-
Therefore cette pomme remains Caseless and violates
This might explain why the sentence is ungrammatical,
"
..
'
J
,
but as an explanation it 1s rather unsatisfactory since we still do not
know why PI did not app1y
~djoining
a preposition to cette pomme.
that ev en if PI applies the resu1ting structure is still
~s
its status i:s concerned:
Note
unc~anged
as far
*Je fais/laisse manger Jean à/par cette pomme.
But before one concludes that the grammar we have constructed runs into
prob1ems witb this type of structure in E), one shou1d a1so'take into consideration other facts as, for instance, those in (29) (sàme resu1ts with à):
....
4~
\
(29) 8. *Je [vp fais [V. brouter dans les ;~aml?s J[ s par
1
. '
rentrer dans l'éco1e][
b. *Je [vp fais.(v
1
*Je [ vp fais
s
•
l~S' ~oe':lrs e i ]
par les enfants e ]]
i
[V livrer
à Marie][s par les fleurs el]]
1
Rere, as one notices, the analysis of Rouveret an? Vergnaud makes the
C.
correct predictions, for the preposition-Cà/par) would not be allowed to be
inserted in any of the structures in (29), i.e. a PP fol10ws the moved verb
in each case and, as a
t
res~lt,
t~e
SD of their ru1e of Preposition Insertion
••
'
(cf. (1) in section 2. on Rouveret and Vergnaud' s System (1980»
.
,)
is not met"•
50 if the preposition in any case gets inserted the rule i8 violated, and
thus the structures starred.
Also, if their
r~le
does not apply (being
,
options!) the NP remains Case1ess and; a viQ1ation of the Case Filter resu1ts.
However, one would still be
,
(30) a. Je [vp fais
[v.
lac~~
.
douter de ça][s
an explanation for the following:
à ~rie ejJJ
1
'I~
b • *Je [vp fais
.,.
:
;.
{VI
donner des fléurs][s à Marie e i ]]
accompagner Marie au éommissariat][
c. Je [vp fais [vp
1
el]] (cf. (26) b.)
"
5
par les poliçiers
34
In (30) a., the prepositional phrase (Le. de ça) intervenes between
D
....,f
the' preposed verb and the embedded subject.
Therefore the rule of à-
Insertion of Rouveret and Vergnaud is not allowed to apply.
Yet the pre-
position à has been inserted and the sentence i8 perfectly grammatical (without the preposition the sentence ia ungr_atical).
Moreover, in b., an NP
(i. e. des fleurs) does intervene between the moved verb and the embedded sub-
.
ject.
Therefore the 5D of the rule of à-Insertion is met.
The insertion
of the preposition is then legitimate and their analysis predicts the structure
to be well-formed.
ungrammatical.
Yet ft is not and the corresponding sentence is indeed
Finally, lt is clear that in (30) c., the
Vergnaud' s rule ia not met.
sn of Rouveret and
The insertion of a prepositi.on, according to
their analysis, is impossible, much as in (29) c. above.
Nevertheless the
preposition ls required for a well-formed sentence to be obtained .
.0
None of the structures in (30) are problematic for our theory.
In (30) a.,
after VP-M and s-deletion, PI is allowed to apply inserting the preposition
\!JI>
à, and correcfly producing a well-formed structure.
In (30) b. if the pre-
•
position à is changed to the preposition ear the sentence becomes perfectIy
grammatical.
Our rule PI does allow
~
to be inserted.
prepositions have meaning and the choice of
~
(recall. tha t
as 6PE-Qsed to
!
is determined
o
semanticaIIy (cf. Footoote 8 ) .
And in (30) c., the preposition ~ is straight-
forwardly inserted after VP-M and s-deletion i8 applied.
Bence (30) c.
is
well-formed, as required.
As to the other cases, nameIy, (28) and' (29), there might be another
vay of looking at them.
Consider, for instance, (28) or
(29) c.
Suppose
o
we assume that the insertion of the preposition is correlated with further
semantic parameters, such as the fact that the embedded subject must be an
..
AGENT.
50 in these cases, cette pomme or les fleurs cannot in any way be
understood as the AGENT of the action being described.
the preposition would not be inserted.
Given this condition
In (28), cette pomme will therefore
/
r
1
35
1
remain Caseless and the sentence is rejected by the Case Filter.
c
the insertion of the preposition violates this
the ill-formedness of (29) c.
restr~ction
In (29) c.,
and thus produces
However this analysis runs into problems with
the remaining examples of (29), oamely (29) a. and b. where the embedded
subject is, clearly, to be understood as the AGENT of the action being described.
Thus, maybe this analysis is ooly partially correct.
Further considerations prompt us to think that the structural repre1
sentations in (29) are perhaps misleading.
For there is a sense in which
the apparent subject of the embedded clause is in fact an object complement.
Indeed, it is possible to interpret, for instance, les enfants in (29) b.,
as an object of the embedded verb, exactly as we do interpret the NP
~
enfants as the direct object in the following sentence:
(31) Je rentre les enfants dans l'école
c
This observation a1so holds for (29) c.
Les fleurs can possibly be
interpreted as the abject of the embedded verb livrer, exactly as we do
interpret les fleurs as bejng the direct object in (32):
o
(32) Je livre des fleurs à Marie
Consequently, suppose that the "correct" structural representations for
(29) b. and c. are as in (33), respectively:
(33) a. *Je [vp fais [vp. rentrer les enfants dans l'école J[ PRO e.]]
1
s
1
b. *Je [vp fais [vp. livrer des fleurs à Marie][ PRO e. ]J
S
1
1
In (33) a. and b., VP-M as weIl as s-deletion have applied.
Given that
the NP les enfants or the NP les fleurs Is now analysed as a direct object,
we have to assume that the embedded subject is PRO in both cases.
cannot appear in a gdverned position.
formed, as
(
required~
But PRO
Rence the structures in (33) are i11-
If this analysis is correct then it ls clearly impossible
ta der ive (29) b. and c.
The grammar simp1y does not produce such represen1
tations.
The only remaining structure to be explained i8, therefore", (29) a.
\
,
c'
36
for which, we admit, we have no convincing explanation.
This structure
cannot be 'analysed as tbose in (33) because, in this case, i t is semantically
impossible ta interpret the NP les boeufs as the direct object of
the~mbedded
/-
verb.
l'
It can only be interpreted as the AGENT of the action heing described.
As far as we can see the structure in (29) a. is correct and further research
ia required in order ta understand why it is impossible.1
3
-----
r-
In sum we have seen concerning structural representations su ch as E) that
further semantic
causatives.
~arameters
seem ta be involved in the derivation of (some)
The requirement that the embedded subject to which a preposition
can potentially be adjoined be an AGENT is required on the hasis of cases like
(22) (cf. related discussion).
real~ze
Further semantic considerations led us ta
that cases like (29) b. and c. were wrongly analysed and that they
should rather be represented structurally as in (33).
That these structures
are i11-forme'~\.$> due to the principle that PRO does not have a governing
\
category, i.e. after VP-M and s-deletion the embedded PRO
governed.
vations.
sub~ect
becomes .
And since PRO must he ungoverned, the theory rejects such deriNote that if VP-M does not apply, being an optional rule, the
structures are well-formed:
(34) a. Je fais [s PRO rentrer les enfants dans l'école]
b. Je fais [5 PRO livrer des fleurs à Marie]
These are welcome results for the sentences in (35) are perfectly
grammatical:
(35) a. Je fais rentrer les enfants dans l'école
b. Je fais livrer des fleurs à Marie.
37
CHAPTER III - Causative Constructions With C1itics
1. General Properties
Consider the following:
(36) a. Je [v [v ai fait][V. lire le livre]][ par Jean e.
5
1
J
1
b. *Je [V [V ai fait][v. lire ][ 5 Jean e i le livre] ~
1
c. Je [V [V le J lui k
ai fait][ V. lire [ e . ]]J[ [ e Je. ]
k
J
5
1
1
d. *Je [V [v ai fait J[ V. le. lui lire [ e j ] ]J[ 5 [e ] e i ]
k
k
J
1
e. Je [V [V lui
le. lire [e.]]][ [ e k ] e. ]
k ai fait][v.
J
J
5
1
1
f. *Je le. lui
ai fait [s[e
lire [e ]]
k
j
k
J
This paradigm illustrates the distribution of clitics when the embedded
subject is a lexj,c,al NP, (Le. Jean).
n~~_and
5 has deleted.
In (36) a. VP-M has moved the V-bar -
The preposition par has been inserted and the struc-
ture in (36) a. is well-formed (cf. sections 1 and 3.2, Chapter II).
l
When
VP-M selects the V node, as in (36) b., the object of the moved verb remains
behind, inside the embedded clause, and inside the VP node.
structure i5 ill-formed.'
The resulting
In (36) c., VP-M and s-deletion have applied.
over, the complement clitics have "climbed" to the matrix verb.
More-
Note that by
"complement c1itics" we mean .clitics which stand for phrases (Le. NP, PP)
contained in the embedded clause and by "clitic c1imbing" we simp1y mean that
these complement clitics have been generated as affixes on the verb (cf. section 3.1 for the detai1s).
50 in (36) c. when these clitics appear on the
main verb and when VP-M has applied, the resu1ting structure is then wel1-formed.
In (36) d., VP-M has again applied but the c1itics appear on the moved verb.
This seems to be impossible for the resulting structure is i11-formed.
In
(36) e., VP-M has applied and a complement clitic appears on each of the
l
verb.
The structure is we1l-formed.
Finally, in (36) f .• VP-M did not apply
and the complement c1itics cannot "c1imb" to the matrix verb.
The fo1lowing
chart summarizes the possible interactions of VP-M and "clitic c1imbing" when
38
the embedded subject is lexical (cf. (36) a.):
l!
-VP-M
Lexical Subject
+VP-M
-C.C.
O.K.
•
+C.C.
*
O.K.
That is to say, if VP-M does not apply (i.e. -VP-M) and that there is
no "clitic climbing" (Le. -C.C.) then the resulting structure i8 wellformed (1. e. O. K.) •
If VP-M does apply (i. e. +VP-M) and there is no "clitic
climbing". the resulting structure i8 ill-formed. (Le. *).
Conversely, if
VP-M does not apply and there is "clitic climbing" (Le. +C.C.) then the
resulting structure is ill-formed.
If VP-M does apply and there is "clitic
climbing", then the resulting structure i8 well-formed.
Consider now the following:
J[ 5
Je laisse [NP Marie
(37) a.
a. ,i
*Je [
a. i i
*Je [
PRO accompagner Jean]
[
V V lai8se][v. accompagner Jean]][NP Marie][s PRO el]
1
V
[
V
le. laisseJ[vJ
1
accompagner
[e.]][NP Marie][
J
PRO e,]
5
a. iii *Je le. laisse [NP MarieJ[- PRO accompagner [e.]J
J
5
J
a. iv
Je laisse [NP Marie](s PRO lj 'accompagner [e ]]
j
b.
*Je laisse
b. i
par Marie el]
J
.
1
J 5
Je [V [V laisse][V. accompagner Jean [s par Marie el]
Je
b. ii
[s Marie accompagner Jean]
[V [V le. laisse][v- accompagner [e.][
1
Depending on whether laisser subcategorizes for an NP followed by an
or for an
s,
.respectively.
we obtain two_ types of representations as 1n< (37)a. and (37) b.,
If nothing "happens" to the underlying representations we
obtain either (37) a. or (37) b.
(
5
The structure in (37) b .• where the embedded
subject 1s lexical, is 1ll-formed, while the structure in (37)
embedded subject ls nonlexical (i.e. PRO) is well-formed.
S't
where the
In (37) a. it VP-K
39
has applied. moving the verb along with its object.
(
the resulting structure is ill-formed.
5
has deleted
an~
Interestingly. whether or not
VP-M applies when the embedded subject is PRO the complement clitic cannat
"climb" to the matrix verb. as represented in (37) a. ii and (37) a. iii,
respectively.
In (37) a. iv, VP-M did not apply and the complement clitic
can only show up on the embedded verb.
The structure is well-formed .
Finally, when the embedded subject is lexical, as in (37) b. H. VP-M
Is allowed to apply moving, in this case, the verb along with its object.
Note that 5 has deleted and that
subj ect Marie.
~
has been adjoined to the embedded
And in (37) b. i. where VP-M has applied moving the V-bar
node, the complement clitic correctly show up on the matrix verb.
structure is also well-formed.
(
The following chart summarizes these facts:
+e.e.
,/
PRO
subject
lexical subject
The
-c.e.
*
O.K.
O.K.
O.K.
That is to say, if "clitlc climbing" occurs an ill-formed structure
obtains when the embedded subject Is PRO, but a well-formed structure obtains when the embedded subject is a lexical NP.
And regardless of whether
or not the embedded subject ls PRO if no "clitic climbing" occurs the resulting 18 well-formed.
Before we proceed to show how the theory we propose accounts for aIl
these facts, let us see how Rouveret and Vergnaud's (1980) analysis accounts
for the distribution of clitics.
l
2. "Clitic Placement" in Rouveret and Vergnaud' s System
The theory presented in Rouveret and Vergnaud (1980) includes an
opt1onal rule of C11tic Pl:acement and 1s fonnulated as follawa:
40
(38) Clitic Placement (henceforth CL-PL)
(
Cliticize X onto V
\
(where (38) is cyclic and optional)
This transformation takes a clitic in object position and moves it
onto the verb (does it adjoin the cHtic to the verb?, the authors do not
say.
But cf. (45) below).
And, as seen in section 2, Chapter 1. their theory a1so includes a
rule of Verb Phrase Preposing (VP-P).
To repeat briefly, Vp-P moves the
verbal constituent to the front of its clause, i.e. it "Chomsky-adjoins"
*V to S, where *V is sorne projection of V (in the sense of the X-bar system).
This rule has the effect of creating a configuration in which the embedded
subject ls governed (cf. section 2" Chapter I, where "government" is defined)
by the moved verbal category:
(39)
s~
1
l
NP
0
vp
I~_'
i~
V
COMP
i~ s
verbal
constituent
\~
NP
.V
As discu8sed above (cf. Chapter II. section 2), in this system the
embedded subject NP can only be governed i f the moved verbal constituent
does not branch.
15
rnJaddition ll their theory includes the following filter
(again, as discussed in Chapter II, section 2): 16
(40)
.NP,
unless a. NP is governed by Tense
b. NP, is governed by -wh or +wh
c. NP is governed by A (a category -A. P.) nondistinct
from [-N], where A dominates lexical material.
t
Relevant to the topic of this thesis is condition c.
ahal1 not discuss a. and b. of (40).
Therefore we
To illustrate consider the following:
41
(41) a. lirOn fait [5 Marie sortir du bureau]
b. *On fait [- [
5
c. On fait [- [
5
5
sortir du bureau [s Marie e ]]]
5
sortir [
5
Marie e du bureau]]]
Since 5 is an absolute barrier to government:, (41) a. i8 ruled out by
Filter (40), for the NP Marie ia ungoverned; in (41) b., VP-P has moved the
higher V, which in this case 18 branching.
by Filter (40); in (41)
C., as a result of
The resultlng structure 18 out
VP-P, Marie i8 governed by sortir,
as required.
Recall (as discussed in section 2 on Rouyeret and Vergnaud' s analysis)
we have mentioned that this theory, as any adequate theory would, requires
the presence of a r1,1le of à-Insertion, which we repeat here for convenience
as in (42):
(42) à-Insertion (à-Ins.)
v
NP
NP
1
2
3
->
2
1
[pp
Prep x 3]
Conditions:
i. 2 18 Accusative
li. Prep
x
ls nondistinct from à.
Now with this much, let us turn to the causatives which contain clitics
and see what predictions are made.
Consider (43) :
(43) a. Pierre fera acheter ces livres à Jean (Rouveret and Vergnaud' s (130»
b. Pierre les fera acheter à Jean
c. ·Pierre fera les acheter à Jean
d. *Plerre fera les acheter à Jean
e. *Pierre les fera acheter Jean.
Consider a1so the fo11owing configurations:
(44) a.
/s _____
(
COMP
(cf. (43) d.)
i -------
/"
clitic i
Ils'
VI
acheter
8
V
k---1
t____
Jean
NP,
42
/5______
b.
)
/8 ______ S
COMP
y~ NP.
V
l '------- v
NP
1
/"'- V
(
clitic
J
f
1
les
Jean
acheter
In (44) a. CL-PL applied on the innermost cycle, and VP-P applied
moving V ooly.
In (44) b., on the other hand, CL-PL also applied
00
the
innermost cycle, and VP-P applies moving in this case V (heoce the verb
as weIl as the direct object).
the domain of [-NJ.
So in b. the embedded subject is not in
And à-Ins. will fail to apply, since the trace "NP "
1
being null, there is no material between acheter a:d Jean, as required
for !-Ins. to apply.
Jean.
Moreover, ainee V is branching, V do es not C-command
Jean ls therefore not in 8 legitimate context permitted by Filter (40).
In (44) a., the c8tegory governing the embedded NP i is not lexically filled;
but it must be for otherwise the trace "NP." i5 not in a context permitted
1
by Fiiter (40).
ungrrumnatical.
(45)
Therefore both (44) a. and b. are out.
Renee (43) d. ts
Consider now the following tWQ structures in (45):
/8 ______
8.
COMP
r-------
l
1
s
L
-----1
t
V_ _ _
acheter
Jean
b·.
/~s
1 ------- s
COMP.
/v"",
V
NP
1
1
acheter
les
r
1- - - - V
Jean
i
les
43
Since CL-PL is optional, we may assume that it does not operate
on the internaI cycle; after the applicatiDnof VP-P we either get (45) a.
or (45) b. depending on whether V or V is selected.
Note that the structure
in (45) b. allows à to be inserted, because of the presence of the clitic les
between acheter and Jean.
If the operation of CL-PL holds on the higher cycle,
we then obtain (43) b. above.
If à-Ins. does not apply, being an optional rule l
we obtain (43) e., which is correctly rejected by Filter (40), i.é. acheter
in (45) b. does not govern Jean.
On
the other hand, in (45) a., the clitic les is not governed by a lexical
[-N J,50 the structure i8 rejected by Filter -(40).
.In sum, this accounts for
the systematic correlation, in causative constructions, between the occurence
of the infinitive to the
lr~~
of its underlying subject and the cliticization
of the Accusative pronoun to faire.
However, we believe that there are some problems with the analysis.
Suppose, for instance. that the rule of CL-PL does not apply at aIl, given
that the rule is optional.
to be
gramma~ical:
The theory thus predicts the following sentence
*Pierre fera acheter les à Jean.
Naturally this is con-
trary to the facts.
Moreover, suppose that in (45) b. both les and the clitic counterpart of
Jean, 1. e. lui. cliticize to the main verb.
The rule of CL-PL allows this
possibility if both clitics cliticize during the same cycle.
And we must
expect this possibility for we do ,f ind grammatical cases like Pierre les lui
fera acheter.
The only way for the trace of the clitic les to be in a context
permitted by Filter (40) iB, as we said, to have the clitic moved along with
the verb via VP-P (i.e. (45) b.).
The question that arises however is what
about the trace of the clitic lui (standing for Jean) left after CL-PL?
That
ls to say, if the NP Jean in (45) b. cliticizes onto the matrix verb, the trace
left behind i5 not permitted by Filter (40).
Likewise in (44) a. and (44) b.
if the NP Jean cliticizes onto the main verb (leaving aside the violation of
44
the strict cycle).
the trace left behind is not permitted by Filter (40).
Therefore this grammar cannot generate the perfectly grammatical sentence
!
1
ï
!
Pierre les lui fera acheter.
Another problem with this analysis concerns the rule
of,~
à-Ins.
As
seen, preposition insertion requires that there be some lexical material
(Le. an Accusative NP) in between the verb and the embedded subject.
"A-
Ins. provides a context for the embedded subj ect which is allowed by Fil ter
(40), since the Accusative NP between the NP subject and the moved verb
yields a branching V which blocks government: of the subj ec t.
Given this
analysis, one cannot propose any simpler formulation of the rule à-Ins.
For example, one cannot propose that we insert the preposition! before an
ungoverned NP (i.e. before an otherwise Caseless NP), because in the causative
constructions with faire the embedded subject ls not governed at D-structure.
An~
l
in fact we do not want it to be so, for the following sentence where verb
movement did not occur is ungrammatica1:
*Je fais Jean acheter des livres.
Of
course, the insertion of the preposition will not solve the problem: *Je fais
à Jean acheter des livres.
In other words, given this analysis, it ia nece-
ssary that the rule be stated as in (42).
But,' as already noted, this ru1e
does not explain the facts but merely describes them.
In sum, these problems lead us to suspect that a more principled approach
is required.
Whi1e retaining the formulation of Verb Preposing discussed
above, our concern in the next section will be to introduce the required assumptions in order to dea1 with the facts concerning the distribution of c1itics
within the causative constructions, as presented at the beginning of this
chapter (cf. section 1).
discussed disappear.
In the meantime, we sha11 see how the problems Just
45
3.1 The Analysis
l will assume that the system of principles needed to account for the
distribution of clitics in French causative constructions includes the
following.
As in Aoun (1981), we will be assuming that the clitic "absorbs"
the Case feature of the verb to which it is attached, Le. the feature in the
feature matrix of the lexical entry [-N, +V] which corresponds to the Case
feature (e.g. +Accusative).
To be more precise (cf. Borer (1981)
for a
more formaI characterization of this intuitive idea) , the clitic is viewed
as a spell-out of Case features, in the sense that once the Case feature is
1)
c~bined
with number, gender, and person features of the clitic, it is given
\
an independent phonological representation.
Furthermore, we will assume with Borer (op. cit.) that a head must govern
it~
complements.
17
Since the clitic is attached to the verb (in Romance) it
follows that the clitic will govern its associated empty category.
(
Moreover, there is in the grammar of French causative constructions a
rule of Preposition Insertion (PI) which we have discussed (cf. Chapter II,
section 3.2) and repeat here for convenience:
(47) Preposition Insertion (PI):
Adj oin a preposition (!/par) to an NP under government.
So, for instance,
embedded infinitival.
00
preposition will be adjoioed to the subject of an
For example, *Je ferai à Jean lire le livre is rejected
(J
because in adjoining the preposition to Jean the government requirement of PI
i8 not met.
The fol1owing analysis also assumes a rule of verb movement in the causatives t called VP-M, which "Chomsky-adj oins" any projection of the verb in the
embedded clause to the mat·rix verb, thus extracting this proj ectioo outside of
l
s.
This operation creates a configuration which triggers s-deletion which
then allows the embedded subject to be governed by some gpvernor in the matrix
clause.
46
{,
3.2 The faire-Paradigm
To begin with, consider the following:
(48) *J'ai fait [5 Jean lire re livre]
This s-structure representation is ill-formed beeause the embedded subject Jean is, in a nonCase-governed position and therefore \riolates the Case
Given aD-structure similar to the structure in (48), the theory
Filter.
we have constructed above may generate aIl the structures in (49) (details aside:
.4
(49) a. Je [V [V ai fait][v
lire le livre]][
k
5
b. *Je [V [V ai fait J[ V k lireJ][ 5 Jean e
k
par Jean e ]
k
le livre]
c. Je [V [V le i lui. ai faitJ[V lire [e,]]J[ [e.] e ]
k
J
k
5
J
d. *Je [V [V ai fait][ V le. lui. lire [e. ] J][ [ e . J e ]
1
k
1
5
J
J
k
e. Je [ . [V lui. ai fait][v le. lire [e.JJ][ [e.]e ]
V
k
1
1
5
J
J
k
~
f. *Je [V [V ai fait J[ V lire le livre]][ Jean ekJ
5
k
g. *Je le. lui. ai fait [- [e.J lire[e,]]
..
u
1
J
5
\."
J
Here and in the discussion pertaining to the next parad'igm (Le.
(50»,
we will give explanations for the properties of causative constructions with
clities, as listed in section l (this chapter).
Except for the structure in
----
(49) g., a11 the structures in (49) are derived via VP-M and s-deletion.
(49)
a.,
after 5 has deleted the NP Jean is governed.
apply, adjoining a preposition (i. e. par)
formed.
This permits PI to
to the NP Jean.
gets Case-marked as required by the Case Filter.
In
Therefore Jean
Thus the structure ls well-
Note th*t the moved verb lire cannot assign Case to the NP Jean
it governs, for this verb ls unadj aeent ta it, 1. e. the NP le livre intervenes.
In (49) b., after s-;deletlon the NP Jean is governed and Case-marked
by the moved verb sinee this verb i6 also adjacent to Jean.
However, the NP
le livre cannat be Case-marked by the moved verb since the embedded subject
~
Jean intervenes.
In other words, the NP le livre remains Caseless because
it i8 unadjaeent to the moved verb lire.
obtains.
y
Hence (49) b. i8 ill-formed.
A Case Filter violation therefore
Thus it follows from the Case Filter
>
47
that ,VP-M, in this case, cannot select the head only but, as in (49) a ••
c
must select the V node at ,least.
In (49) c., as mentioned, VP-M and s-deletion have applied.
Moreover,
Q
the c!itics le and lui have been base-generated on the matrix verb faire.
o
Both cli~ics absorb the Case feature of the verb faire and<therefore pass
the Case Filter.
.-
18
~ote
also that the clitic le governs its associated
1
empty category and that
VP-M has applied).
as required.
80
does the
clitic~,
(i.e. 5 has deleted, hence
Therefore the structure is predicted to be well-formed,
Thus this explains why the clitics cao appear on the matrix
verb', when VP-M has applied (cf. section l, this chap1:e\f).
The situation is similar in (49) d. except that this time both clitics
-
have been base-:-generated on the moved verb lire.
,.
,
Both clitic8 correctly
govèrn their associated ~pty categories aIid both clit:1cs absorb the Case
feature- of the verb lire.
c
However, the clitic le and lui are governed by
and adjacent to the main verb faire (Le. VP-M has adjoined
verb).
The matrix
As a result faire also assigns Case to ,the se clitics (or at least to
one of them, le, presUJlUlbly).
As a result both clitics (or at least one of
them', le) are doubly marked for Case.
Therefore a Case Filter violation ob-'
tains (as discussed in section 2, Chapter I).
-.
V to
Renee (49) d. is ill-fonaed.
Tbus this explains why the cli tics cannot appear on the DIOved verb, 1. e. the
\
clitics cannot be base-generated on the embedded verb if VP-M is to apply.
In contrast, in (49) e., the clitic lui bail been generated on the main
"
~
verb faire and the cli tic le On the 1IIOved verb lire.
Each cH tic then ab-
sorbs the Case feature of the verb to which it i8 affixed and, thus each
clitic passes the Case Filter.
"
.'
Note also that each clitic gove,rns lts
associated empty category, as required.
Moreover, contrary to (49) d., in
(49) e. 'the verb faire cannat ass!gn Case to le for i t has already been "deprived"
of its Case feature by virtue of the faét that le bas been base-ge.nerated on t-his
-::,
verb (cf. section 3.1, this Cbapter).
.
~-~-----
---
0
The structure in (49) e. i.s tben correctly ,
48
.,
predicted to be well-formed.
•
In (49) f., VP-M has IDOved the embedded V and s has subsequently been
deleted.
Moreover no clitics have been generated.
The embedded subject
becomes governed by the moved verb, but remains unadjacent to it, h!!nce
Case1ess.
Given that PI ts an optiona1 rule, it may not app1y.
As a re-
suIt Jean violates the Case Filter' and the structure is rejected.
Finally ~ (49) g., VP-M, being optionsl, may not apply.
s-de1e~ion
!!!!.
cam\ot apply (cf. section 3.1 ~ Chapter II).
Consequently
The clitics le and
have been base-generated on the main v'èrb and absorb the Case feature
Bowever ~ since S ha~~~t
of that verb, as required by' the Case Filter.
deleted the clitic lui cannot govern its assoéiated empty category, and
aince VP-M did not apply the clitic le cannot govern its associated
category which ls contalned
government too.
(
~nside
~pty
VP, an absolute barrier to
the embedded
This then violates the requirement that the clitic must
govern its empty category.
Bence (49) g.
ls rejected as 111-fomed.
We
thus have an explanation for thé t'act that when VP-M does not apply the
cOlllpleaen~
clitics cannot appear on the matrix verb, for otherw1se an 111-
fonaed structure obta1ns.
The embedded verb ln the parad1p just discussed 1.s a tratUl1tlve yerb.
Now one 1I8y inquire about cases vbere the verb takes a pp 1 as 1.n (50):
.
(50) a. *J'ai fait [s Uarie douter de ça]
,b. Je [V [v a1 faitI
vk
c. Je [V [v a1 ,fa1t][v
douter]][s Marie e
d. Je [v [v l'i en j ai fait] [V
j
d~ ça]
douter de ça]][s à Marie e
k
e. Je [V [v lui, en
k
ai faitl
k
k
]
douter [ej]]Iet-a ]
k
vk douter
[e ]]][5 [el) e ]
j
k
f. *Je [v [v ai fait ][V k lui i en j douter [ej ]]][ S [8,] e ]
k
g. Je [V [v l' i ai faitl
vk
ett
j
douter]I
s
(el] e k [e ]]
J
1
· -t
49
If VP-K and then s-deletion do not hold, the e1lbedded subject rèmains
c
Casele8s.
formed.
Therefore a Case Filter violation obtain8.
Bence (50) a. is 111-
However if VP-M and, s-deletion do hold then the em.bedded subject
m.ay be Case-marked.
As one can see in (50) b., Marie is Case-marked Accu-
sative by the moved verb douter which governs and i8 adjacent to Marie.
This
shows then that Marie occupies an Accusative Case-governed position in (50) b.'
On the other band, in (50) c., the NP Marie cannot receive Case from the
governor douter (or at least it cannot. receive the same one (i .e. Accusative»,
for douter is unadjacent to Marie.
1
However PI may apply to "rescue" the struc-
ture, adj oining the prepos i tion à to NP Marie.
Marie thus received Case (pl\e-
sumably Oblique, or Dative) from the preposition à.
Marie occupies a Dative Case-governed position.
\
Therefore, in (50) c.,
These observations provide
a theoretical basis on which the so-called "Case Alternation" phenomenon is
explained (cf. Kayne, 1975).
(
That ie, it is possible to form (50) d. and
(50) e. from (50) b. and (50) c., respectively, by substituting in the
former the Accusative clitic le for the NP Marie and, in the latter, by
\
\
substituting the Dative clitic lui for the NP Harie, with the further provision that these clitics be base-generated on the verb instead.
sum, explains the variation in Case that the clitic undergoes.
\
This, in
19
Turning to (50) f., i t is ill-formed for the same reason as that given
for (49) d. above, namely, because of a \ Case Fil ter violation (as discussed
in section 2, Chapter 1).
That is, given that the clitics, base-generated
on the DIOved verb douter, absorb the Case feature of this verb it follows
that they are Case-marked.
However, since these clitics are governed by
and adjacent to the matrix verb, they (or at least one of them) also receive
Case from that verb, faire.
Case.
formed.
As a resul t, the cli tics are doubly marked for
Therefore a Case filter violation results.
Hence (50) f. i8 i11-
Compare with (50) g., where each verb is being afUxed one clitic
".\
50
only.
We then expeet, given the Case Filter, that each clitie be Case-
marked.
Note that in this example, the verb faire cannat assign its Case
to the clitle
~,
because the clitic le has already "absorbed" this Case
by virtue of the fact that le has been attached ta faire.
Therefore,
eaeh elitie is uniquely marked for Case and correctly passes the Case
1
i1
Filter.
Hence (50) g. 15 well-formed.
Summarizing\ we have seen how the distribution of clities in French
•
causatives with faire is accounted for.
<J
It was shown that the only way
for complement clitics to appear (as affixes) on the main verb 1s if VP-M
holds.
If VP-M does not bold, the only place where the object clitics can
appear 18 on the embedded verbe
In other words tllese distributions are seen
as a direct consequence of the application of a unique underlying process,
namely, VP-M.
This, we believe, constitutes strong empir1cal and theoretical
support for the proposaI.
1 .(
20
Moreover, this proposaI ls not limited to the
faire-paradigm, as we shall see
"
of causatives.
3.3 The
now, but also extends to the other paradigms
Let us then consider the causatives wi th laisser.
Laisser-Paradi~
We have already mentioned (cf. section 3.1, Chapter Ù) that laisser
contrary ta faire, does not "obligatorily" trigger verb movement.
This is
illustrated in the contrast between (51) and (52):
(51) a. *Je fais [s les policiers accompagner Marie au commissariat]
accompagner Marie au commissariat J J[ 5 par les
b. Je [V [V fais][ VP
i
policiers
9
i
]
(52) a. Je laisse les policiers [5 PRO accompagner Marie au commissariat]
b. Je [V [V l.aisse][ vp. accompagner Marie au commissaria t ]][ 5 par les
1
polie iers e. ]
1
~
,
...... ~
"""
",1\
... _ ..........~~*
.........
~IP-
51
\
The structure in (51) a. was accounted for by assuming that the verb
(~
faire
subcategorizes for an s-comp1ement.
tion cannot hold for
...
~2)
At first sight then, this assump:
~
a., for' the theory would predie t the structure to
be ungrammatieal, i.e. a violation of the C1.ase Filter wou1d oecur since les
policiers, as being the subject of an s-complement cannot be Case-marked
by the matrix verb.
We do not want to assume, as in Quicoli (1982_b.),2l
that the verb in this type of case subcategorizes for an s-complement. be-
,.
cause this assumption is inconsistent with X-bar theory which predicts that
every eategorial head (including INFL) projects to a maximal projection (cf.
Freidin, 1983).
rathe~
than an s.
So in the case under discussion we should obtain an
s,
In order to avoid this problem. we have proposed that
laisser has two subcategorization entries, either it takes an NP followed by
an
St
or it takes an
S.
1
Moreover the first representation is needed for the
cases where verb movement does not take place, as in (52) a., and the second
22
representation for cases where verb movement takes place, as in (52) b.
Note that verb movement (i.e. VP-M) and then s-deletion cannot occur in (52) a.,
for PRO would become governed.
The structures we will discuss
23
contain the verb laisser, as in (53):
(53) a. *Je laisse [5 Georges partir]
b. Je [v [v laisse][v
k
c. *Je [V [V laisse][V
partir]][
Georges ekJ
5
k
d. Je [V [V le. laisse][v
1
\
[NP par [NP GJorges]] e ]
k
S
~I
partirJ][ [e.] e ]
partir]][
k S I
e. "'Je
lui j laisse][V
f. *Je
laisse][v
k
k
partir]J[s [ei J e ]
k
lej partir]][
k
5
[e i ] ekJ
The structure in (53) a. is ill-formed as a result of a Case Filter
violation.
l
That is, the embedded NP Georges being in a
sit10n cannot be assigned Case by the matrix verb.
Caseless and violates the Case Filter.
applied.
nonCase-go~erned
po-
Hence Georges remains
In (53) b., VP-M and s-deletion have
As a result, Georges becomes governed and Case-marked (Accusative)
,
by the moved verb partir.
,
Therefore Georges passes the Case F11ter.
In (53) c., VP-M and s-deletion
the structure
15 well-formed, as requlred.
a
havé also applled.
Hence
Since the embedded subject Georges is then governed, PI
is allowed to apply, adjoining the preposition
~
to Georges.
As a result,
Georges is assigned Case (presumably Dative) by this preposition.
But the
whole NP (Le. [NP par Georges]) is also governed by and adjacent to the
moved verb partir.
partir.
As a result, Accusative Case is assigned to this NP by
Therefore Georges ls doubly marked for Case violating the Case Filter.
If we substitute the clitic le for the Accusative NP Georges and base-generate
this clitic on the main verb we obtain (after VP-M and s-deletion) the structure in (53) d.
The clitic le absorbs the Case feature of the verb laisser
and governs its associated empty category, for there is no 5 ta b10ck government 1nside the embedded clause from the matrix clause.
(53) d'. is thus p:tedicted to be well-formed, as required.
The structure in
As we have seen
(
with (53)
C.,
the only way for the NP Georges ta be assigned Dative Case ie
when the preposition
pa~
an ill-formed structure.
1s inserted via PI.
But this, as diseussed, led to
It follows then that a Dative Clitie (e.g. lui)
cannot be base generated in (53) e. (but see Footnote 19), i.e. laisser does
not assign Dative Case.
in (53) e.
Therefore lui cannat be generated in place of le
Hence the structure is i11-formed.
and s-de1etion have app1ied.
on the moved verb.
Finally, in (53) f., VP-M
Moreover the clitic le has been base-generated
This clitlc then absorbs the Case feature of partir and
governs its empty category.
However, le being governed by and adjacent to
laisser a1so receives Case from this verb.
As a result le ie doubly marked
for Case, thus violating the Case Filter.
In sumo as with the faire-paradigm, the laisser-paradigm fo110w8 from
our ana1ysis of VP-M in conjunction with independently motivated princip1es
of grammer, namely, those of Case Theory and Binding Theory.
We have seen
53
that a difference in the subcategorization properties of the verb laisser
is responsible for the fact verb movement is not "obligatorytl for sentential complement of laisser.
The assumption that VP-M resul ts in s-de1etion
(or the transparency of s with respect to government) provides a theoretica1
basls for exp1aining the affixation of a complement clitic on a matrix verb
(what is called "c1itic c1imbing".
3.4 The Voir-Paradigm
Cf. section 1. thls chapter).
24
Consider the following:
(54) a. Un ouvrier se trouvait dans un trou [5 PRO à creuser un puits]
b. Un ouvrier s'y. trouvait [9,] [s PRO à le. creuser [e.]]
1
J
•
J
c. *Un ouvrier se l' .y 1 trouvait [e.] [5 PRO à creuser [9.]]
J
1
J
d. *Un ouvrier
[V [V s' y.
trouvait ][V-
1
l
k
à le. creuser [e. J][ e.][ PRO e ]
k
J
J
1
5
"A worker was in the ditch to dig a weIl"
As can be seen in (54). the distribution of clitics in structures containing a control verb 25 of this paradigm 15 extremely l1mited.
possible "cliticized" structure i5 (54) b.
The well-formed structure in (54) a.
ob tains if nothing "happen5" to be underlying structure.
(54) b. obtains if the clitic y
The only
The structure Is
15 base-generated on the main verb se trouver
and the clitic le oh the embedded verb creuser.
1
Each cl1tie absorbs the Case
feature of the verb to which it 15 afflxed and governs its empty category.
VP-M as weIl as s-de1etion have not applied.
as required.
the main verbe
Bence (54) b.
19 well-formed,
In (54) c., both clitic :L and le have been base-generated on
VP-M and s-deletion have not occured.
the Case feature of that verb (cf. Footnote 19).
Both clitics absorb
Bowever. only the clitic
I correctly govern8 its empty category, for the c1itlc le cannat govern
inside the complement infinitival.
Rence the structure in (54)
C.
18 111-
r
54
formed.
In (54) d., VP-M and then s-deletion have applied.
The main verb
has received the clitic 1... while the moved verb has received the clitic le.
Each èlitic then absorbs the Case feature of the verb ta which it is affixed
and each cli tic correctly governs its associated empty category.
that
But given
5 has deleted, the embedded subject PRO becomes governed, in violation
of the Binding Theory.
Hence the structure is ill-formed. as required.
Ta illustrate further, consider the structures in (55):
(55) a. Il est capable[:S PRO d'aimer Marie]
b. Il est capable[s PRO de 1
t •
1
"He can love Marie"
aimer [e.]]
1
c. *11 l ' i est capable [5 PRO d'aimer [e ]]
k
d. *11 [V [v. l' i est
e. Il en
J[ Vk
d'aimer [e i ]
J
capable] [5 PRO e ]
k
est capable [ei]
i
The vero être in this structure i8 a verb of control, and as shown in
l
c
(55) a. , the embedded subject of the c1ausal complement is PRO. 26
In (55) b. ,
the clitic la has been base-generated on the embedded verb aimer.
It thus
absorba the Accusative Case feature of that verb and governs its empty category.
As a result, the structure i8 well-formed, as required.
the clitic la has been generated on the matrix verb avoir.
Therefore, the structure is il1-formed.
C
q
Since the empty
category is inside the embedded 5 and Inside the embedded VP,
cannot govern it.
In (55)
the cli tic
In (55) d., the
clitic has been generated on the matrix verb and absorbs its Case feature,
as required by the Case Filter.
The clitic, also, governs its empty category
which has heen moved along with the embedded verb, via VP-M whieh has seleeted
the V projection.
But sinee VP-M has app1ied, s-deletion has a1so applled.
As a result the embedded subject PRO Is governed. in violation of the Binding
Theory.
Hence (55) d. i8 ill formed.
Finally, in (55) e. the clitie
~,
which stands for the whole embedded clause. has been generated on the verb
o
55
être.
It thus absorbs the Case feature of that verb and governs !ta
empty category.
Therefore the structure is pred1cted to be well-formed,
as required.
In sum, as with the fa1re-parad1gm and the la1aser-paradigm. the voirparagigm follows
~rom
our analyais of VP-M in conjunction with independently
motivated principles of grammar, that is, those of Case Theory and Sinding
Theory.
The assumption that VP-M results in s-deletion in conjunction with
the assumption that PRO dbes not have a governing category, provides a
theoretical basis for e.xplaining the affixation of an embedded object clitic
on the embedded verbe
ln other terms, given that the clitic must govern
its empty category and given that VP-M must apply if the cUt1c affixed to
the ma1n verb 1s to govern its associated empty category, it follows that
when the embedded subject 18 PRO the complement clitics or the abject clitics
(as opposed ta the subj ect clitics) will never he affixed to the main verb.
This explains why there never is "clitic climbing" when the embedded subject
18 PRO. for otherwis.e an ill-formed structure obtain8 (cf. section l, this
Chapter) •
(
56
CHAPTER III - Conclusion
The
8r~r
presented in this thesis makes an original and significant
contribution to the theory of grammar, by showing that the distribution of
c1itics in causative constructions may be effectively ana1ysed and accounted
for, without having to stipu1ate for many extra mechanisms.
What we have
done instead, is assuming as a w?rking hypothesis the principled approach
of the Government and Binding Theory '(cf. Chomsky, 1981,1982).
We have
assumed that aIl the rules discussed in this thesis apply freely, namely,
VP-M (or Moxe X), Preposition Insertion, and the affixation (of the clitics)
rb1es.
Naturally, this grammar overgenerates.
However, given the princi-
pIes of Case Theory and Binding Theory we have seen how some of the output
structures (the "wrong" ones) are riltered out.
From this principled approach, the grammar predicts for some verb,
l
e.g. faire, that "verb movement" 15 obligatory but for some other verb,
e. g. laisser, that this "verb movement" is optional.
We have proposed to
account for this contrasting difference by assuming that laisser has two
representations in the lexicon:
lowed by an 5
the lexicon:
either it subcategorizes for an NP fol-
or for an Sj and that faire has a unique representation in
it onlyv subcategorizes for an
S.
Subsequently, we have observed that the flverb movement" process i8 a
characteristic feature of the so-called causative constructions.
formally represented this process by the Verb
We have
Phrase-Movement rule (VP-M).
And, crucially, we have assumed that whenever this optional rule (which i8
in fact reduced to the generic rule Maxe X) holds, a configuration is created
such that it allows s-deletion, hence government into the embedded clause 18 . .d.
t
possible.
This i8 crucial. for the only way an embedded lexical subject NP
57
can be Case-marked is that this NP must be governed by a Case-assigning
element.
However, an additional proviso must be met for this NP to be
Case-marked:
the NP must be adjacent to its governor.
In other words,
two possibilities arise once Verb Phrase-Movement has applied:
elther
the embedded subject is adjacent to and governed by the moved verb or
it i8 governed by this verb but unadjacent to it.
The gist of this ana-
lysis then ls that VP-M, needed for causatl!.,ves, ls seen as a "rescuing"
device which permits an embedded lexical subject NP to be governed and
hence possibly Case-marked.
Moreover, wc have observed that in causative constructions a preposition (à/par) is inserted only when "verb movement lt has occured.
Making
aIl effective and principled 'use of the government relationship obtained
after s-deletion (hence after VP-M). we have proposed
rule of Preposition Insertion.
be adjoined to a governed NP.
t~e
straightforward
This rule stipulates that a preposition
This then explains in a principled way
why the preposit.ion in question is inserted only when Verb Phrase-Move'ment
has applied, i.e. prior to VP-M the rule is inapplicable (cf. (21) and
related discussion).
As seen. when the Verb Phrase-Movement rule holds and. hence, s-dele.,
tion also holds, the embedded subject is always governed.
If the subject
ia PRO, the resulting structure is then rejected as ill-formed by the principles of the Binding Theory (cf. (54) d.).
adjacent to
an~
Moreover, if the subject is
governed by the moved verb. and if Preposition Insertion
applies, the embedded subject NP is then doubly marked for Case, in violation with the Case Filter (cf. (53) c.).
Finally, if the embedded subject
la nonadjacent to and governed by the moved verb, and if Preposition Inser-
(
tion applies, the subject NP i8 then correctly assigned Case once (cf." (50)
l,
58
c.).
We have finally observed that the configurations the clitics may take
in causative constructions are highly restricted, and depend on the verb
involved as weIl as on the structures in which the verb is generated.
But
we have shown that an adequately formulated theory can easily account for
these clitic distributions.
For exampie. with verbs of the voir-paradigm
(e.g. être) in structures where the embedded subject is PRO (as always
with a verb of control). the clitic which stands for the abject (i.e.
direct or indirect abject) of the embedded verb can only show up on that
verb (cf.
(55».
This i9o so in spite of the fact that the ' clitics are
freely base-generated on verbs as affixes.
This particular configuration
in which the clitic appear Is a direct consequence of the rule of Verb
Phrase-Movement.
That is, given that the embedded subject i8 PRO, it
follows that VP-M cannot apply.
Given also ~hat a clitic must govern
its associated empty category, it follows that if VP-M cannot apply that
the
c~itic(s)
can° only show up on the embedded verb, as in (55).
Thus indeed. the unified theory we have presented accounts for the
..
observed phenomena in causatives in a very simple fashion.
This theory
introduces the facts of Case4marking of the embedded subject, of the
insertion of a preposition. of the verb movement, and of clitic distributions as being intrinsically correlated.
AlI these facts fall out as
a direct consequence of a unique underlying process - nameIy, Verb PhraseMovement.
c
1
59
Footnotes
c
,
y
1. e. g. the insertion of à in Je ferai douter de ça à Marie, cf. section
3.2, Ch~pter II, VP-M and à-Insertion.
2. For an extended discussion on the empirical ef,fects of assuming the
cycle a'S a condition on rule application rather than assuming principles such as subjacency, see Freidin (1978).
3. With slight amendments to which we return direct1y.
4. This is also the position taken in Borer (1981). ' See footnote (13).
5. The definition of government the authors assume here 1.s essentially
that given in Chapter l, section 2.
6. How the VP-P rule 1a restricted and what "etc." means, the authors
do. not say.
---~
7. Crucially the assumed definition of C-command here is as follows: X
C-commands y if and only if neither X nor Y contain the other and
the first branching category dominating X also do~lnateB Y.
c
8. By ii. what the authors mean, l think, is that if the lexical insertion rule does not generate a lexical head [+N, -V] under the node NP
(Le. 3), then the ·rule o'f à-Insertion (7) will not apply. However,
rule (7) fs incomplete. lt -should also allow for the preposition par
to be inserted. In Borer (1981) sentences such as the following are
listed (cf. the appendix): *Jean m'a fait embrasser e à Pierre;
*Jean vous a fait le] embrasser à Pierre (where "[ eJII is the direct
object trace of the clitic, hence Accusative NP presumably).
If rule
(7) does not ailow for par to be 1nserted, then Rouveret and -Vergnaud' s
grammar incorrectly generates such sentences. Note that if par la
inserted the sentences are perfectly grammatical, with the same interpretation of course. Prepositions do have meaning, and as to the
nature of the condition which wou1d black the derivat10n of the above
sentences, we believe with Borer that it is a semantic condition.
9. However, this will make it difficult to explaln the phenamenon known
as the "Case Alternation". See Chapter III, section 3.1, below. Moreover, an important question arises - namely, wha t Case does the NP la
responsabilité receive in the fol10wlng:
Je fais la responsabilitéretomber sur lui? (Compare *Je fais la responsabilité retomber sur lui).
See Chapter II, section 3.1 where it is shawn that the process of "verb
lIOvement" ls seen as a "r~8cuing" operation, whose functlon is to allow
the embedded subject to be Case-marked.
(
10. Whether or not the PP is a constituent of VP, rather than V, i8 immaterial ta the present discussion, since VP-M can just as weIl move
the whole VP.
For a different proposaI, see Quicoli (1980) where,
for instance, i t ls proposed that some pp's are constituents of VP
)
"
.
.~
60
and where the rule of verb movement is restricted to the V node on1'y.
But if so, how is ope ta subsume the rule under Move X?
Il. l am gratefu1 to Robert Freidin for pointing out to me that the rule
of preposition insertion required for the data from causatives can be
formu1ated in just simple terms as those in (21).
12. As to how we distinguish which preposition, à or par, is going to be
inserted by ru1e (21), we assume that it is determined by semantic
factors. See footnote 8.
~
~~
/-
13. There might be a way out of this prob1em, however, suppose that) the
preposition&! phrase is a sentential PP, Le. suppose that dan~ les.
champs is a constituent of s, as represented in the following (details
aside): _
s
/ -----s __
COMP
1 ------ VP
NP
,
Je
1 -
V
1
V
f
1
fais
!
-----1
s
s
/-~pp
les boeufs
brouter
dans les champs
f
l
<"Given this representation, it f0110ws that if VP-M applies, regard1ess
of which projection of V is selected, the pp will never move a1o~g with
the verb (or ~ny of its proje~tion). Therefore structures such as that
in (29) a. in the text will never be generated. l am grateful to
Robert Freidin for suggesting to me this point. (Cf. Bornstein and
Weinberg (1981) for a discussion of sentential PP's.)
14. l am g~atefu1 ta Robert Freidin, my thesis director, for making useful
suggestions for the organization of the material of this section •
• 15. Regardless of whether or not the verbal constituent is a maximar<-projectian, if it does not branch' the embedded subject is governed in (39).
This notion of government is rather different than that assumed in our
system. Ta be more specifie consider (A):
(A)
c
,_
ln our system, if 5 deletes the NP is governed either by VI or V2 (the
moved verb). The notion of government we assume is thus based on the
idea thaF the maximal projection whi~h dominates the governor (i.e. V)
61
c
also dominates the governee (i.e. NP). lt i8 ~ortant to see that in
(A) the governor and tbe maxi~l projectio~ dominating it are of the
Same cat~gory type. Struéturally this makes sense. This derived structural representation in (A) (obtained via VP-M) i5 consistent with a very
restrictive and basic principle of generative grammar,o namely Basic Analysability of Lasnik and Kupin Ç1977). This is n~t so for Rouveret and
Vergnaud's derived structural represèntation giv~n in (39) in the text,
for th~ governor (i.e. the head of the verbal constituent) and the
governee (i.e. the embedded, NP) are not d~nated by a branching node
(cf. Chapter II, section 2) whose head is the governor. That is, the
governor and tbis branching category (i~e. s in (39» are not of the
same category type. Tberefore, in tbis sense, tbe analysis in (39) is
rather 100 se •
"
Note that tbere are sufficient evidence to show tbat "V+" 1n (A)
1s not a head and, therefore, not a governor. Consider the following:
et
(b) *Je fais [_ Jean partir]
5
,Cc)
Je
[v [V fais](v. partir]][s Jean e j
1
•
(d) *Je fais [- Jean embrasse& Harie]
]
5
(e) *Je [V [V fais][v embrasser Mar1e]][s' Jean et]
As one can see" in (b) and (d). the embedded subject Jean ia in a non-
(
Case-governed position. ,Jean thus remaina Case1ess and the structures
in (b) and (d) are rejected by tne Case F1lter. Now in (c), where
partir (an intransitive verb) is lDOVed via VP-K and ~ere i bas d-eleted
one œould argue that the governor of the embedded subject is in fact
v+ (dt. (A». Accordingly, the subject Jean would be 'Case-marked via
v+ not via the moved verb partir. But this analysis runs into difficult y vith cases like (e2. Bere, VP-K has moved the verb along with
its direct object (i.e. V). S has also deleted in (e), thus perm1t~ing
governmen.t into the mbedded clause from the . . tru clauae. Bowever.
if v+ vere the .governor a~d cODsequently the Case-assigner (i.e. V+ 1s
adjacent to Jean) then one would expect Jean to be correctly assigned
Case. And the structure would be predic~to be well-formed. co8trary
to facts. Inste1d, if the head of the DDved V, i.e. embrasser is in
fact the govèrnor, then tt 1s tlear,that 'it ,cannot he tbe e&ae-assigner
, as well, ,for the NP Marie' intervenes in between embrasser and Jean. Therefore 'Jean cannot be ass~èd Case. A Case Yilter violatiOiihence
obtains ~d (e) 1s correctly st.rred.
,
16. The Filter (40) is in fact a refo~lation of the Case F11ter, as mentioned by Rouveret and Vergnaud~ Bowever, F11ter (40) is not limited
to lexical NP's but also extends tD NP traces.
,
17. A c01llplement i8 an argument that i8 ass1ped a theu-role by the, bead ,
X· (cf. sect10n 2 of Chapter 1). The pr1nciple referred to here 1s
known.• as the Empty Category Princ~ple (Eèp) (cf. Chomsky, 1981).
l
18. lt should be noted that the assumptiop that tbe clitic affix absorbs
the Case feature of the verb to wh,ich lt is attached, should translate,
in the cases where tWQ clitics appear on the saae verb, into the assumption that bath cfitics must absorb tbe .&me Ca seo future; for otherwise
the structure will 'not pass the Case Filter.
r"
62
19. Still, the following issue bas not been addressed in the litterature.
We have said in ~ect~on 3.1 of this chapter that wbenever tbe feature
matr1x of the clitic is combined vith the Case feature of the verb,
i.e. wbenever the cl~tic 18 affixed to the verb. the clitic is given
a phonological representation and ab sorbs chis Case feature. Conae. quently the Case futllre cannot be assigned anymore, for clitics are
NP's and thus require Case if they are to pass tbe Case Filter. However, bow can the Dative c1itlcs, e.g. lui, absorb the Case feature of
the preposition given that they are att8ëbed to the verb? That is, we
bave said that in (50) c., for exaap1e, that Marie vas occupying a
Dative Case-governed position hy virtue of heing adjacent to and
governed by the adjoi.ned prepositioÎit!. ln other verda, the preposition is seen as the Case-assigner (Dative)~ Tberefore, it Is not
clear ho~ the clitic lui recovers (or receive) its Case (i.e. Dative).,
Nevertheless, we have a1so mentioned chat tbe c1itic must govern
its empty category for a well-formed structure to obtain. $0 in a
sense the ditic 18 a member of the chain (cf. ChoIuky, 1981-1982)
vhich is marked for Dative Case. Then it is possible that the Case •
f eatu.;e "borrows" or "permea tes fi this path up to the c li tic i teelf •
This is a rather speculative remark but might be worth, mentioning.
'"
9
'-
Another speculative remark is tbe follbWing. It is pOSSible
that prepositions are in fact Case-aarkeor's, not case-assigners. In
this sense, tben the verb would assign çwo (or more) Cases. Therefore,
careful investigations are required in order to understand bow le and
,lui, or Any other pair of Accusative versus bative clitics, eac~recelves
a Case when affixed to the verb. In any case, lt seeas to us possible
that tbe issue raised ln this footnote might be addressed in this way~
Cf. Borer (1981) for a posslble formalisation of this issue along the
1ines she proposes.
20. Unfortunately there are cases (polnted out to be by Doug Pulleyblank)
to darken the general picture. For instance, cases like J'ai fait
laver la voiture/Je l'ai fait laver "1 made (somebody) wash the car",
or J'ai laisser échapper la souris/Je l'ai laisser échapper "r let
tne-mouse get away" (for a detailed discussion of the laisser-paradigm
seese,ction 3.3). These cases are problematic. Given that the embedded
subfect 1s PRO and given that VP-M (and consequently s-deletion) must
apply if the c1itics are to govern their empty categories, it followa
then that the resulting structure should be out. That Is, PRO becomes
governed. Bence the theory wrongly predicts these cases to be ungrammatical. l would like here'> to express my gratefulness to Doug Pulleyb1ank
for useful'pr1vate communications we have bad together.
21. Cf. e.g. his example (37) (1.e. George a vu Jean lui parler "George s.v
--Jean ta1k to himU ) .
22. Note that VP-K as weIl as s-déTetion have occured ln (52) b.
23. The structures deri\fed (via VP-M and s-deletion) from an underlying
structure where laisser subcategorlzes for an NP followed by an s.
are ll1-formed, for the embedded subject in these structures Is PRO,
and PRO becomes governed. Bu t PRO cannot bave a governing ca tegory •
I!r
.(
63
24. Reeail tbat "voir-paradip" ls just a Dalle by which we de81gnate thi.
1
paradip of CAses. lt includes, "'118 others, verba like se trouver,
être, avoir, etc ..•
25. This mea1lS
subject 1s
ouvrier se
ouvrier se
that there is no cOU1lterpart structure whoae coapleae.nt
lexical, .s for the ~i.~r~ and fa~re-parad1ga: *un
trouvait dans un trou Pierre a creuser un puits/~
trouvait dans un trou a creuser un trou parla Pierre.
26. (Cf. footnote 25) See Freidin (1983) where it ia agrued that the
bare VP analys1s of ~finitiv.l. (i.e. clause witbout aubject, ~.
it lexical or PRO) 18 hlghly probl_tic for the theory of a r - r .
\
(
,
.
64
~lb110sr.PhY
\
, 'Aoun, J. (1979): "On govermaent,. eaae-.ark1n8 and c1it~c placelleUt",
memeograpbed, M.I.T.
Aoun, J. (1981): The formaI nature of anaphoric relations, Doctoral
dissertation M.I.T.
Aoun; J. and Sportiche, D. (1983):
in The ~1ngui8tic Review.
"On the fOrllll1 not10n of go'\tertœent F•
Bennet, W. (1975): "Clit1cs in French.
Linguistics Number 156.
A perforaance vievpoint tl in
,
Borer, H. (1981): Parametric variation in c1itic constructions, Doctoral
dissertation M.I.T.
~
\
Burston, J.L. (1983):
"Clitic abject sequence and coocurrence reatrictions
in French", in Linguistic Ana1ysie, Vol. 11, Nuaber 3.
\
.
Burdo, L. (1982): UD-Structure ,conditions on clitics" i~ Journal of
Lin(?ietic Researcb,'Vol. 2, Number 2.
(l983): "Conditions on Representation and RoJaance Syntax"
1n Linguistic Inquiry, Vol. 14, NUIIlber 2.
Chomsky. N. (1981):
Lectures on government and bfuding, Foria Publicationa.
(1982): Seme concepts and consequences of tbe theory of IOV'tpment and binding, Linguistic Inquiry Manograph 6.
Couquaux, D. (1977): "Même, marque-t-il qu f un pronom est réfléchi 1" in
Le français moderne, Vol. 45, Number 2.
- - - - - - , (1978):
"Sur une incompatibilité de pronOlZlS cl1tiques en
français", in Linguisticae Investigationes, Vol. Il, Number 1.
Deguée-Bertrand, C. (1981):
"L'interprétation des pronoms datifs d'avantage et datifs éthiques en français, Thèse de Mattrise, U.Q.A.M.
Di Sciullio, A. -M. (1982): "Operateurs et liage, d., AGR." in Revue de
l' Associa tioo Québécoise de Linguisti.que. Vol. 2, Numéro 2.
Emonds. J. (1975): liA transformati.onal analysis of' French cU tics w1thout
positive output constraints" in L1nguistic Analysie. Vol. l t Nœber 1(1978):
lnquiry, Vol.
1
"The verbal complex V - V ,in French" in Linguistie
9~ Number 2.
Fiengo, R. and Gitterman, M. R. (1978): ,"Remarks on French cUtte order"
in Linguistic Analysis, Vol. 4, Humber 2.
Freidin, R. (1978): "Cyclicity aod the theory of gr..ar", in LiDJuiatic
Inquiry, Vol. 9, Number 4.
Ii
65
Fre1din, R. (1983): "X-bar theory and the analysis of Engl1sh infinitivals"
.. ln Llngulsti'c Inquiry, Vol. 14, Number 4.
u
(
Gareth, E. (1980):
"Pronouns", in Linguistie Inquiry, Vol. lI, N,umber 2.
George, L. and Toman, J. (1976'); "Czech clities in universal gr8D11.8r n
in Papers from the 12th regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic
Society, Chicago.
Gross, A. (1978): "Towards an inf1extional theory of clitics" monographed
University of Amsterdam.
Berschensohn, J. (1980): "On elitic placement in French" in Linguistic
Analvsis, Vol. 6, Number 2.
-,.-----Bornstein, N. and Weinberg, A. (1981): "Cas!! Theory and preposition
standing" in Llnguistic Inqulry, Vol. 12, Number 1.
Jackendoff, R. (1977): X-bar Syntax: a study of phraae structure,
. 'Llnguistlc Inquiry DOnograph 2. M.LT. Pres.', Ceabridge.
layne, R. (1975):
French Syntax, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge.
(1980): ",yers une solution d'un prob1èae gr.-atlcal" in
Langue française, Vol. 46.
Lasnik, H. and Kupin, J. (197,7): ''1\ restrictive theory of tranafonutional gr~r" in Theoretleal Linguistics. Vol. 4. Nuaber 3.
l
Montalbetti, M. ,(1981):
"Consistencyand cl1tics", mi1leographed M.LT.
Morin, Y. -C. (1975):
ItRemarques sur le placement des clitiques" in
Recherches Linguistiques à ~tréal, Vol. 4~
(1978):
"Interpretation des pronoms et des réfléchis
en français" in Syntaxe'l!t Sémantique du français, Cahiers de
Linguistique, Numéro 8. Montréal .
•
(1979):
"More re:marks on French eU tic order" in Linguistic
Analysis, Vol. 5, Number 3.
Perlautter. D.
Nev York:
(1971): Deep and surface structure con8traints in Syntax,
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Quilico. C (1980): "C11tic movement: in French causatives" in Linguistic
Analyaie, Vol. 6. Nuaber 2.
\
(1981) : "The placement of Y, EN in French causatives" in
Linguistic Analysls, Vol. 8.
(1982-8.): "Some issues on the theory of clitics" in Linguistic
Analysis, Vol. 10, Nuaber 3.
(1982-b.) :
"Paraaetric variatIon and clitic systems" To appear.
66
Rivas, L.
\.
l
-"-
(1977):
A theory of clitics, Doctoral dissertation. M.I.T.
Roldan, M. (1974): "ConstraintEî on clit1c inversion in Spanish" in
Linguistic Studies in Romance Languages.
Rouveret, A. and Vergnaud, J. -R. (1980): "Specifying reference to the
Subject" in L1ngu1stic 1n9u1ry, Vol. 11.
"
Ruwet, N. (1972):
"La syntaxe du pronom EN et la transformation de
montée du sujet" in RU'\1et. N.: Théorie syntaxique et syntaxe
du français, Paris, Seuil.
Steriade, D. (1980): "Clitic doubl1ng in Rmunian ~-construct1ons
and the analysis of topicalization u • unpubllshed paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Chicago Lingulstics Society.
Strozer, J.
(1976):
C1itics ln Spanish, Doctoral dissertation, U.C.L.A.
Wanner, D. (1974): "The evolut10n of Romance clltic order" 1n Linguistic
Studies in Romance Languages. Campbell, &.J.; Goldin, M. G.; and
Wang, M.C. (eds.), Washington, D.C.
Wehrli, E. (1981):
"On the distribution of clitlcs in French causatives".
mimeographed, M.I.T.
c-
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1982): uLa construction SE-moyen du français et son
statut dans le triangle moyen-passif-réfléchi", ln Linguisticae
Investigationes, Tome VI, fascicule 2.
Zwicky, A. (1977):
liOn clitics".
", Lingulstics Club.
Reproduced by Indiana University
Zwicky, A. and Pullum, G. (1983): "Cliticization versus inflextion:
English N'T" in Language, Vol. 59, Number 3 .
•
c
,/