‘theinternalsyntaxofthedutchextended adjectivalprojection’ ·...

‘The Internal Syntax of the Dutch ExtendedAdjectival Projection’

N. Corver

bronN. Corver, ‘The Internal Syntax of the Dutch Extended Adjectival Projection.’ In: Natural Language

and Linguïstic Theory 15 (1997), p. 289-368.

Zie voor verantwoording: http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/corv002inte01_01/colofon.htm

© 2002 dbnl / N. Corver

289

The internal syntax of the Dutch extendedadjectival projection 1

This paper is concerned with the phrase structural and word order properties of the(extended) adjectival projection, a phrase structural domain which has receivedrelatively little attention in the generative literature. Focusing on the internal syntaxof Dutch adjective phrases, I will come to the following conclusions. First, there isa strong empirical (and theoretical) basis for extending the functional head hypothesisto the adjectival system (i.e. for adopting the DegP-hypothesis). Secondly, adistinction should be made between two types of functional degree categories:Deg(P) and Q(P). This split is represented structurally, with Deg selecting QP andQ selecting AP (the split degree system hypothesis). Thirdly, there is empiricalsupport for the existence of a third functional projection, AgrP, within the adjectivaldomain. Fourthly, as regards directionality of headedness within the Dutch functionalsystem, it is concluded that Deg and Q take their complements to the right, whereasAgr takes its complement to the left. It is proposed that this asymmetry of headednesswithin the functional structure of the adjectival projection relates to the nominalorientation of Deg and Q and the verbal orientation of Agr. Finally, three movementoperations will be identified within the Dutch adjectival system: A-to-Q raising,A-to-Agr raising and leftward scrambling. The latter two are at the basis of the wordorder variation which is found within the Dutch adjectival system.

Introduction

An important theme in current syntactic theory is the projection of functionalcategories in phrasal structure. Traditionally, most functional categories are analyzedas occupying the specifier position of some lexical head (Jackendoff, 1977). Undersuch a phrase structure analysis, the functional projection is embedded within thelexical domain. Recent phrase structure research, however, has reinterpreted thestructural relation between the functional domain and the lexical domain. Thefunctional category is conceived of as heading a phrasal functional projection andtaking a lexical phrase as its complement (Abney 1987; Fukui and Speas, 1986).The two analyses are given schematically in (1), (1a) representing the traditionallexical head hypothesis, (1b) representing the

1 The research reported in this paper was presented in various stages at NELS 21 (Montreal),the 1992 conference of the Israel Association of Theoretical Linguistics at the University ofRamat Gan, the Thomasburg workshop 1993, the GLOW 1994 symposium at the Universityof Vienna and in colloquiums at Tilburg University, the University of Utrecht and the Universityof Amsterdam. I would like to thank the audiences for suggestions that helped improve thecontent of this paper. I am grateful to Hans Broekhuis, Riny Huybregts, Henk van Riemsdijk,Craig Thiersch and three anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions.

N. Corver, ‘The Internal Syntax of the Dutch Extended Adjectival Projection’

290

functional head hypothesis (Grimshaw, 1991). (‘L’ stands for Lexical, ‘F’ stands forFunctional).

(1)a. [LP FP [L' L XP]]b. [FP Spec [F' F LP]]

The functional head hypothesis, represented in (1b), has been succesfully appliedin recent years to the verbal and nominal domain. As for the verbal system, it hasbeen proposed that the lexical VP-projection is included within a functionalIP-projection, plausibly further split up into constituent components such as AgrP,TP etc., which is itself contained within CP (cf. Chomsky, 1986; Pollock, 1989;Belletti, 1990). The nominal system has been reanalyzed as being a projection ofthe D(eterminer), which takes a lexical NP as its complement (Brame, 1981; Abney,1987; Fukui and Speas, 1986; Longobardi, 1994). 2 This more articulated conceptionof verbal and nominal phrase structure has proven quite fruitful in finding an accountfor various ordering effects within these syntactic domains.A syntactic domain which has received much less attention in recent years, both

from the perspective of phrasal structure and word order, is the adjectival system.The purpose of this paper is to deepen our insight into the adjectival system byclosely examining phrase structural and word order properties of the Dutch adjectivephrase. 3 In what follows, I will briefly discuss the major issues which will be dealtwith in this paper.The first major issue concerns the question whether the functional head hypothesis

(i.e. (1b)) can be extended to the adjectival system. That is, is there any evidencefor interpreting degree words - which are traditionally analyzed as occupying thespecifier position of AP (Bowers, 1975; Jackendoff, 1977) - as heading a functionalDegree Phrase (DegP), taking the lexical projection AP as its complement (theso-called Degree Phrase Hypothesis (Abney, 1987; Corver, 1991))? On the basisof a variety of empirical arguments it will be concluded in Section 2 that theDegP-hypothesis is preferable to the traditional AP-structure.The second major issue concerns the question whether there is a uniform system

of functional degree words consisting of such items as in (2) (cf.

2 Besides the functional projection DP, the existence of various other functional projectionswithin the nominal domain has been proposed in recent studies on the internal structure ofthe noun phrase, e. g. AgrP (cf. Szabolcsi (1987), Cinque (1990)), NumP (cf. Ritter (1991))QP (cf. Abney (1987), Giusti (1993)).

3 Use of the notion ‘adjective phrase’ refers to the extended syntactic projection containing anadjective (A°) as its semantic head. ‘AP’ stands for the categorial label of the lexical phrasewithin the extended adjectival projection.


291

Jackendoff, 1977) or whether a further distinction should be made within the classof functional degree items, for example between those which are quantifier-like (e.g.meer, ‘more’, minder ‘less’, genoeg ‘enough’) and those which are not (e.g. te, ‘too’,hoe, ‘how’).

(2)even, zo, te, hoe, meer, minder, genoeg, …as, so, too, how, more, less, enough, …

In Section 3, it will be shown that the the quantifier-like degree items behavedifferently from the other degree words in various respects, leading to the conclusionthat besides the functional DegP-projection a functional QP-projection should bedistinguished within the functional domain of the extended adjectival projection. InSection 4, I will show that the head of this QP can function as a landing site forgradable adjectival predicates.The third major issue to be addressed concerns the directionality of headedness

withm the adjective phrase. If degree words (Deg°) and quantifiers (Q°) are functionalheads, the question arises whether they take their complement to the right or to theleft. This question is pertinent to Dutch in view of its often assumed mixed branchingnature (Koster, 1987). After having examined both the head-initial and head-finalhypothesis, I will come to the conclusion in Section 5 that the Dutch DegP (and QP)should be analyzed as being head-initial. This may lead to the assumption that Dutchadjectival phrase structure is head-initial throughout. However, in Section 6, evidencewill be given for the existence of a head-final functional node Agr (heading AgrP)which can function as a landing site for adjectival heads that are moved rightward(the fourth major issue discussed in this paper). This raises the question whataccounts for the mixed headedness in the functional system of the extendedadjectival projection: Deg° and Q° being head-initial and Agr° being head-final (thefifth major issue). In Section 7, the mixed headedness of the functional structure willbe interpreted as a reflection of the categorial feature definition of the syntacticcategory ‘adjective’. Adjectives, being defined as [+N, +V] (Chomsky, 1970), haveboth nominal and verbal properties. The idea will be that Deg° and Q° are morenominal in nature and analogously to nominal heads within the nominal extendedprojection (i.e. DP) take their complements to the right. The functional head Agr°,on the other hand, is more verbally oriented and, like the Infl-node within the verbalextended projection, takes its complement to the left.The sixth major issue will be dealt with throughout the paper and concerns the

word order variation within the Dutch adjective phrase. It will be shown that thisvariation is due to reordering operations within


292

the adjectival domain, such as leftward scrambling of maximal categories, on theone hand, (cf. Section 5) and rightward A°-to-Agr° raising, on the other hand (cf.Section 6).

2. In Support of the DEGP-Hypothesis

This section addresses the question how functional categories of the adjectivalsystem are projected in syntactic structure. If we adopt the standard assumptionthat degree words as in (2) are the function words of the adjectival system, we canformulate two answers to this question. One answer would be to say that degreewords head a Degree Phrase which is located in the [Spec, AP] position (Jackendoff,1977). This view will be referred to as the lexical head hypothesis: the lexical headA° is the head of the adjective phrase. According to the alternative answer, whichrepresents the functional head hypothesis, the whole adjectival construction isconceived of as coinciding with the maximal category DegP (i.e. Degree Phrase)and of AP as the complement of the degree word (cf. Abney, 1987; Bowers, 1987;Corver, 1990, 1991). Both views are schematically represented in (3):

(3)a. [AP [DegP Spec [Deg' Deg]] [A' A XP]] (lexical head hypothesis)b. [DegP Spec [Deg' Deg [AP A XP]]] (functional head hypothesis)

In both analyses it is assumed that the specifier position of DegP can be occupiedby various elements qualifying the degree word (Jackendoff, 1977; Abney, 1987).Some examples are given in (4).

(4)a. twee centimeters te langtwo centimeters too tall

b. veel, minder lang dan Petermuch less tall than Peter

From a conceptual point of view, the DegP-hypothesis in (3b) is the null hypothesis:if the lexical domain is closed off by the functional projec tion in the case of thenominal and verbal system, one would, for reasons of cross-categorialcorrespondence, expect the same to hold for the adjectival system (Abney, 1987;Grimshaw, 1991).At the empirical level, it has been noted in Abney (1987) that under a Degree

Phrase-hypothesis it is possible to accomodate the variety of adjectival specifiersunder a two-bar X-bar theory. As shown, for example, by the English sentences in(5), degree words like how and so can co-occur with other specifying elements likevery and utterly. This co-occurrence is


293

also found in the Dutch example (6), where the degree word zo and the modifyingphrase heel erg appear simultaneously within the adjective phrase.

(5)a. Fred was [so utterly confused that he fell off the podium]b. [How very long] he can stay under water!

(6)[Zo heel erg slim] is deze jongen anders niet!So quite very smart is this boy however not

This boy is not all that smart after all!

Under Jackendoff's traditional AP-analysis, the co-occurrence of these items isunexpected, since functional degree words and adverbial degree modifiers areassumed to be located in one and the same structural position, namely [Spec, AP].Abney notes that under a structure as in (3b), on the other hand, the two specifyingitems can be accomodated, one of them (so/how in (5)) occuring in the head positionof the degree phrase, the other (utterly/very) in the [Spec, AP] position. 4

The question, of course, arises whether there is a broader empirical basis foradopting the so-called DegP-hypothesis for the adjectival system. In the followingsubsections I will discuss a number of phenomena from Dutch which give supportto extending the functional head hypothesis to the adjectival system.

2.1. Head-to-Head Movement

A first argument in support of the functional head hypothesis (i.e. structure (3b))comes from the formation of analytic comparative adjective phrases as in (7), wherewe find the bound comparative morpheme -er attached to the adjectival stem. 5 Thismorpheme alternates with the free comparative morpheme meer (‘more’), whichoccurs in periphrastic comparative adjective phrases as in (8).

(7)a. [Sterker dan Karel] leek Jan meStronger than Karel seemed Jan to-me

4 An analysis in which the modifying element is located in [Spec, AP] is incompatible with theversion of the XP-internal subject hypothesis which locates the subject in [Spec, XP] (Stowell1981; Chomsky 1993). In Section 4.2, I will propose that adjectival degree modifiers are eitherin the specifier position of a functional projection QP or in a position adjoined to QP. This way,the specifier position of AP remains available as the base position for the subject.

5 Adjectives ending in -r take the comparative allomorph -der E.g. ver (‘far’), ver-der (‘further’).


294

b. [Langer dan Karel] leek Jan meTaller than Karel seemed Jan to-me

(8)a. [Meer gebrand op revanche dan Karel] leek Jan meMore keen on revenge than Karel] seemed Jan to-me

b. [Meer ingenomen daarmee dan Karel] leek Jan meMore pleased with-it than Karel] seemed Jan to-me

Although, in general, adjectives either take the analytic option or the periphrasticoption for comparative formation, there are a number of adjectives which permitboth options. 6

(9)a. Jan is [veel meer vatbaar voor de griepJan is [much more susceptible of the influenzadan Karel]than Karel

b. Jan is [veel vatbaar-der voor de griepJan is [much susceptible-COMPAR of the influenzadan Karel]than Karel

6 The comparative with meer is generally used before adjectives which can only be usedpredicatively (i.e. never appear in attributive position) and before participles used as adjectives.As illustrated in (i) and (ii), such adjectival elements block analytic comparative formation(though there are exceptions).(i)a. Jouw commentaar is me meer waard dan dat van KarelYour commentary is me more worth than that of Karelb. *Jouw commentaar is me waarder dan dat van KarelYour commentary is me worth-COMPAR than that of Karel(ii)a. Jan is meer begaan met ons lot dan MarieJan is more feeling-sorry-for our destiny than Marieb. *Jan is beganer met ons lot dan MarieJan is feeling-sorry-for-COMPAR than MarieIn Section 6, this class of adjectives requiring periphrastic comparison will be characterizedas having a verbal orientation (formally expressed in terms of the notion of V-dominance).


295

(10)a. Jan was [meer benieuwd naar de voetbaluitslagenJan was more curious about the soccer-results

dan Karel]than Karel

b. Jan was [benieuwder naar de voetbaluitslagenJan was curious-COMPAR about the soccer-results


In a standard AP-analysis, it is generally assumed that the bound comparativemorpheme -er is base-generated in the spec-position of AP (cf. Emonds (1976) forEnglish), that is, the position that is also occupied by meer. The complementarydistribution of -er and meer, as exemplified in (11), is in line with such an assumption.7

(11)a. *Jan is [meer vatbaar-der voor de griep dan Karel]b. *Jan was [meer benieuw-der naar de voetbaluitslagen dan Karel]

If the bound morpheme occupies [Spec, AP], there are two options for deriving theanalytic comparative forms in (7), (9b) and (10b) under the lexical head hypothesis:either by moving the boundmorpheme rightward to the adjectival head or by movingthe adjectival head leftward to the specifier position and adjoining it to -er (cf. (12)).Clearly, the two movement patterns violate the ban against movement to anon-c-commanding position. 8

(12)[AP [DegP -er] [A' [A vatbaar]]]

Under the DegP-hypothesis, on the contrary, the comparative forms (e.g. vatbaar-der)can be straightforwardly derived by head-to-head movement, a general movementoperation which also applies in other syntactic contexts (cf. Baker 1988). As isillustrated in (13), the adjectival head is adjoined to the c-commanding functionalhead:

(13)[DegP [Deg A°i[Deg -er]] [AP ti XP]]

7 There may be independent semantic reasons for the ill-formedness of the examples in (11).As will be discussed in Section 3.2, the comparative element (meer, -er) functions as anoperator which must bind a variable, more specifically a degree-argument expressing thegradability of an adjectival predicate. If this degree-variable is already bound by one of thetwo comparative operators, the other remains a vacuous, hence illegitimate, operator.

8 A c-commands B if A does not dominate B and every G that dominates A dominates B (cf.Reinhart 1976).


296

The above argument in support of the DegP-hypothesis is reproducable under ananalysis in which the analytic comparative adjective is inserted as a lexical item insyntax and requires licensing/checking of the comparative degree feature by thefunctional head Deg. 9 If checking involves movement of the comparative adjectiveto Deg, the appropriate structural configuration is the one in (3b) since it involveshead movement to (more specifically, substitution into) a c-commanding position.Schematically:

(14)[DegP [Deg e] [AP A + er XP]]

In the rest of this paper, I will assume that the bound comparative morpheme is partof the adjectival word in the lexicon and that the comparative adjective must raiseto the functional head Deg in order to to satisfy license requirements on thecomparative degree feature (cf. Sections 3.2. and 4.1. for further discussion).

2.2. Left Branch Extraction Effects

A second argument in support of extending the functional head hypothesis to theadjectival system is based on such left branch extraction facts as in (15) (cf. Ross,1967; Corver, 1990):

(15)a. *Hoei is Jan [ti verslaafd aan slaappillen]?How is Jan addicted to sleeping pills

How much addicted to sleeping pills is Jan?

b. *Hoei is die man [ti behaard]?How is that man hairy

How hairy is that man?

These ill-formed clauses show that subextraction of a left branch degree word outof an adjective phrase is impossible. As shown by (16), pied piping of the rest of theadjective phrase is required.

(16)a. Hoe verslaafd aan slaappillen is Jan?How addicted to sleeping pills is Jan

b. Hoe behaard is die man?How hairy is that man

9 Cf. Chomsky (1995) for discussion of checking of morphological features.


297

The ungrammaticality of the strings in (15) can be easily accounted for under thefunctional head hypothesis (3b). Movement of the interrogative degree word involvesextraction of a zero-level category to the specifier position of CP and hence violatesthe structure preservation requirement on substitution operations (Chomsky, 1986).Schematically:

(17)[CP Hoei [C' [IP … [DegP [Deg' [Deg ti] [AP behaard]]]…]]]

Under the traditional AP-analysis represented in (18), on the other hand, theungrammaticality of (15) is hard to account for since now it is a maximal projection,namely the entire Degree Phrase in [Spec, AP], which is input to the movement rule(see (18)). Movement of this phrasal category into [Spec, CP] would not yield aviolation of the structure preservation requirement on substitution. In short, theill-formedness of the left branch extractions in (15) remains unaccounted for undera lexical head hypothesis.

(18)[CP Hoei [C' [IP … [AP [DegP ti] [A'. verstandig]]…]]]

It should be noted at this point that removal of left branch maximal categories outof adjective phrases is allowed in Dutch. This is shown, for example, by the followingexamples, which differ minimally from those in (15): 10

(19)a. Hoe ergi is Jan [ti verslaafd aan slaappillen]?How much is Jan - addicted to sleeping pills

How much is Jan addicted to sleeping pills?

b. Hoe zwaari denk je dat die man [ti behaard] is?How heavily think you that that man - hairy is

How hairy do you think that man is?

In these examples, the degree word hoe combines with the adjectives erg and zwaar;the resulting forms hoe erg and hoe zwaar function as modifiers of the adjectivalheads verslaafd and behaard, respectively.

10 The variants of (19) in which the entire adjective phrase is pied piped are also well-tormed.This shows that the modifying phrase and adjective really form a constituent.(i)a. [Hoe erg verslaafd aan slaappillen] is Jan?How very addicted to sleeping pills is Johnb. [Hoe zwaar behaard] denk je dat die man is?How heavily hairy think you that that man is


298

Under the functional head hypothesis, the contrast between (15a,b) on the one handand (19a,b) on the other hand can be related to a difference in the categorial statusof the extracted left branch constituent. Extraction of hoe is X°-movement (i.e. Deg°),whereas extraction of hoe erg/hoe zwaar involves XP-movement (i.e. removal of aleft branch DegP-adjunct). 11 Under a lexical head hypothesis, the contrast betweenthe left branch extractions in (15) and those in (19) remains unexplained: both involveremoval of a left branch maximal category.

2.3. Extraction from [Spec, DegP]

Another argument in support of the DegP-hypothesis is based on the Dutch extractionphenomena in (20) and (21), involving wh-movement of a measure phrase containedin the specifier position of the Degree Phrase.

(20)a. Hoeveel cm te kleini denk je dat ze ti was?How many cm too small think you that she - was

b. *Hoeveel cm te denk je dat ze klein was?

c. Hoeveel cmi, denk je dat ze [ti te klein] was?

(21)a. Hoeveel cm minder langi, denk je dat Jan daardoorHow many cm less tall think you that Jan because-of-that

ti is geworden?- has become

b. *Hoeveel cm minder denk je dat Jan daardoor lang is geworden?

c. Hoeveel cmi, denk je dat Jan daardoor [ti minder lang] is geworden?

The c-examples show that movement of only the measure phrase is permitted. 12

11 I will assume for the moment that the DegP-adjunct is adjoined to AP. Cf. Section 4.2 forfurther discussion.

12 As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, subextraction of the measure phrase is bad inEnglish. Consider, for example, the following example taken from Abney (1987):(i)*How many inches is he [- too tall to serve on a sub]?Although at this point I do not have any deep explanation of this contrast between Dutch andEnglish, onemight try to interpret it in terms of the ECP by relating it to proper head-governmentproperties of functional heads in Dutch and English: In Dutch, Deg and Q are functional headswhich can properly head-govern (i.e. formally license in Rizzi's 1990 terms) the empty categoryafter subextraction of the measure phrase, whereas in English, Deg and Q are unable toformally license the empty category in [Spec, QP/DegP]. Interestingly, subextraction issomewhat better in the following configuration, where the removedmeasure phrase is extractedout of an extended adjectival projection in which the adjectival head (A) has raised to Q(example taken from Abney (1987)):(ii)?How many inches is the door [- wider than before]?The acceptability of this measure phrase extraction might be due to the fact that after A-to-Qraising, the empty category in [Spec, QP] is within the head-government domain of the


299

The a-examples illustrate that the entire adjectival phrase can be pied piped. Therelevant examples which favor the functional head hypothesis are the b-examples.Here the sequence ‘measure phrase -degree word’ is extracted, yielding anungrammatical sentence. Under a phrase structural analysis as in (23), theungrammaticality is directly explained by the fact that non-constituents cannot beinput to wh-movement. 13 Under the lexical hypothesis, represented in (22), theill-formedness of the (20b, 21b) remains a mystery. If you can move the lowermeasure phrase and if you can pied pipe the entire adjective phrase, why shouldmovement of the entire Degree Phrase (a maximal category) out of [Spec, AP] beblocked?

(22)a. [AP [DegP hoeveel cm te] [A' klein]]b. [AP [DegP hoeveel cm minder] [A' lang]]

(23)a. [DegP [hoeveel cm] [Deg' te [AP klein]]]b. [DegP [hoeveel cm] [Deg' minder [AP lang]]]

adjectival (i.e. lexical) head. This suggests that within the English extended adjectival projection,the lexical head A is a proper head governor, as opposed to the functional heads.

13 If left branch DegP-adjuncts to AP are possible (cf. (19)), one might object that it is not clearwhat blocks subextraction of the string hoeveel cm te (how many cm too) from a structurelike (i), where the DegP hoeveel cm te is adjoined to AP (thanks to an anonymous reviewerfor pointing this out).(i)[AP [DegP [hoeveel cm] [Deg' te] [AP klein]]Structure (i), however, is out for independent reasons: the functional head Deg°, like manyother functional heads, is an obligatory transitive head, i.e. it must take a complement (whichmay be related to theta-binding requirements on the Deg-head (cf. 3.2)); in (i), however, teis incorrectly used as an intransitive head.


300

2.4. Distribution of ‘Free Adverbs’

A fourth argument in support of the DegP-hypothesis comes from the distributionof so-called ‘free adverbs’ (e.g. adverbs like ongeveer ‘approximately’ and precies‘precisely’), which exhibit a rather free distribution with respect to the wh-phrasethey modify. These adverbs appear either left-adjoined or right-adjoined to theinterrogative maximal category they modify. 14 This is illustrated below for Dutch:

(24)a. [[Ongeveer hoe diep] onder de grond] ligt het lijk?Approximately how deep under the ground lies the body

a'. [[Hoe diep ongeveer] onder de grond] ligt het lijk?b. [Ongeveer waar] heb je dat boek gevonden?Approximately where have you that book found

b'. [Waar ongeveer] heb je dat boek gevonden?c. [[Ongeveer hoe goed] daartegen bestand] is Marie?Approximately how well there-to resistant is Marie

c'. [[Hoe goed ongeveer] daartegen bestand] is Marie?

In (24a,a'), the free adverb either occurs to the left or to the right of the wh-phrasehoe diep, which is contained within the PP. In (24b,b'), the free adverb is left- orright-adjoined to the wh-phrase waar, which occupies the [Spec, CP] position. (24c,c')exemplifies the possibility of having a free adverb either to the left or to the right ofthe left branch interrogative DegP-adjunct hoe goedmodifying the adjective bestand.Now if these free adverbs can occur on both sides of a left branch wh-phrase, the

same would be expected to be possible under a traditional lexical head analysiswith the bare interrogative degree element hoe

14 An alternative analysis of these free adverbs which does not require right adjunction wouldbe one in which ongeveer (‘approximately’) is analyzed along the same lines as recent analysesof focusing adverbs like English only (cf. Bayer 1996, Barbiers 1995). According to theseanalyses, the focusing adverb selects the focused element as its complement (as in [FP Spec[F' only [F' two men]]]; the alternate order two men only is derived by raising the focusedphrase into the spec position of the focusing adverb (as in [FP two meni [F' only [F' ti]]]). Undersuch a phrase structural analysis, the word order alternations with the ‘free adjuncts’ wouldbe derived along the lines depicted in (i):(i)a. [FP Spec [F' ongeveer [DegP hoe [AP diep]]]]approximately how deepb. [FP hoe diepi [F' ongeveer [DegP ti]]]]


301

(‘how’), which is analyzed as a maximal category (DegP) occupying the [Spec, AP]position. Schematically, we would have the following structures:

(25)a. [AP [DegP (Ongeveer) hoe (*ongeveer)] [A' lang]] is Bill?(Approximately) how (approximately) tall is Bill

b. [AP [DegP (Ongeveer) hoe (*ongeveer)] [A' afhankelijk(Approximately) how (approximately) dependentdaarvan]] is Bill?on-it is Bill

As shown by these examples, however, it is impossible for the free adverb to occurto the right of the interrogative element hoe, separating the latter from the adjectivalhead. It is unclear under the lexical head hypothesis why this is so: The free adverbwould simply be right-adjoined to a maximal category (viz. DegP), on a par with theprime-examples in (24). 15

Under the functional head hypothesis, the ill-formedness of the string hoe ongeveerlang is directly accounted for. The constituent lang is the AP-complement selectedby the degree word how. Given the sisterhood requirement on head-complementrelations (Chomsky 1986), the AP lang should occur as a sister of the selectingfunctional head Deg°. However, in the sequence hoe ongeveer lang the sisterhoodrequirement is violated: Lang is not a sister of Deg due to the intervention of thefree adverb ongeveer that is right-adjoined to the maximal category DegP. 16

15 One might try to derive the ill-formedness of hoe ongeveer lang from the requirement that aleft branch constituent ZP, specifying a head Y, should always terminate in its head (cf.Emonds' (1976) recursion restriction, Longobardi's (1991) Consistency Pnnciple). The examplesin (24) and also the ones in (i) below, however, show that this requirement does not holdwithin the Dutch adjectival system. In (ia), for example, the left branch modifier even goedals Marie does not end in its head. The same is true for (ib), where the PP van iedereenfollows the superlative head (best) of the adjectival left branch modifier.(i)a. [Even goed als Marie daarmee bevriend] leek me JanAs well as Marie there-with friendly seemed to-me JanJan seemed to me to be as friendly with him as Marie isb. Ik acht [SC Jan ['t best van iedereen] bestand daartegen]I consider Jan the best of everyone proof against-itOf all people, Jan is most proof against it

16 A way of deriving the string hoe ongeveer lang would be one in which the AP-complement ofhoe is moved rightward and adjoined to DegP. Schematically: [DegP [DegP [DegP hoe [AP ti]]ongeveer] langi]. One way of ruling out this structure is in terms of proper head government(cf. Rizzi 1990): the Deg-head is not a proper head governor for the trace of the rightwardmoved AP-complement.


302

As expected, besides the sequences ongeveer hoe lang in (25a) and ongeveer hoeafhankelijk daarvan in (25b), the strings hoe lang ongeveer and hoe afhankelijkdaarvan ongeveer are quite acceptable. Under a DegP-hypothesis, the formersequences involve left adjunction of the free adverb to DegP, the latter rightadjunction to DegP. Schematically:

(26)a. [DegP ongeveer [DegP hoe [AP lang]]]b. [DegP [DegP hoe [AP lang]] ongeveer]

2.5. Negative Polarity

A negative polarity item is licensed when it occurs in the c-command domain ofcertain scope bearing elements, such as negation or negative quantifiers (Klima1964; Hoekstra 1991). 17 This is illustrated by the following examples from Dutch(niets = ‘nothing’; ook maar iets = ‘anything’):

(27)a. *Jan is [banger voor ook maar iets anders]Jan is more-afraid of anything else

b. Niemand was [banger voor ook maar iets andersNoone was more-afraid of anything else

dan deze spinnen]than these spidersInterpretation: These spiders scared everyone more than anything else

c. Niemand was [ook maar iets banger voor spinnenNo one was anything more-afraid of spiders


No one was anymore afraid of spiders than Karel

d. *Jan was [ook maar iets banger voor niets anders]Jan was anything more-afraid of nothing else*Jan was anymore afraid of nothing else

Sentence (27a) is ungrammatical because there is no c-commanding

17 Cf. footnote 8 for the definition of c-command.


303

negative item in the clause, which could license the polarity item ook maar ietsanders. (27b) is well-formed, since the negative subject has c-command over thepolarity item contained in the PP-complement of the adjective. In (27c) a negativesubject c-commands and hence licenses the polarity item occupying the specifierposition of the Degree Phrase. (27d) is ruled out, since the polarity item, nowcontained in the specifier position of the Degree Phrase, is not c-commanded bythe negative item that is part of the PP-complement.Consider next the following examples in which the negative element is contained

in the specifier position of the Degree Phrase and the polarity item is part of thePP-complement of the adjective (see (28a)) and of the prepositional dan-phrase(see (28b)). 18

(28)a. Jan is [niets banger voor ook maar iets anders]Jan is nothing more-afraid of anything else

Jan is no more afraid of anything else

b. Jan is [niets dommer [dan ook maar iemandJan is nothing more stupid than anyone

in z'n klas]]in his classJan is no more stupid than anyone in his class

The traditional AP-analysis and the DegP-hypothesis make different predictions withrespect to the well-formedness of these sentences. The former (i.e. the lexical headhypothesis) assigns the structures (29a) and (29b), respectively, to these sentences.19 In these structures, the negative

18 Similar effects can be found when Deg is filled by a degree word like te, as in (i).(i)a. Dit danseresje is [niets te klein voor ook maar iemand in haar groep]This girl-dancer is nothing too small for anyone in her groupb. Eddy Mercx reed [niets te hard voor ook maar iemand van hetEddy Mercx rode nothing too fast for anyone of thepeloton]group of cyclists]

19 For the sake of clarity, I have placed the bound comparative morpheme -er in Deg. Recall,however, from Section 2.1 that I assume comparative adjectival items to be formed in thelexicon.


304

item has no c-command over the polarity item, and the sentences are incorrectlypredicted to be out. Under the DegP-hypothesis (i.e. the functional head hypothesis),the sentences (28a and b) are assigned the representations (30a,b) respectively.In these representations, the negative element c-commands the polarity item. Hence,the sentences are correctly predicted to be well-formed. 20

(29)a. [AP [DegP niets -er] [A' bang [voor ook maar iets anders]]]b. [AP [AP [DegP niets -er tj] [A' dom]] [dan ook maar iemand in z'n klas]j]

(30)a. [DegP niets [Deg' -er [AP bang [voor ook maar iets anders]]]]b. [DegP niets [Deg' [Deg' -er [AP dom]] [dan ook maar iemand in z'n klas]]]

This concludes my discussion of the empirical arguments in support of extendingthe functional head hypothesis to the adjectival system. All in all, there seems to bea sufficient empirical basis for adopting the DegP hypothesis.

3. Towards a Split Degree System

In the previous section, it was assumed that the class of functional degree wordsheading the DegP consists of such items as in (31):

(31)zo, te, hoe, even, meer, minder, genoegzo, too, how, as, more, less, enough

The hypothesis that all items in (31) belong to one and the same class of functionwords, viz. the class of degree words (Deg°), will be refered to as the uniform degreesystem hypothesis (cf. Jackendoff 1977). In this section, I will argue against a uniformtreatment of the degree words in (31) and propose that a distinction should be madebetween two types of

20 As indicated by the trace in (29a), the dan-phrase is moved rightward and gets adjoined toAP in a traditional lexical head analysis of adjective phrases. Under the DegP-hypothesis thedan-phrase is base-adjoined to the functional projection Deg' (cf. also Abney (l987)).


305

functional degree words: Deg° and Q°. 21 The former consist of such items as in(32a) and the latter of such elements as in (32b): 22

(32)a. zo, te, hoe, even (Deg)b. meer, minder, genoeg (Q)

I further propose that this split in the functional degree system is reflected in phrasalstructure. More specifically, I will assume that adjectival structures introduced byDeg° (e.g. te lang; ‘too tall’) have a structure like (33a) and that those introduced byQ° (e.g. minder lang; ‘less tall’) have a structure like (33b): 23, 24

21 Cf. also Bresnan (1973), Cresswell (1976) for this distinction. As pointed out by one of thereviewers, potential evidence for the QP vs. DegP distinction might come from the distributionin English of adjective phrases introduced by function words that occur in prenominal position.Whereas QPs like longer and less intelligent can easily appear in a prenominal positionfollowing the determiner, this same placement yields ill-formed strings with DegPs like tootall/too intelligent.(i)a. *a too long dress (compare: too long a dress)b. ?*a too intelligent person (compare (too intelligent a person)(ii)a. a longer dressb. a more intelligent personAlthough these facts are suggestive for the DegP vs QP distinction, it should be noted thatthere is much unclarity about the facts and the factors which might underlie the distributionof these attributive adjective phrases. For example, certain DegPs are acceptable in apost-determiner position when preceded by a modifying adverb; compare: *a as devastatingattack versus a nearly as devastating attack (cf. Abney 1987). Vice versa, a comparative QPlike taller may appear in pre-determiner position when modified by any, as in any taller a man(versus *taller a man) (cf. Namiki 1979). For further discussion, see Bolinger (1972), Bresnan(1973) and Abney (1991).

22 The arguments in Section 1 in support of extending the functional head hypothesis to theadjectival system automatically translate to the split structure. See especially Sections 2.1,2.3, 2.5 for empirical arguments in support of extending the functional head hypothesis to thefunctional projection QP.

23 For the sake of simplicity, I have left out the AP-internal subject DP.24 Without giving up the split degree system hypothesis at the phrase structural level (i.e. the

distinction between a QP-layer and a DegP-layer within the extended adjectival projection),one might defend an analysis in which a structure like (33b) is reduced to the one in (33a),this way obtaining a uniform phrasal structure for adjectival structures introduced by degreewords like meer (‘more’), minder (‘less’) on the one hand and degree words like te (‘too’), hoe(‘how’), etc. on the other hand; thanks to an anonymous reviewer for emphasizing this. Suchuniformity is obtained by analyzing words such as meer and minder as a combination of aDeg-element -er (i.e. the comparative morpheme) plus the Q-element veel (‘much’) and weinig(‘little’), respectively. Thus, a form like minder lang as in (33b) would derive from an underlyingstructure like (i) by adjoining weinig to the comparative morpheme, yielding the suppletiveform minder.(i)[DegP -er [QP weinig [AP [A' lang]]]]In essence, this alternative analysis is the one proposed by Bresnan (1973), thoughreformulated in terms of a phrasal structure compatible with the functional head hypothesis.One of the nice things about this analysis is the fact that it directly accounts for the fact thatcomparatives take exactly the same range of modifiers as Deg-words such as te (‘too’) (e.g.2 cm te lang (‘2 cms too tall’; 2 cm minder lang (‘2 cms less tall’). However, as pointed out byJackendoff (1977) for English, this analysis raises the question why we do not encounter anoncomparative form like *weinig lang (*little tall), i.e. the form in which lang is preceded bythe negative quantifier. Bresnan's (1973) analysis, which makes use of a deletion rule (i.e.the quantifier much (Dutch veel) or little (Dutch weinig) is deleted when it is linearly adjacentto the adjectival head), would not generate such a form because the deletion rule deletes the


306

(33)a. [DegP te [QP e [AP [A' lang]]]b. [QP minder [AP [A' lang ]]

Lexical items of the categorial type Deg or Q carry the semantic content of specifyingthe degree or extent of the property denoted by the adjectival predicate. This degreecan be interpreted as a realization of a property along a scalar dimension ofcomparison (cf. Zwarts 1992). If the degree specification is realized by Q°, theproperty denoted by the adjective is determined quantificationally, i.e. in terms ofthe extent to which a property is present. The property of being tall, for example,can be manifested in different degrees of tallness. In comparative forms the degreeeither exceeds some point on the tallness-scale (as in langer dan Jan ‘taller thanJan’) or is lower than some point on the scale of degrees (as in minder lang danJan ‘less tall than Jan’).In the case of degree specification by Deg°, the property denoted by the adjective

is realized in a more identificational way. This is most clearly illustrated in (34a),where the demonstrative degree word zo identifies a point on the scale of degrees.25 The degree word even in (34b) identifies a point on the scale of degree of tallnesswhich equals 2 meters. In (34c), finally, the interrogative degree word asks for apoint on the scale of degrees of tallness.

negative quantifier. However, such a deletion of the negative quantifier weinig (little) raisesthe question why the derived form lang has completely lost its underlying negated meaning.In view of the improbability of a rule of weinig (‘little’) deletion, the question also arises whyan expression like *te weinig lang (too little tall) does not occur: such a string would have thesame underlying structure as (i), with te in the position of the bound morpheme - er. In viewof these difficulties, I have chosen for an analysis in which comparative forms such as minderand meer are non-derived lexical items which occupy Q (see also Jackendoff (1977), Brame(1986)). It is clear, though, that in principle an analysis along the lines of Bresnan (1973) canbe easily extended to the phrase structural analysis adopted in this paper.

25 As pointed out by an anonymous reviewer, the degree word zo does not always preciselyidentify the point of the scale of degrees of tallness. In (i), for example, zo identifies a rangeof degrees of tallness (from 2 to 3 meters) on which the precise degree of tallness of Jan islocated(i)Jan is tussen de 2 en 3 meter lang. Niemand in mijn klas is zo lang.Jan is between the 2 and 3 meters tall. No one in my class is that tall.


307

(34)a. Jan is 2 meter lang. Niemand anders in mijn klas is zo langJan is 2 meters tall. No one else in my class is that tall

b. Jan is 2 meter lang. Dan is hij even lang als KarelJan is 2 meters tall. Than is he as tall as Karel

c. Hoe oud is Jan precies? Hij is 2 jaar en 3 dagen oudHow old is Jan exactly? He is 2 years and 3 days old

This identificational, referential function of Deg, exemplified in (34), is reminiscentof the referential role of determiners within the DP-projection, whence Bresnan's(1973) characterization of such items as being ‘determiner-like’.Another phenomenon which is at least suggestive of the determiner-like nature

of Deg° is the occurrence of the clitic definite article in superlative forms (cf. (35)).26 I assume that this clitic occupies the Deg° position and that superlative morphologyis associated with the Q° position: [DegP 't [QP -st [AP lang]]].

27 Semantically, this clitichas the same function as the definite article in nominal predicative phrases like (36)(cf. Stowell, 1991):

(35)Marie is ['t domst]Marie is the-NEUT stupid-SUPERLMarie is the stupidest

(36)Marie is ['t lievelingetje van de leraar]Marie is the darling-DIMIN of the teacher

Presence of the definite article in the noun phrase has the effect that the nominalpredicate designates a property of uniqueness. In the same way, presence of thedefinite determiner in superlative adjective phrases has

26 In Dutch, it is always the neuter clitic aticle 't which appears when the superlative adjectivephrase is in predicative position.

27 For the sake of clarity, the superlative bound morpheme -st is placed in Q. At the analyticallevel, however, I adopt the view that superlative morphology is attached to the adjectival stemin the lexicon and that the superlative feature is licensed in syntax by raising the superlativeadjective to Q.


308

the semantic effect of assigning a property of uniqueness to the degree of stupiditydenoted by the adjectival expression. 28

A full discussion of the (different) semantics of determiner-like degree words andquantifier-like, degree words is beyond the scope of this article and definitely af topicof further research. 29 As will become clear in the next section, there are also syntacticasymmetries between Deg and Q in the adjectival system, which are quite similarto certain asymmetries found between Det and Q in the nominal domain. This furtherstrengthens the idea of drawing a parallel between Det and Deg, on the one hand,and adjectival Q and nominal Q, on the other hand.

3.1. Syntactic Asymmetries Between Deg and Q

What evidence is there in support of the split degree system hypothesis and againstthe uniform degree system hypothesis? Notice that under the latter hypothesis onewould expect a symmetric behavior of the items belonging to the degree system. Itturns out, however, that the quantifier-like items (Q°) and the determiner-like degreeitems (Deg°) behave differently in various ways, suggesting that they should not betreated on a par.A first asymmetry suggesting a split in the class of functional degree words relates

to adjectival structures in which part of the adjective phrase has been pronominalized.Before turning to such examples, consider first the examples in (37), which illustratethat the entire adjective phrase can be replaced by a pro-form (cf. Ross, 1969):

(37)a. Bang voor honden, Jan is 't gelukkig nooit geweestAfraid of dogs, Jan has it fortunately never beenFortunately, Jan has never been afraid of dogs

28 Another determiner-like property is illustrated by the contrast jn (i) from English, noted inKroch (1989), where an adjective phrase has undergone long extraction across a wh-island.(i)a. *Quicklyi I wonder [whether anybody could run ti]b. That quicktyi I wonder [whether anybody could run ti]These examples show that an adjective phrase can undergo long extraction across a wh-islandwhen specified by the demonstrative degree item that. This property is reminiscent of theextractability of D-linked noun phrases (e.g. that man, which man) across wh-islands (cf. Rizzi1990, Cinque 1990). The property of being D-linked is associated with the determiner systemof the noun phrase (i.e. DP). The D-linked noun phrase refers to a member (or members) ofa set that has been evoked in the discourse. In a similar way, a D-linked adjective phrase (i.e.DegP) like that quickly has referential properties and refers to a degree on the scale of degreesthat has been evoked in the discourse.

29 For a discussion of the semantics of degree expressions, see among others Cresswell (1976),Klein (1982) and Zwarts (1992).


309

b. Jan is nogal gevoelig voor kritiek, wat ik Marie overigensJan is rather sensitive to criticism, what I Marie by-the-wayook vindalso consider

Jan is rather sensitive to criticism, which I believe Mary is too

c. Jan was bekend met die problematiek. Piet leekJan was acquainted with these problems. Piet seemedme dat toendertijd niet.to-me that then not.Jan was acquainted with these problems. At the time, Piet didn't seem to be so.

In the Hanging Topic Left Dislocation construction (37a), the neuter clitic pro-form't substitutes for the predicative adjective phrase bang voor honden. In (37b), thepronominal relativizer wat of the appositive relative clause takes the adjective phrasenogal gevoelig voor kritiek as its antecedent. In (37c), finally, the demonstrativepronoun dat refers to the adjective phrase bekend met die problematiek of theprevious utterance.Consider next the following examples, in which these adjectival pro-forms replace

part of the adjective phrase: 30

30 Onemight object that the examples in (38) do not clearly show that the pro-form is subextractedout of the extended adjectival projection QP, and instead propose an analysis in which theQP (e.g. een stuk minder (dan Piet)) is a VP-internal modifier and the element 't a pro-formfor the entire adjective phrase. Schematically:(i)…dat Jan 'ti [QP een stuk minder dan Piet [AP ti] is…that J. it a lot less than Piet isOne would have to assume then that the QP, which occurs external to the adjectival projectionand internal to the verbal projection, is able to modify the former projection. Although it iscertainly true that QPs like een stuk minder (dan Piet) can occur as modifiers within the verbalprojection (see e.g. (ii) below), there are various reasons for assuming that a quantifier andan adjectival predicate which enter into a dependency relation form a constituent. First of all,if the QP is base-generated outside of the adjective phrase, then it is not clear why the elementhard cannot be moved into Spec, CP in (iiib). The ill-formed sentence (iiib) would simply bederived by movement of a maximal projection AP into Spec, CP. That fronting of the AP hardis permitted is evident from (iiic). Under a functional head analysis, the ill-formedness of (iiib)falls under the Adjunct Condition; subextraction of the AP-complement is not permitted if thecontaining adjectival projection is an adjunct.Secondly, if QP is not contained in the adjectival projection, then it is unclear why the QPcannot be fronted (cf. (iv)). Under a functional head analysis, the fronting operation in (iv) isblocked because the sequence hoeveel cm minder does not form a constituent (cf. Section2.3).(ii)a. …dat Jan [veel minder dan Piet] baalde…that Jan much less than Piet was-fed-up(iii)a. Jan liep een stuk minder hard dan ElsJan ran a lot less fast than Elsb. *Hard liep Jan een stuk minder dan ElsFast ran Jan a less less than Elsc. Hard liep JanFast ran Jan(iv)*Hoeveel cm minder maakte Marie de jurk langHow-many centimeters less made Marie the dress longHow many centimeters less long did Marie make the dress?


310

(38)a. Bang voor honden, Jan is 'ti tegenwoordig gelukkigAfraid of dogs, Jan is it at-present fortunately

[QP een stuk [Q' minder [AP ti]] dan vroeger]a lot less than in-the-past

b. Jan is gevoelig voor kritiek, wati ik MarieJan is sensitive to criticism, what I Marieoverigens [QP een stuk [Q' minder [AP ti]]] vindby-the-way a lot less consider

c. A: Is Marie bekend met die problematiek?A: Is Marie acquainted with these problemsB: Ze leek 'ti me in ieder geval [QP meer [AP ti] danB: She seemed it to-me in any case more thanhaar man]her husband

d. Begerig naar nieuwe ontdekkingen, Jan lijkt me datiEager for new discoveries, Jan seemed to-me that[genoeg ti om een groot wetenschapper te worden]enough for a great scientist to become

The part which is not pronominalized in these adjectival projections is thequantifier-like degree expression and, if present, the comparative dan-phrase andthe expression modifying the quantifier (e.g. een stuk in (38a)). As indicated by thelabelled bracketings, I assume that the pro-forms


311

replace the lexical phrase AP and are reordered out of the extended adjectivalprojection QP, stranding the quantifier and, possibly, material accompanying it.As illustrated in (39), adjective phrases introduced by a functional degree word

of class (32a) do not permit partial replacement by a pronominal form:

(39)a. *Bang voor honden, Jan is 'ti helaas [even ti als PietAfraid of dogs, Jan is it unfortunately as as Piet

b. *Jan is gevoelig voor kritiek, wati ik Marie overigens ookJan is sensitive to criticism, what I Marie by-the-way also

[veel te ti] vindmuch too consider

c. A: Is Marie bekend met die problematiek?A: Is Marie acquainted with these problems

B: *Ze is 'ti [zo ti dat ik haar niet hoefde in te lichten]B: She is it [so that I her not needed PRT to inform

d. A: Is Jan begerig naar nieuwe ontdekkingen?A: Is Jan eager for new discoveries?

B: Ja hoor, hij is [xxx begerig ernaar]B: Yes, he is [<unintelligible speech> eager for-it

A: *Hij is 'ti [HOE ti]?A: He is it HOW

He is HOW eager for new discoveries?

So, there is a clear asymmetry between the functional degree words in (32a) andthose in (32b) with respect to the phenomenon of partial ‘pronominalization’ of theadjective phrase. The former, which I have characterized as being ‘determiner-like’,block partial pronominalization, whereas the latter, i.e. the quantifier-like ones, permitit.Interestingly, a similar contrast is found within the nominal domain. That is, partial

pronominalization by the demonstrative die (that/those) is permitted with nounphrases introduced by a quantifier (Q) but not with those introduced by a determiner(Det). This contrast is illustrated in (40)-(41):

(40)a. Auto's, Jan bezit diei [een stuk minder ti dan Piet]Cars, Jan owns those a lot less than Piet


312

b. Postzegels uit China, ik geloof dat je diei nu [meer ti]Stamps from China I believe that you those now more

hebt dan ikhave than I

(41)a. ?*Auto's, Jan bezit diei [deze ti]Cars, Jan owns those these

b. *Postzegels uit China, ik geloof dat je diei nuStamps from China I believe that you those now[al de ti] hebtall the have

I believe that you have all stamps from China now

These facts point out to a certain parallelism between Det and Deg, on the onehand, and adjectival Q and nominal Q, on the other hand.A second asymmetry supporting the split degree system hypothesis comes from

the phenomenon of split topicalization with Dutch adjectival phrases. Thephenomenon of split topicalization hasmainly been discussed for the nominal systemand refers to those constructions in which part of the noun phrase has beentopicalized, leaving behind some specifying element (Van Riemsdijk, 1989). Asshown by the examples in (42) and (43), there is an asymmetry in the strandabilityof determiners and quantifiers in split topicalization contexts. In Dutch, quantifierscan be stranded, but bare determiners can not.

(42)a. Boekeni denk ik dat hij [meer ti dan Piet] heeftBooks think I that he more - than Pete has

I think he owns more books than Pete does

b. Boekeni heeft hij [(meer dan) genoeg ti]Books has he (more than) enough -He has (more than) enough books

(43)a. *Boekeni heeft ie [de ti]Books has he the

b. *Boekeni heeft ie [die ti]Books has he those

A similar contrast is found within the adjectival system. The examples


313

in (44) show that part of the adjective phrase can be fronted if a quantifier-like degreeelement is stranded. As is indicated by the ill-formedness of the examples in (45),split topicalization is not permitted if the element left behind is a determiner-likedegree item (Deg°) like te, zo etc. 31 In short, we have another clear asymmetrybetween determiner-like degree words (i.e. Deg°) on the one hand and quantifier-likeelements (i.e. Q°) on the other, suggesting a non-uniform treatment of the two typesof degree elements. 32

(44)a. Bang voor hondeni denk ik dat hij [een stuk minder tiAfraid of dogs think I that he a lot less -

dan Piet] isthan Piet is

b. Gebrand op revanchei leek Jan mij toen [meer tiKeen on revenge seemed Jan to-me then more -dan Piet]than Piet

(45)a. *Bang voor hondeni is hij [veel te ti]Afraid of dogs is he much too -

31 One of the reviewers has pointed out to me that at least for the English extended nominalprojection, it is not correct to relate the ability to license an empty complement to the categorialnature (i.e. Q(uantifier) vs D(eterminer)) of the functional head. As Jackendoff (1977) hasobserved, the feature ‘quantificational’ seems to be relevant for the licensing of an emptycomplement. That is, not only a quantificational Q like many permits its complement to beempty (as in many of the men) but also a quantificational D like each (as in each of the men).In view of this, it could be that also within the adjectival domain the licensing of emptycomplements is related to the feature ‘quantificational’ rather than to a categorial feature.

32 Under an analysis in which topicalization in Dutch reduces to Contrastive Left Dislocation (cf.Koster (1978)), the split topicalization argument in support of the split degree system hypothesisfalls under the partial pronominalization argument. Under such a uniform analysis oftopicalization and CLD, the topic AP is base-generated in a left-peripheral position, sayadjoined to CP, and the fronted element is an empty pro-form in the case of topicalizationand the demonstrative pro-form dat in the case of CLD.(i)a. Bang voor hondeni 0i leek Jan me [een stuk minder ti dan Karel]Afraid of dogs seemed Jan to-me a lot less than Karelb. Bang voor hondeni, dati leek Jan me [een stuk minder ti dan Karel]Afraid of dogs, that seemed Jan to-me a lot less than Karel


314

b. *Gebrand op revanchei was Jan [zo ti dat het eenKeen on revenge was Jan so - that it anobsessie werd]obsession became

To conclude, I have provided empirical justification for distinguishing two types offunctional degree words, viz. Deg and Q. The former category turned out to behavesimilarly in certain respects to the functional category. Det in the nominal system,whence its characterization as a determiner-like functional degree word; the lattercategory displayed properties similar to those of (weak) quantifiers within the nominalsystem.

3.2. Dummies and degrees

Having provided empirical support for distinguishing two classes of functional degreewords, I will return to the structures in (33a,b), repeated here as (46a,b). 33

(46)a. [DegP te [QP e [AP [A' lang]]]]b. [QP minder [AP [A' lang]]]

(46a) structurally represents the assumption that the category Deg selects a QP,whose head in turn selects AP. In (46b), which represents adjective phrasesmtroduced by elements of the class in (33b), the Deg-projection is assumed to bemissing.What evidence is there for the structure in (46a)? And how do we account for the

ill-formedness of such sequences as in (47), where the adjectival projection containsboth a lexical item of the category Deg and one of the category Q?

33 I assume that only gradable adjectives can have the projections QP and DegP in their functionalstructure Non-gradable adjectives such as dood (‘dead’), recursief (‘recursive’) etc. lack thesefunctional categories in their extended projections. As will be argued in this section, Deg° andQ° are operator-like heads and hence have to bind a variable. It will be claimed that thisvariable is a degree-argument which is part of the argument structure of gradable adjectivesand has the same function as the Event-role contained in the argument structure of a verb(cf. Higginbotham 1985). Non-gradable adjectives lack this degree argument. Presence of aDegP- or QP-projection would violate the requirement that all operators must bind a variable.That is, a string like te recursief (‘too recursive’) is ill-formed because the operators te doesnot have a variable in its scope which it can bind.I further assume that presence of the QP-projection (as e.g. in minder bang (‘less afraid’))does not imply presence of the higher DegP-projection. However, if DegP is present on theextended projection line of the adjectival head (as in te bang (‘too afraid’)), then there is alwaysa QP-projection, since Deg° selects QP.


315

(47)a. *[DegP te [QP minder [AP lang]]]too less tall

b. *[DegP even [QP meer [AP begaan met ons lot]]]as more feeling-sorry-for our destiny

In what follows, I will provide empirical support for the articulated structure in (46a)and account for the ill-formedness of the sequences in (47).The idea that Deg selects a quantifier-like element (which in turn selects an AP)

goes back to the traditional assumption that a phrase like too tall (or its Dutchequivalent te lang) represents the underlying concept x-much tall, where x representsa degree of tallness, expressed here by too/te (cf. Bresnan, 1973; Creswell, 1976).In Bresnan (1973), it is proposed that this quantifier much is always presentunderlyingly and undergoes an obligatory rule of much-deletion when much isimmediately followed by the adjectival head. Thus, the string too tall transformationallyderives from too much tall.Rather than assuming that much (or its Dutch equivalent veel) is always present

underlyingly, I propose that the quantifier much/veel acts as a dummy adjectivalelement, which is only inserted in the Q-position of the extended adjectival projectionas a last resort, i.e. ‘to save’ an underlying adjectival structure yielding no output(cf. Corver (1997)). I will further assumemuch/veel-insertion is a language-particularrule whose application is more costly (i.e. less economical) than that of aUG-operation (e.g. head movement). 34 Hence, if an adjectival structure can besaved by the application of some UG-operation Z or the language-particular rule ofmuch-insertion, the former is to be prefered since it bears a smaller cost.Let us see now in what adjectival structures the rule of much/veel-insertion applies

and how it provides evidence for the articulated structure in (46a). For the sake ofillustration and given the limited contexts in which much/veel-insertion applies, I willdraw examples both from English and Dutch.For English, the last resort nature of much-insertion is nicely illustrated by the

examples in (48). In (48a), where we have the adjectival head fond, the dummymuch must be absent. In (48b), however, where the projection AP has beensubstituted for by the pro-form so, the dummy much must be present. The ill-formed(48c), finally, shows that presence of the dummymuch is dependent on the presenceof a Deg-element like too.

34 See Chomsky's (1991) discussion of do-support versus V-to-I raising.


316

(48)a. John is [too (*much) fond of Mary]b. John is fond of Mary. Maybe he is [too *(much) so]c. *John is [much so]

What is important is that the string too much so in (48b) provides direct evidencefor the articulated structure in (46a):

(49)[DegP too [QP much [AP so]]]

The facts in (48) are highly reminiscent of the do-support phenomenon in theextended verbal domain. The do-support strategy is not resorted to in declarativeclauses when a main verb is present (cf. (50a)). When the VP-complement ispronominalized by so, as in (50b), the dummy element do must appear.

(50)a. *John did kiss herb. John kissed her, and Bill did so too

The appearance of the verbal element do and the adjectival element much inso-pronominalization contexts suggests a similar function of the two elements. InChomsky (1991), it is claimed that the do-support strategy is a language-particularrule and, as such, is more costly than a UG-operation like V-to-I head movement.That is, if tense features can be checked off by raising a finite verb to Tense, thenthis computational operation is to be prefered over Tense-feature checking by theless economical, language-particular strategy of do-support. If V-to-I raising cannotapply (e.g. because the VP has been pronominalized by so), the do-support strategyis resorted to in order to save the extended verbal structure.Along the same lines, I will assume that much-support is a language-particular

rule which only operates in an adjectival structure if that structure cannot be savedby the application of some universal and therefore more economical computationaloperation. The question then is: Which UG-process blocks the application ofmuch-support in such adjectival contexts as (48a)? I propose that this process isthe A°-to-Q° raising operation, a substitution operation which raises the adjectivalhead into the empty functional Q-position. Schematically:

(51)[DegP too [QP [e] [AP fond of Mary]]]

In adjectival structures in which the AP-complement is substituted for by the pro-formso, there is no adjectival predicate available which can be input to the A-to-Q raisingoperation. In such a case, resort must be taken to the rule of much-support, yieldinga structure as in (49).


317

The next question to ask is: What forces the application of A-to-Q raising and therule of much-support? I propose that these operations take place in order to overcomea violation of the principles of thematic discharge (Higginbotham 1985), whichultimately fall under the overarching condition of Full Interpretation. One of theprocesses of thematic discharge is theta-binding. This process relates the openreferential argument position of a lexical predicate to an operator, this way restrictingthe predicate's denotation. Drawing an analogy with the verbal and nominal system(cf. Higginbotham 1985, Williams 1981), where the functional heads T(ense) andD° are considered operators which bind the ‘referential’ argument positions E(vent)and R, respectively, of the thematic grids associated with V and N, I assume thatDeg° functions as an operator which must theta-bind a referential argument positionof the thematic grid associated with an adjectival predicate. With Zwarts (1992), Iassume that this is an argument position over degrees, which will be refered to byG(rade). Thus, the gradable adjective fond has a lexical entry like (52):

(52)fond, +V +N, <1, 2, G>

This thematic grid contains three argument positions: the thematic argument positions(1 and 2), and the referential argument position G. Since the referential argumentis open in (52), the adjective denotes each of the degrees of ‘tallness’ (i.e. a set ofdegrees). The reference of the gradable adjectival predicate is restricted when it istheta-bound by a functional head which acts as a binder of the referential argumentposition. Theta-binding of the G-variable by Deg realizes, as it were, the propertydenoted by the adjectival predicate along a scalar dimension of degrees (cf. Zwarts1992).Thus far, I have proposed that A°-to-Q° raising is enforced by requirements of

thematic discharge (i.e. theta-binding of the referential G-argument). WithHigginbotham (1985), I assume that theta-binding is a local licensing relation betweena functional degree operator and the referential argument G, which is part of thegradable adjective's thematic grid. I propose that the locality of the theta-bindingrelation is expressed in terms of the local head-head relation: A functional headDeg° can only theta-bind the referential argument of the gradable adjectival predicate,if the latter heads the minimal complement of the functional head Deg.

(53)[DegP tooi [QP fond<Gi>k [AP tk of Mary]]]

In short, A°-to-Q° raising creates the appropriate configuration for theta-binding ofthe degree argument G (i.e. the variable) by the Deg-operator (i.e. the theta-binder).


318

In what way does much-support save an adjectival expression like [DegP too [QP e[AP so]]]? I propose that analogously to the dummy verb do, whose traditionalinterpretation is that of a substitute for the main verb (cf. Chomsky, 1955; Pollock,1989), the dummy quantifier much functions as a substitute for the adjectivalpredicate. More specifically, the dummy adjectival quantifier copies the referentialdegree argument position G associated with the pro-form so. This way, much-supportrescues the structure [DegP too [QP e [AP so]]], because it enables theta-binding ofthe referential degree argument by the Deg-operator: the dummy element, carryingthe copied degree argument, enters into a local head-head relation with thec-commanding Deg-operator. Schematically: 35

(54)[DegP tooi [QP much<Gi> [AP so<1,2,Gi>]]]

Thus, in (54), the referential argument G associated with the pro-form so is boundvia its copy which is carried by the dummy much. Much-support creates theappropriate local configuration for theta-binding: the Deg-operator enters into a localhead-head relation with the dummy quantifier much. 36

Having justified the articulated structure in (46a), I will next consider a structurelike (46b), which is repeated here as (55) for English:

(55)[QP lessi [AP fond<1,2,Gi> of Mary]]

As indicated by the coindexation, I assume that the quantifier less also functions asan operator theta-binding the degree-argument G. Notice that (55) has the rightlocal relationship for establishing a theta-binding relationship between the Q-operatorand the adjectival predicate carrying

35 The dummy element much also appears in partially pronominalized adjectival expressionsthat are modified by very (as in John is afraid of spiders. As a matter of fact, he is [very *(much)so]. Interestingly, dummymuch is impossible with other modifiers (cf. John is afraid of spiders.As a matter of fact, he is extremely (?*much) so). See Corver (1997) for a detailed discussionof the distribution of dummy much in English.

36 In view of the parallelism between the nominal and the adjectival extended projection, onemight raise the question why a phenomenon like dummy much-insertion is not found withinthe nominal domain, e.g. with the nominal pro-form one; thanks to an anonymous reviewerfor raising this issue). That is, why don't we have, on a par with that much so, a nominalexpression like that such one, where such acts like a dummy element enabling theta- bindingof the referential argument of the pro-form one by the demonstrative determiner that. Asshown by the well-formedness of that one, a ‘linking’ dummy element is impossible within thenominal domain. A complete answer to the question about the absence of dummy insertionwithin the nominal domain requires detailed investigation into the properties of the pro-formsone and such; this is beyond the scope of this paper and an interesting topic for future research.


319

G in its thematic grid. This local relation is also found in such adjectival expressionsas in (56), where the quantifier less takes a so-complement. 37

(56)John is fond of Mary, but he is [lessi so<1,2,Gi> than Bill]

Consider now the following ill-formed structures in which the adjectival projectioncontains both a (non-dummy) lexical item of the category Q and a lexical item of thecategory Deg (cf. also the Dutch structures in (47)).

(57)a. *John is [DegP too [QP lessi [AP fond<1,2,Gi> of Mary]]]b. *John is [DegP too [QP lessi [AP so<1,2,Gi>]]]

The ill-formedness of these adjectival expressions is accounted for straight-forwardly.These expressions contain two potential theta-binders for the degree-argument G.The degree word less in Q stands in a local head-head relation with fond/so andtherefore is able to theta-bind the degree variable G. Since G is already bound byless, the Deg-operator too remains vacuous and, hence, forms an illegitimate objectat LF. 38

Our discussion thus far has shown that at least in English there is overt evidencefor the co-occurrence of Deg and Q in the extended adjectival projection. Since thispaper focuses on the internal syntax of Dutch adjective phrases, the question ariseswhether independent support can be given for the presence of a QP-projection inadjectival structures introduced by a

37 Note the contrast between (56) and example (48c), where we have the dummy much.38 One might wonder what happens in such examples like (5) and (6) in Section 2, where we

also have two degree words and one gradable adjectival predicate. These examples, however,are not completely identical to the patterns in (57), where we have two functional degreeheads which function as operators which must (theta-)bind a degree variable G. In (5) and(6), the second degree word is a modifying (adjectival) element rather than a functionalQ-operator. In Higginbotham's (1985) framework, modification is represented bytheta-identification. Following Zwarts (1992), I assume that theta-identification involvescoindexation of the external argument of the modifying adjective with the referential degreeargument G of the modified adjective. The generalization seems to be, then, that a degreeargument G can enter into a licensing relation with more than one degree word as long asthese licensing relations are of a different nature. Thus, G can never enter into more than onetheta-identification relation (e.g. *She is [veryi extremelyj stupid<1,Gi,j>]), but it can enter intoa theta-binding relation with an operator and a theta-identification relation with an adjectivaldegree modifier: e.g. It is unbelievable [howi extremely<lj> stupid<1,Gj,i>] she is. Although theapproach sketched here is a possible line to take, many questions remain for future research.For example, not all sequences of a Deg-operator and an adjectival degree modifier arepermissible: *She is too extremely stupid.


320

Deg-operator. Support for this assumption might come from the following facts: 39

(58)a. Ik vond Jan [DegP iets [Deg' te [QP *(veel)I considered Jan somewhat too (much)[AP daarvan afhankelijk]]]]on-it dependent

I considered Jan a bit too much dependent on that

b. Ik vond Jan [QP (*veel) [AP daarvan afhankelijk]]I considered Jan (much) that-on dependent

(58a) shows that presence of veel is required in such sequences as ‘te +PP-complement + A’. (58b), furthermore, suggests that this quantifier veel is adummy element. Its presence in the adjectival structure is dependent on the presenceof the Deg-head te. When the extended adjectival projection contains noDeg-projection, veel does not show up.I assume that the dummy element veel in (58a) fulfills the same function as the

English dummy much: it copies the referential degree argument G associated withthe predicate of the lexical projection AP, this way creating the right local configurationfor establishing a theta-binding relation between the Deg-operator te and the degreevariable G. Schematically:

(59)[DegP iets [Deg' tei [QP veel<Gi> [AP daarvan afhankelijk<1,2,Gi>]]]]

Interestingly, veel-support can be absent when the order of the PP-complementdaarvan and the adjective afhankelijk is reverse:

(60)iets te afhankelijk daarvan

Let us assume for the moment that in a string like (60), the adjectival predicate hasundergone A°-to-Q° raising. 40 The derived structure provides the appropriate localconfiguration for theta-binding of G by the Deg-operator te.

39 Although I permit occurrence of the dummy element veel in adjective phrases introduced bythe Deg-operator te (‘too’), adjectival structures in which Deg is lexically instantiated by anyof the other Deg-elements are much less acceptable to me, or even completely out (e.g.*hoeveel daarvan afhankelijk; how much that-on dependent, ‘how much dependent on that’).At this moment, I have no explanation for this restricted occurrence of the dummy elementveel.

40 In (58a), the adjective afhankelijk follows the PP-complement and occurs within the lexicalprojection AP. In Section 7.2, I will argue that such sequences as (58a) involve rightwardraising of the adjectival head to a right branch Agr-node.


321

(61)[DegP iets [Deg' tei [QP afhankelijk<Gi>k[AP daarvan tk]]]]

If, however, the string in (60) is derived in the way depicted in (61), then the questionarises why the language particular and hence more costly rule of veel-support in(58a) is not blocked; application of A-to-Q raising is cheaper than insertion of thedummy element veel. In Section 7.2, I will come back to this matter and show thatdifferent derivations underlie the adjectival expressions in (58a) and (61). What isimportant right now is that (58a) provides evidence for the possible co-occurrenceof DegP and QP within the Dutch extended adjectival projection.

3.3. Summary

To summarize Section 3, I have provided empirical evidence for the distinctionbetween two types of functional degree words: words of the category Deg° andthose of the category Q°. Both Deg and Q (modulo dummy much/veel) function asoperators which must theta-bind a referential degree argument G contained withinthe thematic grid of the gradable adjectival predicate. It was further observed thatDeg and (adjectival) Q display certain grammatical properties which are quite similarto those of the nominal functional categories Det and Q, respectively. Thelanguage-particular rule of much/veel-support provided overt evidence for theco-existence of the two functional projections DegP and QP within the extendedadjectival projection. Insertion of the dummy much/veel enables the Deg-operatorto enter into a local (i.e. head-head) theta-binding relation with the degree argumentG. If the local relation can be created in a more economical way, e.g. via raising ofA to Q, then this is to be prefered. Let me, finally, point out that it also seemsconceptually attractive to adopt the more articulated structure [DegP Deg [QP Q [APA]]]. In many recent studies on the syntax of noun phrases (e.g. Abney, 1987; Lobeck,1991; Ritter, 1991; Watanabe, 1991; Giusti, 1991; Shlonsky, 1991), a quite similarstructure has been proposed for the nominal system, viz. one in which, besides thetopmost DP-projection, there is a separate QP-projection which is headed by aquantifying element, i.e. [DPD [QPQ [NP]]] (e.g. [DP those [QP three [NP cars]]]). Hence,the articulated adjectival structure proposed in this section strengthens the phrasestructural parallelism between the adjective phrase and the noun phrase.


322

4. A°-to-Q° Raising

In the previous section, I defended the view that in a string like [DegP te [QP e [AP [A'lang]]] (‘too tall’), the gradable adjective substitutes for Q so that its degree argumentG can be theta-bound by the Deg-operator te. Clearly, such a movement operationapplies in a string vacuous way. Since the head raising operation is not visible byitself, the question arises whether there is any independent and preferably overtevidence for the existence of A-to-Q raising in Dutch. In this section, I will discussthree phenomena suggesting the existence of this movement operation.

4.1. P-stranding

A first piece of evidence for the existence of an A°-to-Q° movement operation comesfrom P(reposition)-stranding effects in Dutch with PP-complements of adjectives.As shown by the following examples, PP-complements can either occur to the leftor to the right of a positive adjective: 41

(62)a. Jan is volgens mij [(daarop) verliefd (daarop)]Jan has according to-me (there-with) in-love (there-with)geweestbeen

Jan has been in love with her/him

b. Jan is [(daarvoor) gevoelig (daarvoor)] geblekenJan has (there-to) sensitive (there-to) turned-outJan turned out to be sensitive to that

Pre- and post-adjectival occurrence of the PP-complement is also found with analyticcomparative adjectives:

(63)a. Jan is volgens mij [(daarop) verliefder (daarop)]Jan has according to me (there-with) more-in-love (there-with)

41 In Section 6, I will argue that PP-complements in (62) occupy their base position, no matterwhether they immediately precede or follow the adjectival head. The A + PP order will beanalyzed as the base order, whereas the PP + A order will be derived by rightward headmovement of the adjective to a right branch functional head Agr.


323

geweest dan Suebeen than Sue

Jan has been more in love with her/him than Sue has

b. Jan is [(daarvoor) gevoeliger (daarvoor)] geblekenJan has (there-to) more-sensitive (there-to) turned-outdan Suethan Sue

Jan turned out to be more sensitive to it than Sue is

P-stranding is always possible when the PP-complement follows the adjectival head,no matter whether the adjective has the positive form (gevoelig/verliefd) or thecomparative form (gevoeliger/verliefder). This suggests that in such cases thePP-complement occupies its L-marked base position. 42, 43

(64)a. Waari is Jan volgens jouWhere has Jan according-to you

[verliefd(er) [PP t'i [P' op ti]]] geweest?in-love(-er) - with - beenWho has Jan been more in love with according to you?

b. Waari is Jan [gevoelig(er) [PP t'i [P' voor ti]]] gebleken?Where has Jan sensitive(-er) - to - beenWhat did Jan turn out to be more sensitive to?

As shown by the examples in (65), extraction from pre-adjectival PP-complementsis more restricted. More specifically, extraction is blocked if the adjectival head hasthe comparative form:

(65)a. Waari is Jan volgens jou [[ti op] verliefd/?*verliefder] geweestb. Waari is Jan [[ti voor] gevoelig/??gevoeliger] gebleken

The possiblity of P-stranding with pre-adjectival complements of positive adjectivessuggests that the PP-complement occupies its AP-internal L-

42 As pointed out in Van Riemsdijk (1978), P-stranding in Dutch is only permitted with so-calledR-pronouns (e g er (there), daar (there), waar (where)). With him, I assume that the extractedpronoun originates in the complement position of the PP and uses [Spec, PP] as an escapehatch. In the rest of this paper, I will only indicate traces in the specifier position of PP.

43 A L-marks B iff A is a lexical head X° that theta-marks B (Chomsky 1986).


324

marked base-position. Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, thatPP-complements of adjectives are either base-generated to the left or to the rightof the adjective (see, however, Section 6). With Zwarts (1992), I will further makethe assumption that a bare positive adjective like verliefd in Jan is verliefd op Marie(Jan is in-love with Marie) does not denote a degree (e.g. a degree of being in lovewith), but rather a property (e.g. the property of being in love with). 44 Since verliefdis potentially gradable, as is clear from its comparative form, I will assume that inthe lexicon the thematic grid of verliefd contains an optional degree argument G.Hence, we have something like <1, 2, (G)>, where 1, 2 are the thematic argumentsand G the referential degree argument. Under a gradable reading, the G-argumentmust be discharged in syntactic structure; under a property reading, the G-argumentis absent in syntax. I will further assume that the functional structure which is involvedin the licensing of G (i.e. Deg(P) and Q(P)) is absent if the adjective has theproperty-denoting reading. This has the obvious consequence that there can be noA-to-Q raising in adjective phrases headed by adjectives lacking a degree argument.Consequently, the PP preceding the bare positive adjective in (65a) does not occupya position adjoined to QP, but simply remains in its base position.The impossibility of extracting from pre-adjectival complements of comparative

adjectives suggests that the PP-complement no longer occupies its AP-internalL-marked base position. As a matter of fact, this would follow directly if thecomparative adjectival head has been moved to Q° in the course of the derivation.Recall from Section 2.1, that I assume that comparative morphology is attached tothe adjectival stem in the lexicon. Since comparative adjectival forms are plainlygradable, the question arises how the degree argument G is discharged in syntax.It is self-evident that the way the degree argument is discharged in analyticcomparative forms should be similar to the way in which G is discharged inperiphrastic comparative forms. In periphrastic forms, the functional Q-head meer(‘more’) theta-binds G contained in the adjective's thematic grid (cf. (55) for therelevant configuration). For analytic comparative adjectives a similar theta-bindingconfiguration can be obtained if it is assumed that movement involves copying (cf.Chomsky 1992). For a comparative adjective like verliefder this means that raisingto Q (involving

44 Of course, in the sentence Jan is erg verliefd op Marie (Jan is very in-love with Marie), thethematic grid of verliefd contains a degree argument G. I will assume that in the lexicon, theG-argument is an optional argument of potentially gradable adjectives. Under the gradablereading, G is part of the thematic grid of the adjectival predicate in syntax.


325

substitution) creates a structure like (66a). 45 For convergence at LF, we must havean operator-variable (i.e. theta-binding) structure. Such a structure is obtained if thecomparative morpheme -er (i.e. the operator) is the only survivor in the operatorposition (i.e. Q) and the gradable adjectival stem verliefd (i.e. the non-operator part)survives in the trace position. In the spirit of Chomsky's (1993) approach towardsthe LF-interpretation of pied-piped wh-phrases, I will assume that at LF, the operatorpart of the raised comparative adjective (i.e. the comparative morpheme -er) isextracted out of the adjectival head and attached to it, yielding a structure like (66b).A correct theta-binding structure is obtained if in the operator position Q, everythingbut the operator phrase is deleted (i.e. the gradable adjectival stem) and if in thetrace position the adjoined comparative operator is deleted. The resultingoperator-variable structure is (66c).

(66)a. [QP verliefder<G> [AP verliefder<G> waarop]]b. [QP [A [-er]i [A verliefd<G> ti]] [AP [A [-er]i [A verliefd<G> ti]] waarop]]c. [QP [-er]i [AP verliefd<Gi> waarop]]

If raising of the comparative adjective to Q applies in overt syntax, the only way aPP-complement of an adjective can show up to the left of the adjectival comparativehead is by leftward movement of the PP within the adjective phrase. Such a leftwardshift will be interpreted in Section 5 as scrambling within the adjective phrase. Ifscrambling involves adjunction, we end up with the following structure for analyticcomparative adjectives with pre-adjectival PP-complements.

(67)[QP [waarop]i [QP verliefderj [AP tj ti]

After scrambling, the PP is no longer in a L-marked position and hence forms abarrier for extraction, which explains the contrast with pre-adjectival PP-complementsof positive adjectives (cf. (65)). 46

45 I assume that the thematic Information which is not discharged in the lexical domain AP isalso copied. Since thematic arguments are discharged within the lexical domain, the onlyargument is copied is the referential degree argument G.

46 Interestingly, adjectival forms consisting of an intensifying prefix (e.g. smoor, hyper) and anadjectival stem block extraction of an R-pronoun from a PP-complement immediately precedingthe adjective.(i)a. Waari was Jan [(smoor)verliefd [ti op]] geworden?Who had Jan (madly)in-love with becomeb. Waari was Jan [[ti op] (?*smoor)verliefd] geworden?Who had Jan with (madly)in-love become(ii)a. Waari bleek Jan [(hyper)gevoelig [ti voor] te zijn?What turned-out Jan (hyper)sensitive to to beb. Waari bleek Jan [[ti voor]] (?*hyper)gevoelig] te zijn?What turned-out Jan to hypersensitive to beI will assume that such adjectival forms are created in the lexicon and that the degree argumentassociated with the lexical stem is licensed in the same way as the degree argument ofcomparative adjectival forms. So, in syntax the adjective raises to Q, leaving behind a copyin the trace position. At LF, the intensifying prefix survives in the Q-position and the adjectivalstem (with its degree argument G) in the trace position. At LF, the intensifying suffix iscoindexed with the G-argument.


326

To conclude this subsection, consider also the facts in (68), which provideindependent evidence for the fact that the PP-complement preceding the analyticcomparative adjective is not in its base position and has been reordered as a resultof scrambling within the adjective phrase. What these examples show is that whenthe PP-complement is in a position preceding the comparative adjective, it can onlyoccur to the left of the modifier veel, which has been argued to occupy the specifierposition of QP (cf. Section 2). 47

47 Note that veel in these examples occupies [Spec, QP], whereas the dummy element veeloccupies Q, i.e. the head position of QP. I assume that the former element is of the categorialtype A° (i.e. [+N, -V]) and has the thematic grid <1, (G)>; thus, it contains an external argumentand an optional degree argument G. This lexical, contentful item veel shows up in syntacticenvironments like (i), where veel acts as a VP-modifier.(i)Ze leek veel op hemShe resembled much on himShe resembled him muchThe dummy element veel, which lacks semantic content (i.e. lacks a thematic grid and lacksoperator status) is inserted as a last resort to establish a local binding relationship betweena Deg-operator and a referential degree argument.The non-dummy status of ‘lexical’ veel is suggested by the fact that it can occur on its own,i.e. without being the complement of a Deg-operator (cf. (68a)). In this respect, it differs fromdummy veel, which, as is shown by the examples in (ii), can only occur within the adjectivalexpression in the presence of the Deg-operator (te in (iib)).(ii)a. *een [daarvoor veel gevoelige] jongena to-it much sensitive boya boy who is sensitive to thatb. een [daarvoor iets te veel gevoelige] jongena to-it somewhat too much sensitive boya boy who is a bit too sensitive to thatFor more extensive discussion of this distinction on the basis of English, see Corver (1997).


327

(68)a. Jan, [veel gevoelig-er daarvoor], verliet de zaalJan, much sensitive-COMPAR to-it, left the room

Jan, who was much more sensitive to this, left the room.

b. *Jan, [veel daarvoor gevoeliger], verliet de zaal

c. Jan, [daarvoor veel gevoeliger], verliet de zaal

4.2. Modifier-Head Agreement

A second empirical argument for locating adjectival degree modifiers in Spec, QPcomes from the phenomenon of (optional) agreement (overtly expressed by thepresence of -e) between an adjectival degree modifier and the adjectival head inDutch attributive adjective phrases. 48 This phenomenon is exemplified in (69):

(69)a. een [erg(e) dure] fietsa very-(INFL) expensive-INFL bikea very expensive bike

b. een [ontzettend(e) interessante] opmerkingan extreme-(INFL) interesting-INFL remarkan extremely interesting remark

c. een [belachelijk(e) dure] fietsa ridiculous-(INFL) expensive-INFL bikea ridiculously expensive bike

In these adjectival structures, the inflectional morpheme -e is obligatory for theattributive adjectival head but optional for the adjectival modifier. This suggests thatit is the former adjectival element which determines the agreement relation.If agreement is the reflection of a spec-head relation (cf. Koopman

48 The ending -e is absent before indefinite singular neuter nouns (e.g. een oud huis (an oldhouse) versus het oude huis (the old-infl) house). I will assume that adjectives precedingsuch nouns have a zero-ending 0. Although agreement is never overtly manifested, it is quitenatural to assume that such adjectival forms can enter into a spec-head agreement relationwith an adjectival degreemodifier in Spec, QP. Of course, this agreement pattern is phoneticallyindistinguishable from the non-agreement pattern, which has the adjectival modifier adjoinedto QP.


328

1987; Chomsky 1993), then the agreement pattern in (69) is suggestive of an analysisin which the adjectival degree modifier occupies a specifier position within theextended adjectival projection. I propose that this position is [Spec, QP] and that aproper agreement configuration is established after the inflected adjectival head hasraised into the empty Q-slot (cf. (70a)). 49 As for the modification structure lackingagreement (e. g. erg dure in (69a)), I assume that the adjectival degree modifier isnot in Spec, QP, but rather in a position adjoined to QP (cf. (70b)). 50

(70)a. [QP erge [Q' durei [AP ti]]b. [QP erg [QP [Q' durei, [AP ti]]]]

Adjectival modifiers that are adjoined to QP are not close enough to the inflectedadjectival head to enter into an agreement relation with it. 51 This is also suggestedby the examples in (71), where the modifier does not express degree but rathermodality (71a), evaluation (71b) or temporality (71c):

(71)a. een [waarschijnlijk(*-e) dure] fietsa probable(-INFL) expensive-INFL bikea probably expensive bike

b. een [gelukkig(*-e) goedkope] fietsa fortunate(-INFL) cheap-INFL bikea fortunately cheap bike

49 I assume that the inflectional morphology of the attributive adjective is not licensed in theoperator position Q. This is quite obvious since also non-gradable adjectives, which I assumeto lack a QP-projection, exhibit overt inflectional morphology in attributive position. In Section6, I will propose an extra functional layer, viz. adjectival AgrP. I assume that in Agr° agreementproporties are licensed. Note that from this perspective, an analysis in which both agreementsin (69) are mediated by an AgrP is feasible as well.

50 Adjectival degree modifiers enter into a theta-identification relation with the degree argumentG (rather than a theta-binding relation, which is typical of the degree-operators Deg and Q).Following Zwarts (1992), I assume that theta-identification involves co-indexation of theexternal (thematic) argument of the adjectival modifier (e.g. erg(e): ‘very(infl)’)) with the degreeargument G of the modified adjective. For example: erg(e)<li>, dure<l, Gi>. This adjectivalstring has the interpretation: ‘x is expensive to the degree d and d is very’.

51 Cf. also Kayne's (1989) discussion of past participial agreement in French A'-movementstructures. He argues that agreement between the A'-operator and the past participle is onlyestabhshed if the operator raises overtly through [Spec, AgrP]. Agreement is absent if theoperator is adjoined, as an intermediate step, to AgrOp.


329

c. een [tijdelijk(*-e) goedkope] fietsa temporary-(INFL) cheap-INFL bikea temporarily cheap bike

That thesemodifying elements occupy a position quite high in the extended adjectivalprojection is clear from such examples as in (72), where they appear in left-peripheralposition preceding the functional heads Q and Deg, and the modifier of Q, veel. 52

(72)a. een [DegP waarschijnlijk [DegP veel [Deg' te dure]]] fietsa probably much too expensive bike

b. een [QP [QP tijdelijk [QP minder [Q' [AP goedkope]]]]a temporarily less cheap

fietsbike

Thus, agreement between an adjectival degree modifier and an attributive adjectiveis only manifested when the two elements stand in a Spec-head relation (with Araised to Q).What evidence do we have for the assumption that the Spec-head relation is

established in overt syntax, for such relations might also be established by raisingthe inflected attributive adjective in covert syntax? That A-to-Q raising applies overtlyis suggested by the word order patterns in table (73), which compares an attributiveadjective phrase displaying adjectival agreement with its counterpart not displayingspec-head agreement.

52 Notice also that the modifying adjectives in (71) must precede the modifying degree adjectivein complex adjectival structures:(i)a. een [gelukkig erg goedkope] fietsa fortunately very cheap bikeb. * een [erg gelukkig goedkope] fietsa car which, fortunately, is very cheap


330

(73) 53.

AgreementNo agreementWord order pattern*een [erge daarvaneen [erg daarvanMOD+PP+Aa very-infl there-ona very there-onafhankelijke] jongenafhankelijke] jongen53

dependent-infl boydependent-infl boya boy who is verya boy who is very

dependentdependent on thaton that*een daari [erge [ti van]een [daari erg [ti van]R-pronouni + MOD

a there very-infl - ona there very - on+ [PP ti P] + A

afhankelijke] jongenafhankelijke] jongendependent-infl boydependent-infl boyeen [daarvan ergeeen [daarvan ergPP+MOD+Aa there-on very-infla there-on veryafhankelijke] jongenafhankelijke] jongendependent-infl boydependent-infl boy

The third column shows that the adjectival agreement pattern requires adjacencyof the two inflected adjectival elements. That is, intervention of a PP-complement(cf. the topmost cell of the ‘agreement’ column) or of a stranded preposition (cf. themiddle cell) blocks agreement. 54 The only well-formed, agreement pattern is theone in the lowest cell of the third column, where the two adjectival elements areadjacent. As will be shown in Section 5.2, the PP-complement ends up in apre-modifier position as a result of leftward scrambling within the adjective phrase.Obviously, the adjacency effect depicted in the third column directly follows from ananalysis in which overt agreement is a reflection of a spec-head relation created byovert raising of the attributive adjective to Q.

53 For some speakers, the sequence een [erg daarvan afhankelijke] jongen sounds a bit awkward.What is important, though, is that it contrasts sharply with the completely ill- formed structureeen [te daarvan afhankelijke] jongen (a too that-on dependent boy; ‘a boy too dependent onthat’). The same contrast is found in predicative position:(i)a. [Erg daarvan afhankelijk] leek Jan me nietVery on-it dependent seemed Jan to-me notb. *[Te daarvan afhankelijk] leek Jan me nietToo on-it dependent seemed Jan to-me not

54 As indicated, the R-pronoun daar has been moved out of the PP-complement. In Section 5.2,this movement will be analyzed as scrambling within the adjective phrase.


331

As shown by the ‘no agreement’-column, there is no adjacency requirement betweenthe non-inflected modifying adjective and the inflected adjective afhankelijke. Forthe moment, I will confine myself to remarking that this non-agreement patternsuggests that the modifier and the attributive adjective are not in a spec-head relationin overt syntax. I will return to these word order effects in (non)-agreement contextsin Section 7.2.

4.3. genoeg-inversion

The phenomena discussed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 show in an indirect way that thegradable adjective undergoes overt A-to-Q raising in Dutch, namely by theimpossibility of P-stranding out of PP-complements preceding analytic comparativeadjectives and by the adjacency requirement on the agreement relation betweenthe adjectival degree modifier and the attributive adjective head. The application ofovert raising in these adjectival structures is not visible from a reordering of theraised adjectival predicate with respect to the functional head Q, simply becausethe raised adjective substitutes for Q. Only when the adjectival head would(left-)adjoin to Q, such a reordering would be visible. A case in point might be thephenomenon of genoeg-inversion (cf. also Hoekstra, 1984), which is illustrated in(74b).

(74)a. *Jan is [genoeg bang daarvoor]Jan is enough afraid there-of

Jan is afraid enough of it

b. Jan is [bang genoeg daarvoor]

This inversion pattern has sometimes been interpreted as resulting from a rightwardshift of the quantifier, placing it between the quantifier and the complement of theadjective (see e.g. Maling (1983) for Swedish). Such an operation involves lowering,i.e. movement to a non-c-commanding position, and hence should be rejected inview of such requirements as the Proper Binding Condition or the ECP.Under a functional head analysis, the phenomenon of genoeg-inversion


332

may be reanalyzed as a leftward head movement operation left-adjoining theadjective to the quantifier: 55

(75)[QP bangi + genoeg [AP ti daarvoor]]

This raising operation overtly shows the existence of A-to-Q raising in Dutch. Noticethat the adjunction operation does not violate the c-command requirement on theantecedent-trace relation. A question which remains unanswered, though, concernsthe trigger for A°-to-Q° raising in this syntactic context: The Q°-position is lexicallyfilled by genoeg, which should be able to function as a local theta-binder for thedegree-argument G associated with the adjectival predicate (analogously to astructure like minder bang daarvoor (‘less afraid of it’)). Thus, one would expectadjective raising not to be required, contrary to fact. By lack of any deep explanationof this deviant behavior of the quantifier genoeg, I tentatively propose that thisidiosyncratic property of genoeg is encoded in its lexical entry.

5. Directionality of Headedness

Having come to an empirically motivated, more articulated structure of the adjectivalsystem, I will now address the question as to how the headedness parameter is setwithin the functional system of the Dutch adjective phrase. For the sake of simplicity,I will temporarily abstract away from the distinction between QP and DegP. Hence,the main question will be: Does the degree element Deg° precede or follow theAP-complement within the Degree Projection (DegP)? Although this question wouldreceive a straightforward answer in rigidly head-initial languages, like English, itsanswer is much less obvious in a language like Dutch in view of the fact that headsdo not take their complements in a uniform direction. Certain heads take theircomplement to the right (e.g. COMP. Det, N), others are often assumed to take theircomplement to the left (e.g. V, I) (cf. Koster 1987). 56 In what follows, I will explorethe two

55 It should be noted, though, that alternative analyses are imagmable in which genoeg doesnot occupy the functional head position Q. For example, one might argue that genoeg islocated in [Spec, QP] and that the adjectival head raises via Q to a functional head dominatingQP (e.g. the Deg-head). Schematically:(i)[XP [bangi + Q]j [QP genoeg [Q' tj, [ti daarvoor]]]]What is important is that also under this analysis the adjectival head shows up to the left ofgenoeg via head raising to a higher c-commanding position.

56 See Kayne (1994) and also Zwart (1992) for a different view, namely that phrasal structureis umversally head initial.


333

logical hypotheses, the Deg-initial hypothesis and the Deg-final hypothesis. I willstart with the former and come to the conclusion that the head initial analysis is tobe prefered.

5.1. Against the Deg-final Hypothesis

According to the head-final hypothesis, Deg° is a head taking its AP-complementto the left in Dutch. The surface order ‘Deg - Adj’ (e.g. te lang (‘too tall’)) is derivedby incorporating A° into Deg°, as shown in (76b) (cf. Bennis, 1991; Hoekstra, 1991).

(76)a. … dat Jan [DegP [AP lang] te] is (D-structure)… that Jan tall too is

b. … dat Jan [DegP [Deg' [AP ti] te langi]] is (S-structure)

Rightward incorporation of the adjective into Deg° also directly explains the adjacencyeffect which holds between the degree word te and the adjective in Dutch (Hoekstra,1991). This effect is exemplified in (77) (cf. also Section 3.2.). 57

(77)a. dat Jan [daarvan te afhankelijk] is… that Jan thereon too dependent is

b. *… dat Jan [te daarvan afhankelijk] is

c. … dat Jan [te afhankelijk daarvan] is

The PP-complement daarvan ‘on it’ either precedes or follows the string te afhankelijk.As shown by the ill-formedness of (77b), it cannot intervene between the degreeword and the adjective. Under a Deg-final analysis, the sequence in (77a) is simplyderived by rightward incorporation of the

57 This adjacency effect also holds with other degree words, as exemplified in (i):(i)a *[Hoe daarvan afhankelijk] lijkt jou JanHow there-on dependent seemed to-you Janb. *[Even daarvan afhankelijk als Marie] lijkt mij JanAs there-on dependent as Mary seemed to-me Jan


334

adjective into Deg°; the complement daarvan remains in its base position. 58

Schematically:

(78)[DegP [Deg' [AP [PP daarvan] ti] [te afhankelijki]]]

The string in (77b) will not be derived because of the restriction that a maximalprojection like PP cannot be incorporated into (i.e. adjoined to) the head (i.e. structurepreservingness). Notice further that in order to derive the sequence in (77c),DegP-internal PP-extraposition must have taken place besides rightward adjectiveincorporation.Further support for the head final analysis of the Degree Phrase appears to come

from complex adjectival constructions in which two indirect objects occursimultaneously, one being selected by the adjectival head, the other by the degreeword (cf. Bennis 1991). This construction is exemplified in (79).

(79)a. … dat zij [Jan gehoorzaam] is… that she Jan (IO) obedient is… that she is obedient to Jan

b. … dat zij [mij Jan te gehoorzaam] is… that she me (IO) Jan (IO) too obedient is… that for me she is too obedient to Jan

c. een [mij Jan te gehoorzame] jongena me (IO) Jan (IO) too obedient boy

In the simplex construction (79a), the adjective gehoorzaam takes the indirect objectcomplement Jan. In (79b), the complex Degree Phrase contains two indirect objectDPs: Jan is the indirect object of the adjective gehoorzaam, and the pronoun mij isselected by the degree word te. So, the string exhibits two crossing dependencies.A similar crossing pattern is visible in (79c), where the adjectival projection is inattributive position.Under a Deg-final hypothesis, the ordering of the two indirect objects in (79b,c)

can be straightforwardly derived by rightward incorporation of

58 The Deg-final hypothesis presupposes that complements are base generated to the left ofthe adjective. This has as a consequence that A° and Deg° are adjacent at D-structure. Thislinear adjacency is typical of rightward adjunction processes (see e.g. the operation VerbRaising in Dutch, which creates verbal complexes). As will become clear in the course of thepaper, I will assume that PP-complements always follow the adjectival head (i.e. A + PP isthe base order).


335

the adjective into the right branch degree head (Deg°). The two indirect objectssimply remain in their base positions. Schematically: 59

(80)[DegP [Deg' mij [Deg' [[AP [A' Jan [A gehoorzaam]]] [Deg te]]]]

On closer examination of the data, however, it turns out that something else underliesthe observed crossing pattern, namely leftward scrambling of the two indirect objects.This becomes clear when we look at complex structures in which a measure phraseis present in the specifier position of the degree phrase. Consider the followingexamples:

(81)a. … dat zij [mij Jan te gehoorzaam] is… that she me Jan too obedient is… that for me she is too obedient to Jan

b. … dat ze [veel te gehoorzaam] is… that she much too obedient is

(82)a. *… dat ze [veel mij Jan te gehoorzaam] is

b. *… dat ze [mij veel Jan te gehoorzaam] is

c. *… dat ze [Jan veel mij te gehoorzaam] is

d. … dat ze [mij Jan veel te gehoorzaam] is

e. een [mij Jan veel te gehoorzaam] meisjea me Jan much too obedient girl

As is clear from (81b), where the indirect objects are absent, a measure phrase canoccur in the specifier position of the degree word. Look now at the examples in (82)and notice what happens when the indirect objects are added to the structure. Theill-formed (82a) shows that the indirect objects cannot occur in between the measurephrase in [Spec, DegP] and the degree word te. This is totally unexpected under ahead final analysis for the degree phrase, in which this surface order would simplybe derived by rightward incorporation of the adjective into the degree word. (82b)and (82c) show that removal of one of the two indirect objects does not make thestructure any better. In fact, both objects must surface to the

59 Note that the indirect objects selected by the degree word and the adjective are base-generatedin a left branch complement position in the Deg-final analysis. Later, I will show that there arereasons for assuming that they originate on a right branch.


336

left of the measure phrase in [Spec, DegP], yielding a pattern of two crossingdependencies. This exemplified in (82d) for a predicative adjective phrase and in(82e) for an attributive one.But if multiple scrambling is involved in deriving the adjectival structures in (82d,e),

there is no compelling reason anymore for adopting the Deg-final hypothesis forsuch surface structures as (79b,c). That is, the serialization of the two indirect objectsin these examples rather seems to be the result of scrambling of the indirect objectsto the left periphery of the adjectival structure. In that case, we can just as easilyadopt a head initial analysis for the Degree Phrase.Furthermore, there are two additional problems for the head final analysis. First

of all, it remains unclear why P(reposition)-stranding is not possible from PPs in apre-degree word position (cf. (83a)), since the PP would simply occupy its base(theta-marked) position under a Deg-final structure. The only reordered element isthe adjectival head, which has been incorporated into the right branch Deg° (cf.(84)).

(83)a. Ik wist dat hij toendertijd [daarvan te afhankelijk] wasI knew that he then there-on too dependent was

b. *Ik wist [waari, hij toen [[ti, van] te afhankelijk] wasI knew where he then on too dependent was

(84)[DegP [Deg' [AP [PP daarvan] ti [te afhankelijki]]]

Secondly, a Deg-final analysis incorrectly predicts that preposition stranding is notallowed with PP-complements that occur to the right of the adjective, as is the casein (85a). Under a Deg-final analysis, these PPs occur in this position as the resultof DegP-internal extraposition, as represented in (85b).

(85)a. Waari is Jan [te afhankelijk [ti van]] geweestWhere has Jan too dependent on been

b. Jan is [DegP [DegP [AP tj ti] te afhankelijki] daarvanj]Jan has - - too dependent there-on

geweestbeen

Normally, extraposition of a PP bleeds preposition stranding. This is shown, forexample, by the contrast between the well-formed (86a) and the ill-formed (86b). In(86a), P-stranding has applied to a preverbal PP-complement. The ill-formednessof (86b) shows that P-stranding is not permitted with extraposed PPs.


337

(86)a. Waari, heeft Jan [ti op] gerekend?where has Jan on counted

What did Jan count on?

b. *Waari, heeft Jan tj gerekend [ti op]j?

This freezing effect of extraposition can also be illustrated within the adjectivaldomain itself. Consider the following examples, in which the adjective phrase hasbeen topicalized to [Spec, CP].

(87)a. [Daari een stuk minder afhankelijk [ti van] dan Sue] wasThere a lot less dependent on than Sue had

Jan geweestJan been

b. ?*[Daari een stuk minder afhankelijk tj dan Sue [ti van]j] was Jan geweest

In (87a), the preposition van has been stranded as a result of leftward scramblingof the pronominal element daar within the adjective phrase. P-stranding is permittedin this sentence, since the PP-complement occupies its L-marked base position. In(87b), on the other hand, the stranded preposition occupies a position to the rightof the dan-phrase, which is located within the higher DegP-projection. This suggeststhat the PP-complement headed by van is no longer in its L-marked base position,which explains why subextraction of daar is blocked.On the basis of the above considerations I reject the Deg-final analysis and adopt

the Deg-initial structure for Dutch. The question which then arises is: How do weaccount for the word order phenomena in (79) and (82), in which the degree wordis preceded by two nominal indirect objects, one of which is selected by the adjectivalpredicate. The answer to this question, already hinted at in this section, is theexistence of leftward scrambling within the Dutch adjective phrase. In the nextsection, the presence of this movement process within the Dutch adjectival projectionwill be further examined. The issue about the adjacency effect (cf. (77)) will be takenup again in Section 7.2.

5.2. Scrambling and the Deg-initial Hypothesis

My answer to the word order phenomenon in (79) and (82) is that this complexserialization within the adjectival system is the result of multiple


338

indirect object scrambling within the adjective phrase. More specifically, in line withthem Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (cf. Baker 1988) I will assume thattwo nominal indirect objects find their origin in the same structural positions as theirprepositional counterparts at D-structure. 60 I will further assume that a complementto an adjective is always-base-generated to the right of it (cf. also Hoekstra 1984).That is, the base order is ‘A + complement’.Consider the examples in (88)-(90). (88a) shows that the presence of the indirect

object is optional. As is illustrated by (88b,c), the adjective gehoorzaam takes itsprepositional indirect object in a postadjectival, AP-internal position, but requires itsnominal counterpart to occur in pre-adjectival position. 61 As exemplified in (89), thesame pattern is found with those structures in which the indirect object is selectedby the degree word. (89a) illustrates the optionality of the indirect object. (89b,c)show that the prepositional form headed by voor (‘for’) occupies a postadjectivalposition, whereas the nominal indirect object obligatorily precedes the degree word.62. Sentence (90), in which the two nominal objects precede the degree word, isderived by applying twice leftward IO-scrambling within the adjective phrase. 63.

(88)a. … dat zij erg gehoorzaam was… that she very obedient was

60 UTAH: ‘Identical thematic relationships between items are represented by identical structuralrelationships between those items at a the level of D-structure (Baker 1988).

61 The obligatory pre-adjectival placement of the indirect object DPs presumably relates to caselicensing reasons.

62 As shown by (i), the two prepositional IO-forms can also precede the degree word Thispre-degree word position is denved by scrambling.(i)a. een [voor miji veel te gehoorzaam ti] meisjea for me much too obedient girla girl who is much too obedient for meb. [Daaraani (veel) te gehoorzaam ti] was JanTo-that (much) too obedient was John

63 Under a Deg-initial analysis, the ungrammaticality of the examples (82b-c) follows directly.The IO cannot scramble to a position in between the measure phrase, which occupies [Spec,DegP] and the degree word (Deg°) te. Such an operation would involve adjunction of themaximal category DP to the intermediate level category Deg', which is excluded by the structurepreservingness requirement on adjunction operations (Chomsky 1986)


339

b. … dat zij [erg gehoorzaam aan jou] was… that she very obedient to you was(IO-PP of A)

c. … dat zij [joui erg gehoorzaam ti] was… that she you very obedient was(scrambled IO-DP)

(89)a. … dat ze [te gehoorzaam] was… that she too obedient was

b. … dat ze [te gehoorzaam voor mij] was… that she too obedient for me was(IO-PP of Deg)

c. … dat ze [mijk te gehoorzaam tk] was… that she (for) me too obedient was(scrambled IO-DP)

(90)… dat ze [mijk joui [te [gehoorzaam ti] tk]] was… that she (for)me (to)you too obedient was(2x IO-DP)that she was too obedient to you for me

Besides scrambling of DPs, so-called R-pronouns (e.g daar, er (‘there’)), which areselected by prepositions, and PPs can undergo leftward scrambling within theadjectival domain. Some examples are given in (91).

(91)a. … dat ik toendertijd [SC niemand [daari te bang [ti… that I at-the-time no one there too afraidvoor]]] achtteof consider

… that I considered no one too afraid of it at the time


340

b. [CP [daarvani veel te afhankelijk ti] [C' leek Janthereon much too dependent seemed Jan

mij toendertijd]]!to-me at-the time

Jan seemed to me much too dependent on it at the time

In (91a), the R-pronoun daar has been scrambled out of the PP-complement of theadjective. It has landed in a position to the right of the indefinite subject niemand,which is the subject of the. adjectival small clause. In (91b), the PP daarvan hasbeen moved to a position to the left of the measure phrase which occupies [Spec,DegP]. The landing site of the PP.-complement must be internal to the adjectivephrase, as the adjective phrase occupies [Spec, CP]. 64

These leftward, reordering operations yield a certain amount of word order freedomwithin the adjectival domain. 65 The phenomenon of variable word order has beenexamined extensively for the extended verbal projection and has raised variousimportant theoretical issues, e.g. whether scrambled structures are derived bymovement or not, and if they are, whether scrambling creates A-chains or A'-chains.66 A full discussion of these theoretical issues in relation to the adjectival system iscertainly beyond the scope of this paper. I will take the position here that scramblingwithin the extended adjectival projection involves adjunction to a maximal projection(i.e. movement of the A'-type). In (92a), for example an R-

64 The definite subject Jan in (91b) has been moved to be [Spec, AgrsP]-position of the extendedverbal projection, with movement into adjectival [Spec, AgrP] as an intermediate step.

65 To get an impression of the word order vanation with the Dutch adjectival projection, considerthe examples in (i). Besides occupying its base position, the boldface PP-constituent: canoccur in the position indicated by ^.(i)Jan, [^ geestelijk ^ vermoedelijk vrij goed ^ bestand tegen dit soortJan, ^ mentally ^ presumably ^ rather well ^ proof against this kind-ofstress], betrad het podiumstress, set-foot-on the platform

66 Cf. Corver and van Riemsdijk (1994) for discussion of vanous approaches towards thtphenomenon of scrambling.


341

pronoun has been adjoined to QP, and in (92b) it has been adjoined to DegP. 67

(92)a. Jan, [QP daari [QP veel [Q' minder [AP gevoelig [AP [tiJan, that much less sensitive

voor]]]]]], betrad vol vertrouwen het podiumto, mounted full(of) confidence the platformJan, who was much less sensitive to it, mounted the platform full of confidence

b. Jan, [DegP daari [DegP net zo [QP bang [ti voor]] als ik verlietJan, that just as afraid of as I, left

meteen de zaalimmediately the room

Jan, who was just as afraid of it as I was, left the room imediately

In what follows, I will show that some of the argumentation that has been put forwardin support of a movement approach towards scrambling within the extended verbalprojection extends to the adjectival domain (cf. Webelhuth, 1987; Corver and VanRiemsdijk, 1994).A first argument for interpreting the scrambled structure as a movement-derived

structure is its sensitivity to island constraints. This is shown, for example, by theill-formed example (93a), in which the R-pronoun er has been subextracted out ofone of the adjectival conjuncts, in violation of the Coordinate Structure Constraint(Ross 1967). As expected, across-the-board movement of the R-pronoun yields awell-formed adjectival structure (cf. (93b)). 68

67 In line with the structure preservingness constraint on adjunction operations, a scrambledNP- constituent cannot adjoin to an intermediate head X' (cf Chomsky 1986, 1995):(i)a. een [QP daari [QP veel [Q' minder [AP [ti van] afhankelijke]]]] jongena there much less - on dependent boya boy much less dependent on thatb. *een [QP veel [Q' daari [Q' minder [AP [ti van] afhankelijke]]]] jongen

68 Notice again, that in these examples the adjective phrase occupies [Spec, CP] This showsihat the scrambled R-pronoun really ends up in a left peripheral position within the adjectivephrase.


342

(93)a. *[Eri zowel [verliefd [op Sue]] als [afhankelijk [ti van]]]jthere both in-love with Sue and dependent on

was Jan tj geweesthad Jan been

b. [Eri zowel [verliefd [ti op]] als [afhankelijk [ti van]]]j wasthere both in-love with and dependent on had

Jan tj geweestJan been

Jan was both in love with her and dependent on her

A second phenomenon suggesting that scrambled structures within the adjectivaldomain are derived by movement is parasitic gap licensing, a property characteristicof (A'-)movement-derived structures (cf. Bennis and Hoekstra (1984)). The relevantconfiguration is provided by such complex adjectival structures as in (94a), in whichan infinitival clause appears that is selected by the degree item voldoende(‘sufficiently’). As shown by the ungrammaticality of (94b), scrambling of anR-pronoun to a position external to the infinitival clause is not allowed. However, agap can appear within the PP of the embedded clause, if an R-pronoun has beenscrambled out of the PP-complement of the adjectival head dol. The occurrence ofthis gap in the infinitival clause is clearly parasitic on the scrambling of the R-pronounout of the PP headed by op. As is shown by (94d), the (parasitic) gap is impossibleif the R-pronoun er remains within its PP.

(94)a. Ik acht Jan [voldoende [dol [op Sue]] [om met haarI consider Jan sufficiently fond of Sue for with her

te trouwen]]to marry

b. *[Eri voldoende dol [op Sue] [om [ti mee] te trouwen]]there sufficiently fond of Sue for with to marry

acht ik Janconsider I Jan

c. [Eri voldoende dol [ti op] [om [e mee] te trouwen]]there sufficiently fond of for with to marry


343

acht ik Janconsider I Jan

I consider Jan sufficiently fond of her to marry her

d. *?[Voldoende dol [erop] [om [e mee] te trouwen]] acht ik Jan

A third phenomenon that can be directly explained under a movement analysistowards scrambling is illustrated in (95) and (96). What we find here is an asymmetryin the preposition stranding behavior of postadjectival PP-complements on the onehand and those PP-complements which uccur in a pre-degree word position on theother hand. The former PPs occur in a theta-marked position and hence permitpreposition stranding. The latter, on the other hand, exhibit the well-known freezingeffect of moved PPs. The PP-complement, which ends up adjoined to DegP in (95b)and adjoined to QP in (96b), is no longer within the L-marking domain of the adjective.Preposition stranding is therefore prohibited. 69

(95)a. Ik wist [waari hij toendertijd [veel te afhankelijk [tiI knew where he then much too dependent

van]] was]on was

I knew what he was too dependent on at the time

b. *Ik wist [waari hij toendertijd [[ti van]j veel te afhankelijk tj]was]

(96)a. Ik wist [waari hij toendertijd [minder bang [ti voor]] was]I knew where he then less afraid of was

I knew what he was less afraid of at the time

b. *Ik wist [waari hij toendertijd [[ti voor]j minder bang tj was]

Finally, the following coordination facts are also directly accounted for under amovement approach to scrambling within the adjectival system:

(97)a. Ik vond toendertijd [SC niemand [die kindereni [enI considered then no one these children both

69 Recall that similar effects were found in (65), where the PP-complement appeared to the leftof a comparative adjectival form, which was assumed to have raised to the functional headQ°.


344

[(veel) te gehoorzaam ti] en [(veel) te behulpzaam ti]]]](much) too obedient and (much) too helpful

At that time I considered no one both much too obedient to the children and muchtoo helpful to these children

b. [DP een [NP [miji haarj [niet alleen [te gehoorzaam tj ti]a me her not only too obedient

maar ook [te trouw tj ti]]] iemand]]but also too faithful person

a person who, for me, is not only too obedient to her but also too faithful to her

In these sentences, a scrambled noun phrase (i.e. DP) appears external to acoordiated structure, whose conjuncts are introduced by so-called initial conjunctionwords (en … en; zowel … als). A property of these conjunction words is that theycan only conjoin maximal categories (cf. Neijt (1979)). In (97), the two conjuncts areDegPs. In (97a), the DP die kinderen, which functions as an object of the adjectivesgehoorzaam and behulpzaam, occupies a position external to the coordinatedDegP-structure. This word order pattern is directly explained under a movementanalysis: the DP has been moved in an ATB-fashion out of the two conjoined DegPsand has subsequently been adjoined to the coordinated DegP. The word orderpattern in the attributive adjective phrase in (97b) can be explained along the samelines. In this example the DPs mij and haar, which function respectively as objectselected by Deg° and as objeet selected by A°, occur externally to the coordinatedDegP-structure. Also this complex word order pattern follows from an analysis inwhich the objects have beenmoved in an ATB-fashion out of the coordinated phrase.On the basis of the above considerations, I conclude that the variable word order

within the Dutch adjective phrase is the result of leftward scrambling within thissyntactic domain.

6. Head-Final Agrp and A-to-Agr Raising

The head-initial character of the projections AP and DegP (and, by hypothesis, QP)may lead one to assume that the adjectival phrase structure is head-initial throughout.In this section, however, which deals wiih the identification of an adjectivalAGR(eement)-node within the Dutch adjectival system, I will discuss phenomenawhich are suggestive for


345

the conclusion that Dutch has a head-final inflectional node (AGR). 70

Adjectival inflection is very poor in Dutch. Predicative adjectives never show overtagreement with the subject (cf. (98a)). As for the (prenominal) attributive adjectives,agreement is only spelled out overtly in the form of -e (cf. (98b)). As shown by (98c),-e does not appear on adjectives modifying indefinite neuter singulars. These alsotake the zero-morpheme.

(98)a. Het boek is moeilijk-ØThe book is difficult

b. Het moeilijk-e boekThe difficult-e book

c. een moeilijk-Ø boeka difficult book

If a separate adjectival AGR-projection is adopted for the adjectival system, thequestion should be asked what evidence there is for this additional functionalprojection. At the conceptual level, the existence of such a level is defendible in viewof the fact that inflectional features within the clausal domain, such as Tense andAgreement, are associated with distinct syntactic positions as well. Furthermore, ifthe external argument of an adjectival predicate is assumed to originate in thespecifier of AP (the XP-internal subject hypothesis), then there must be a syntacticposition to which the subject can be moved in (absolute) small clause structureslike (99a). Notice that in this example the noun phrase Romário occurs to the left ofthe the Deg°-head zo and the nominal measure phrase 2 keer, which occupies[Spec, DegP]. 71 This position is plausibly (Spec, AgrP]. The structure we get thenis the one in (99b). 72, 73

70 See also Chomsky (1993), Chomsky and Lasnik (1993) for discussion of adjectival AGRP.71 The fact that in (99), the raised subject Romário occurs to the left of the measure noun phrase

twee keer suggests that the DegP-projection is contained within the AgrP-projection.72 I assume that in attributive adjective phrases [Spec, AgrP] is occupied by PRO. In that position

PRO has c-command over subject-oriented adjunct-predicates:(i)a. een [AgrP PROi [geschoren]i[DegP 2 keer [Deg' zo aantrekkelijke]]] jongena shaven two times as attractive boya boy who is twice as attractive when he is shavenb. een [AgrP PROi [rauw]i [QP veel [Q' minder smakelijke]]] visa raw much less tasty fisha fish which is much less tasty when it is raw

73 For the sake of simplicity, I have left out the functional projection QP in (99b). Recall that QPis selected by Deg°. The adjectival predicate (gevaarlijk) raises to Q, so that the Deg-operatorzo can locally bind the Grade-argument associated with the adjective gevaarlijk. Note thatmovement of the external argument Romário to [Spec, AgrP] crosse the nominal measurephrase in [Spec, DegP]. This crossing, however, does not violate Relativized Minimality if itis assumed that [Spec, DegP] is an A'-type position. The A'-status of this specifier position isnot implaussible. First of all, it is the specifier of Deg°, which functions as an operator. Secondly,the elements occupying this specifier position are typically non-arguments, e.g. measure nounphrases, adverbs, etc.


346

(99)a. [Met [Romário 2 keer zo gevaarlijk als Bergkamp]] moestwith Romario two times as dangerous as Bergkamp had to

het Nederlandse voetbalelftal het onderspit delven tegenthe Dutch soccer team the subsoil dig against

BraziliëBrazil

… the Dutch soccer team had to taste defeat at the hands of Brazil

b. [PP Met [AgrP Romárioi [DegP 2 keer zo [AP gevaarlijk] als Bergkamp]]]

At the empirical level, an argument in support of AgrP can be built on the distributionof PP-complements within the Dutch adjectival system. As indicated by the paradigmin (100), PP-complements exhibit a rather free distribution within the adjectivalsystem.

(100)a. … dat we waarschijnlijk [nauw verwant daaraan] waren… that we probably closely related there-to were

(MOD A PP)

… that we were probably closely related to it

b. … dat we waarschijnlijk [nauw daaraan verwant] waren(MOD PP A)

c. … dat we waarschijnlijk [daaraan nauw verwant] waren(PP MOD A)

d. … dat we daaraan waarschijnlijk [- nauw verwant] waren

In (100a), the PP-complement is assumed to be in its post-adjectival base position.In (100b) it occurs to the immediate left of the adjectival head and is preceded bythe modifier nauw. In (100c), it occurs internal to the adjective phrase but to the leftof the modifier. In (100d), for the sake of


347

completeness, the PP-complement of the adjective shows up in a scrambled positionwithin the VP.A question which arises is: How do we account for the rather free distribution of

the PP-complement within the adjective phrase? In Section 5, we have alreadynoticed that leftward scrambling within the adjectival domain is an option availablefor PPs. So we might hypothesize that ‘APP’ is the base order and that those stringsin which the PP-complement precedes the adjective (cf. (100b,c)) are derived byscrambling within the adjective phrase, yielding the derived structure [PPi (ZP) A°ti] (where ZP is a potentially intervening modifier).Such a uniform scrambling approach faces a number of problems, however. First

of all, it would be unable to explain the asymmetrie P-stranding behavior of the twoleftward scrambled PPs in (101b) and (101c). That is, one would expect a freezingeffect for both scrambled orders. However, this is not what happens, as is illustratedin (101).

(101)a. Ik weet waari we toen [nauw verwant [ti aan]] warenI know where we then closely related - to were

I know what we were closely related to at the time

b. Ik weet waari we toen [nauw [ti aan] verwant] waren

c. *Ik weet waari we toen [[ti aan] nauw verwant] warend. *Ik weet waari we [ti aan]j toen [tj nauw verwant] waren

(101a) shows that P-stranding is permitted from a post-adjectival PP-complement.In (101b), P-stranding is permitted as well. So, this pre-adjectival complementbehaves similarly with respect to P-stranding as the post-adjectival PP. (101c),however, shows that P-stranding is blocked when the PP-complement occupies aposition to the left of the modifier nauw. (101d), for the sake of completeness,illustrates the impossibility of P-stranding with those PP-complements that havebeen scrambled into the verbal domain.What is important is that there is an extraction asymmetry between (101b) and

(101c). This is quite unexpected, since under a uniform scrambling analysis, bothPPs no longer occur in their L-marked base position. Thus, one (incorrectly) wouldexpect the same island behavior.Another argument against a uniform scrambling analysis for those sequences in

which the PP-complement precedes the adjective comes from ATB-extractions fromPP-complements. The often held descriptive generalization is that ATB-extractionfrom two phrases requires parallelism in


348

the structural position of these two phrases. Now if one adopts the analysis underdiscussion, one would expect that P-stranding is not allowed from a coordinatedadjectival structure where the PP-complement occurs pre-adjectivally in one conjunctbut post-adjectivally in the other. It turns out, however, that ATB-extractions fromsuch configurations are possible, as is illustrated in (102) and (103).

(102)Waari denk je dat Jan …Where think you that Jan …Who do you think that Jan …

a. [goed bevriend [ti mee]] en [financieel afhankelijkwell friendly - with and financially dependent

[ti van]] is?- on iswas very friendly with and financially dependent upon?

b. [goed [ti mee] bevriend] en [financieel [ti van] afhankelijk] is?

c. [goed bevriend [ti mee]] en [financieel [ti van] afhankelijk] is?

d. [goed [ti mee] bevriend] en [financieel afhankelijk [ti van]] is?

(103)a. Het meisje waari Jan [niet alleen [erg gesteld [ti op]] maarThe girl which Jan not only very keen on but

ook [goed opgewassen [ti tegen]]] leek werd lateralso well equal to seemed became later

zijn vrouwhis wife

The girl who Jan was not only very keen on but also well matched with later becamehis wife

b. …waari… [niet alleen [erg [ti op] gesteld] maar ook [goed [ti tegen] opgewassen]]…

c.…waari… [niet alleen [erg gesteld [ti, op]] maar ook [goed [ti tegen] opgewassen]]…

d.…waari… [niet alleen [erg [ti op] gesteld] maar ook [goed opgewassen [ti tegen]]]…


349

In (102/103a,b), the PP-complements in the two conjuncts are located on the sameside of the adjectival heads. In (102/103c,d), however, the PP-complements areordered differently with respect to the adjectival heads. In (102/103c), the PP in theleft conjunct follows A°, whereas the one in the right conjunct precedes A°. In(102/103d), we find the reverse pattern. What is important is that in both (102/103c)and (102/103d), ATB-extraction is permitted in spite of the apparent absence ofparallelism in the structural position of the two PP-complements.In conclusion, a uniform leftward scrambling analysis for such sequences as ‘MOD

PP A’ (cf. (100b)) and ‘PP MOD A’ (cf. (100c)) faces some problems. An alternativeanalysis which takes the order ‘PP + A’ as the base order and the order ‘A + PP’ asbeing derived by extraposition basically faces the same sort of problems as theuniform leftward PP-scrambling analysis. One of the questions is, for example, whya freezing effect does not occur after extraposition of the PP. As is illustrated by thecontrast between (104a) and (104b), scrambling of R-pronouns is blocked when thePP-complement occurs in an extraposed (i.e. non-base) position.

(104)a. [Daari net zo verliefd [ti op] als Piet]k zei Jan dat ie tkthere just as in-love - with as Piet said Jan that he

was geweest.had been

Jan said that he had been as much in love with that/her as Piet

b.?*[Daari net zo verliefd tj als Piet [ti op]j]k zei Jan datthere just as in-love als Piet with said Jan that

ie tk was geweest.he had been

So, the question remains how to derive the word order ‘MOD PP A’ in suchsequences as (100b). 74

What I would like to propose is that those sequences in which the PP-complementintervenes between the modifier and the adjectival head are

74 Of course, one other option for deriving the order MOD + A + PP would be to simply stipulatethat adjectives can take their complement both to the right and to the left. However, undersuch an analysis we would have to give up the attractive idea that headedness is at leastuniform per category. Furthermore, this bidirectionality hypothesis should also be adoptedthen for the verb, which also permits its complements to appear to its immediate right andleft. The problem then arises why P-stranding in Dutch is only permitted with preverbal PPsand not with postverbal ones.


350

derived by rightward movement of the adjectival predicate into a higher right branchAgr-node. Schematically: 75

(105)a. [DPeen [NP [AgrP PRO [Agr' [nauw ti daaraan]a closely there-to

[Agr verwantei]]] [NP man]]]related-infl man

a man closely related to it

b. [AgrP [Agr' [nauw ti daaraan] [Agr verwant-Øi]]] leekclosely there-to related seemed

Jan me nietJan to-me not

Jan didn't seem to be closely related to it

What is crucial in this analysis is that the PP-complement (daaraan) remains in itsbase position.Before discussing the merits of this analysis, I should point out that within the

attributive adjective phrase in (105a), overt raising of the adjective to Agr takes placeobligatorily. Hence, a sequence like een [nauw verwante daaraan] man (a closelyrelated-infl there-to man), in which the PP-complement intervenes between theadjective and the modified noun, is ill-formed. In the predicative adjective phrase(105b), on the other hand, the adjective (carrying the zero-morpheme Ø) can remainin its base position, yielding the word order nauw verwant-Ø daaraan (closely relatedØ there-to).One might hypothesize that the obligatoriness of A-to-Agr raising in attributive

contexts is due to the presence of the overt adjectival inflection -e, which must belicensed in Agr. However, A-to-Agr raising is also required when the adjective carriesthe zero-morpheme (Ø)):

(106)a. *een [nauw verwant-Ø daaraan] persoona closely related-Ø there-to person

b. [DP een [NP [AgrP PRO [Agr' [nauw ti daaraan]a closely there-to

75 In (105b), Jan originates in Spec, AP and has been moved to Spec, AgrsP of the verbalextended projection via the Spec, AgrP-position of the adjectival projection.


351

[Agr verwant-Øi]]] [NP persoon]]related-Ø man

a person closely related to it

If overt raising of A-to-Agr in attributive adjective phrases would obligatorily takeplace for reasons of morphological feature checking (independently of whether theconstellation of phi-features is morphologically expressed (-e) or not (Ø)), the questionimmediately arises why such overt raising is not required for ‘predicative’ adjectives,which also carry a zero-morpheme Ø in need of checking. In other words, theobligatoriness of A-to-Agr raising in (105a) and (106b) does not seem to be relatedto morphological feature checking requirements. Instead, I tentatively propose thatovert A-to-Agr movement takes place obligatorily in (105a/106b) in order to cirumventa violation of Williams' (1981) Head Final Filter. This surface filter on prenominalmodifiers prohibits such elements from terminating in anything other than their heads.What are the merits of the analysis depicted in (105), in which the adjective raises

to Agr? First of all, the P-stranding facts in (101) are accounted for. In the sequence‘MODAPP’ (cf. (101a)), P-stranding is permitted, since the PP-complement occupiesits L-marked base position. Consider next the relevant example (101b), representingthe surface order ‘MODPP A’. Under a rightward A°-movement analysis, P-strandingis predicted to yield a well-formed sentence, since the PP-complement still occupiesits L-marked base position. The only element which has been moved (to the right)is the adjectival head. Extraction out of the sequence ‘PPMOD A’ (cf. (101c)), finally,is ruled out; after scrambling of the PP-complement, the PP no longer occupies itsL-marked base position and therefore blocks P-stranding.Secondly, the ATB-extraction from apparently non-parallel PP-complements (cf.

(102/103)) is predicted to be permitted. Under a rightward A°-movement analysis,the PP-complements in such sequences as ‘MOD A PP & MOD PP A’ and ‘MODPP A &MOD A PP’ occupy parallel structural positions. The only difference betweenthe two adjectival conjuncts is that in one conjunct rightward adjective movementto AGR° has applied. What is important is that the PP-complements in the twoconjuncts occupy parallel, L-marked positions.A third potential argument in favor of the rightward adjective movement approach

might come from such coordination facts as in (107). 76

76 Naturally, under an analysis in which Right Node Raising is analyzed in terms of deletion thefirst conjunct (see e.g. Kayne 1994), this argument loses much of its force.


352

(107)a. een [mij goed maar jou slecht gehoorzame] dienaara me well but you badly obedient servant

a servant who is very obedient to me but hardly obedient to you

b. een [noch goed met mij noch goed met jou bevriende]a neither well with me nor well with you friendly

jongenboy

a boy who is neither friendly with me nor with you

What we see here is coordination of what appear to be non-constituents. Take forexample (107b), where we appear to have a coordination of two conjuncts consistingof an adverbial modifier and a PP-complement. The adjectival head is lacking in thetwo conjuncts. In view of the generalization that only constituents can be input tocoordinations, these coordinations might be interpreted as providing evidence insupport of a rightward adjectival head movement. That is, the adjectival head hasundergone ATB rightward movement to the higher right branch Agr. 77 Schematically:

(108)een [AgrP [noch [AP goed - met mij] noch [AP goed - met jou]] bevriend-e] jongen

In brief, conceptual and empirical considerations lead to the conclusion that theDutch adjectival system contains a right-headed functional projection AgrP.

7. Mixed Headedness

If there is a separate functional projection AgrP within the Dutch adjectival system,we finally end up with the following fully articulated structure: 78

77 Similar argumentation has been given for head movement within the English verbal domain.See Larson (1988) and Johnson (1991).

78 Recall that I assume that not all functional projections are necessarily present in the extendedadjectival projection. DegP and QP, for example, are only present if the adjectival predicateis gradable. The optional presence of functional projections is also found in other phrasaldomains. See, for example, the optional presence of NegP within the extended verbalprojection.


353

(109) [AgrP [Agr' [DegP [Deg' Deg [QP [Q' Q [AP DP [x' A XP]]]]]] Agr]]

A question which arises is: What explains the mixed directionality of the functionalsystem, i.e. Deg° and Q° taking their complements to the right and Agr° taking itscomplement to the left?

7.1. Nominal Orientation Versus Verbal Orientation

A possible approach would be to relate the mixed directionality of the functionalheads to the categorial feature definition of adjectives. In Remarks onNominalizations, Chomsky (1970) defines adjectives in terms of the atomic features+N, +V, which implies that adjectives have both nominal (substantive) and verbal(predicative) properties. Suppose now that the verbal and nominal properties of theadjective are reflected in the adjectival functional system. The intuitive idea wouldbe now that determiner-like degree words (Deg) and quantifier-like degree words(more, less, etc.), are more nominal in nature and take the headedness of the Dutchnominal system, whereas the adjectival Agr-node is more verbal in nature and hencetakes the headedness of the Dutch verbal system. As is well-known, the nominalsystem (i.e. DP) is consistently right-branching in Dutch. Consequently, degreewords and quantifiers take their complement to the right within the adjectival system.The Dutch VP and its inflectional projection are standardly considered to be headfinal (cf. among others Bennis and Hoekstra, 1984; Koster, 1987). 79 So, What weget is mixed headedness within the functional system of the adjective phrase.The question, of course, arises whether there is any justification for this dichotomy

between nominally oriented and verbally oriented functional projections within theadjectival system. As a matter of fact, there are certain phenomena suggesting thisdistinction. The nominal orientation of Deg° and Q° has already been discussed inSection 3. It was observed that quantified noun phrases and quantified adjectivephrases exhibit parallel behavior in certain respects (cf. split topicalization, partialpronominalization). The functional category Deg° turned out to display grammaticalproperties characteristic of the nominal determiner system: anaphoricity, d-linking,the uniqueness interpretation of the clitic definite article in superlatives, the absenceof split topicalization.The assumption that adjectival Agr is more verbal in nature also receives

79 Cf. Kayne (1994), Zwart (1993) for a different view.


354

empirical support. The verbal orientation is first of all suggested by the possibilityof having adjectival verbs (participles) carrying adjectival inflection in attributiveposition (see (110a,b)).

(110)a. de mij hatend-e vrouw (present participle)the me hating-AGR woman

b. de (door mij) gehat-e vrouw (passive participle)the (by me) hated-AGR woman

The verbal orientation of adjectival AGR is further suggested by a split within theclass of adjectives selecting a PP-complement. As was observed in Section 6, anadjective like verwant (‘related’) allows its prepositional complement to occur bothto its immediate right ((MOD) A PP) and to its immediate left ((MOD) PP A) (cf.(100a,b)). It was argued that this second order is derived by moving the adjectivalhead to a right branch Agr-node. It turns out now that not all adjectives selecting aPP allow this pattern of word order variation. This is illustrated by the following tablewhich in each of the rows compares the word order possibilities of two adjectivesselecting a PP headed by the same prepositional element.

(111)

a. erg arm daaraana. erg gewend daaraanMOD + A + PPvery deficient there-invery accustomed there-tovery deficient in thatvery accustomed to thatb. *erg daaraan armb. erg daaraan gewendMOD + PP + Aa. erg bleek daarvana. erg afhankelijk daarvanMOD + A + PPvery pale there-ofvery dependent there-onvery pale because of thatvery dependent on thatb. *erg daarvan bleekb. erg daarvan afhankelijkMOD + PP + Aa. erg trots daaropa. erg verliefd daaropMOD + A + PPvery proud there-ofvery in-love there-withvery proud because of thatvery much in love with herb. *erg daaroop trotsb. erg daarop verliefdMOD + PP + Aa. erg karakteristiekdaarvoor

a. erg gevoelig daarvorMOD + A + PP

very characteristic there-ofvery sensitive there-tovery characteristic of thatvery sensitive to thatb. *erg daarvoorkarakteristiek

b. erg daarvoor gevoeligMOD + PP + A


355

This table shows that the adjectives in the middle column permit both word orderpatterns, whereas the ones in the rightmost column only permit the order in whichthe adjective precedes the PP-complement. 80 The word order (MOD) + A + PP ispermitted in all cases, which suggests that A + PP is in fact the base order.Careful study of the class of adjectives shows that only deverbal adjectives allow

a PP-complement in immediate pre- and post-adjectival position Deverbal adjectivesare of two types: First, those adjectives which exhibit participial morphology and assuch are formally indistinguishable from verbal forms (cf. Den Besten 1981) (seetable (112)). 81 Second, those adjectives that are derivationally related to a verb (cf.(113)).

80 Sometimes it appears as if a non-verbally oriented adjective permits a PP-complement as itsleft sister, especially when the adjective heads an attributive adjective phrase, as in (i), forexample. However, placement of the PP daarop with respect to an adjectival degree modifiersuggests that the PP in such examples occupies a scrambled (i.e. pre-modifier) position.(i)een [daarop trotse] jongena there-on proud boya boy proud of that(ii)a. ?*een [erg daarop trotse] jongena very there-on proud boyb. een [daarop erg trotse] jongen

81 Although formally indistinguishable from past participles, these deverbal adjectives can bedistinguished quite easily from true participles on the basis of their grammatical behavior (cf.e.g. Hoekstra 1984). First, like other adjectives, they never occur in a position following thefinite verb of the embedded clause (cf. (i)). In this repect, they differ from participles whichcan show up there as a result of rightward Verb Raising (cf (ii)) Secondly, deverbal adjectivescan be prefixed with on- (‘not’) (cf (iiia)); this is impossible for participles (cf. iiib)).(i)a. … dat Jan daarmee bekend is… that Jan there-with acquainted isb. *… dat Jan daarmee is bekend(ii)a. … dat Jan dat bekend heeft… that Jan that confessed hasb. …dat Jan dat heeft bekend(iii)a. … dat Jan daarmee onbekend is… that Jan there-with unacquainted isb. *… dat Jan dat onbekend heeft… that Jan that un-confessed hasThat Jan didn't confess that


356

(112) Deverbal adjectives exhibiting participial morphology

gebrand op ‘keen on’; geschikt voor‘suitable for’;

ge-..-

ingenomen met ‘pleased with’d/t/-enverrukt over ‘delighted at’; verwant aan‘related to’;

ver-.. -d/t

verslaafd aan ‘addicted to’bereid tot ‘ready to’; bevreesd voor‘fearful of’: bekend

be-..-d/t

met ‘acquainted with’

(113) adjectives derivationally related to V

afhankelijk van ‘dependent on’afhangen van ‘to depend on’vergelijkbaar met ‘comparable to’vergelijken met ‘to compare with’gevoelig voor ‘sensitive to’voelen ‘to sense/to feel’

The contrast noted in (111) between the b-examples in the middle column and theb-examples in the rightmost column suggests that only the more verb-like adjectivespermit overt A-to-Agr movement. Those which, in view of the N-V dichotomy, couldbe characterized as ‘nominally oriented’ are not able to move overtly to the verballyoriented Agr-head.Let us explore this distinction within the class of adjectives and try to come to a

more refined characterization of what it means for an adjective to be verbally orientedor nominally oriented (cf. also Wetzer (1992)). I propose that the dichotomy withinthe class of adjectival predicates can be defined in terms of categorial featuredominance. In nominally oriented adjectives, the categorial feature +N is dominant([+N, +v]); in verbally oriented adjectives the categorial feature +V is dominant ([+n,+V]). I will further assume that N-dominance of the adjectival predicate may overtlyactivate the N-oriented (i.e. N-dominant) part of the functional structure of theadjective phrase, whereas V-dominance of the adjective may overtly activate theverbally oriented (i.e. V-dominant) part. More specifically, if the adjective isN-dominant, it may raise overtly into the N-oriented functional head Q, whereas aV-dominant adjective may raise overtly into the V-oriented functional head Agr.Thus, an α-dominant adjective may only raise overtly into an α-dominant functionalhead F°. This can be interpreted as a sort of structure preservingness effect:substitution of an adjectival head into a functional slot requires identity of the lexicalcategorial feature make up of the adjective and the functional head substituted for.Those grammatical properties of the adjectival head that require licensing by the

non-dominant functional head in the extended adjectival projec-


357

tion are licensed in covert syntax. More specifically, if the thematic feature G (i.e.the referential degree argument) is licensed (e.g. by theta-binding) after anN-dominant adjective (i.e. [+N, +v]°) has raised overtly to the N-dominant functionalhead Q, then the φ-features of the N-dominant adjective are licensed at LF by raisingthem to the adjectival Agr-node, where they enter into a spec-head relation with thesubject in Spec, AgrP. 82

(114)

On the other hand, if the φ-features are licensed after a V-dominant adjective (i.e.[+n, +V]°) has raised overtly to the V-dominant Agr-node, then the degree argumentG gets theta-bound at LF. Schematically:

(115)

It turns out that many deverbal adjectives exhibit ambiguous behavior, in the sensethat, besides permitting overt A-to-Agr movement (involving substitution of aV-dominant predicate into a V-dominant functional slot), they also allow overt A-to-Qmovement (involving substitution of a N-dominant adjective into an N-dominantfunctional slot). In the next section, this will be exemplified by the behavior of theadjective afhankelijk (‘dependent’). I propose that within a numeration, suchambiguous adjectival predicates either take the N-dominant option or the V-dominantoption. As a consequence, simultaneous overt activation of the N-dominant functionalsystem and the V-dominant functional system is excluded. That is, successiveapplication of overt A-to-Q raising and overt A-to-Agr raising is impossible. Thisagain might follow from the structure preservingness requirement on substitutiondiscussed above: if dominance of a categorial feature is a property of the categorialfeature make up of adjectives and if this property is relevant to the categorialmatching

82 Cf. Chomsky (1995) for discussion of feature raising at LF.


358

requirement on substitution, then the successive cyclic head-movement of a [+N,+V]-dominant adjective (i.e. [+N, +V]) will never take place: [+N, +V] is not identicalto Q (i.e. [+N, +v]) nor to Agr (i.e. [+n, +V]).

7.2. Some Word Order> (A)symmetries

With the above assumptions in mind, consider next the table in (116), which illustratesa number of interesting word order (a)symmetries between adjective phrases headedby the gradable adjective trots (‘proud’), on the one hand, and the gradable adjectiveafhankelijk (‘dependent’), on the other hand. The former is N-dominant and thereforeallows overt activation of the N-dominant functional head (manifested by overt A-to-Qraising); the latter, as we will see, has the property of either being N-dominant orV-dominant. That is, if the +N-feature of afhankelijk is taken as dominant, theadjective can overtly raise to a N-dominant functional head like Q, but if the+V-feature is dominant, the adjective can only undergo overt head raising to theV-dominant functional head Agr.

(116)Word order (a)symmetries between trots ([+N, +v]) and afhankelijk ([+N, +v] or

[+n, +V])

afhankelijk (N-dominant or V-dominant)trots (N-dominant)A. veel afhankelijker daarvana veel trotser daaropmuch dependent-COMPAR there-onmuch proud-COMPAR there-ofB. veel minder afhankelijk daarvanb veel minder trots daaropmuch less dependent there-onmuch less proud there-ofC. een [veel minder daarvanc. *een veel [minder daarop trotse] mana much less there-ona. much less there-of proud manafhankelijk mana man much less proud of thatdependent mana man much less dependent on thatD. een [daar veel minder vand. *een [daar veel minder op trotse] mana there much less ona there much less of proud manafhankelijke] mana man much less proud of thatdependent mana man much less dependent on that


359

E. een [daarvan veel mindere. een [daarop veel minder trotse] mana there-on much lessa there-of much less proud manafhankelijke] mana man much less proud of thatdependent mana man much less dependent on thatF. een [erg(*e) daarvanf. *een [erg(e) G een [daarop trotse] mana very(INFL) there-ona very(INFL) there-of proud manafhankelijke] mana man very proud of thatdependent mana man very dependent on thatG. een [daar erg(*e) vang. *een [daar erg(e) op trotse] mana there very(INFL) ona there very(INFL) of proud manafhankelijke] mana man very proud of thatdependent mana man very dependent on thatH. een [daarvan [erg(e) afhankelijke]h. een [daarop erg(e) trotse] mana there-on very(INFL) dependenta there-of very(INFL) proud manmana man very proud of thatmana man very dependent on thatI. een [veel te *(veel) daarvani. *een [veel te (veel) daarop trotse]a much too too (much) there-ona much too (much) there-of proudafhankelijke] manmandependent manmana man much too dependent on thata man much too proud of thatJ. een [daar veel te *(veel) vanj. *een [daar veel te (veel) op trotse]a there much too (much) ona there much too (much) of proudafhankelijke] manmandependent manmana man much too dependent on thata man much too proud on thatK. een [daarvan veel te (veel)k. een [daarop veel te (*veel) trotse]a there-on much too (much)a there-of much too (much) proudafhankelijke] manmandependent manmana man much too (much) dependenta man much too proud of that


on that


360

Let us now consider each of the pairs x-X and see how we can account for their(a)symmetric behavior. 83 Consider first the symmetrie behavior of the pair (a-A). Ineach of the two examples, the analytic comparativc adjective has raised overtly toQ (cf. Section 4.1. for evidence). Raising to this N-dominant functional head ispossible if the adjectival predicate is +N-dominant. 84

In (b-B), A-to-Q raising does not take place since the quantifier minder directlytheta-binds the degree argument G of the gradable adjective heading AP.The contrast in (c-C) relates to the possibility of having overt A-to-Agr raising.

Under the V-dominance option, the adjective afhankelijk can overtly raise to theright branch Agr-node, resulting into a word order pattern in which thePP-complement linearly intervenes between the adjective and the functional headQ (cf. 117C). 85 The ill-formed pattern (c) is ruled out, because an N-dominantadjective cannot raise overtly to a V oriented functional head Agr (cf. (117c)).

(117)c. *[AgrP PRO [Agr' [QP veel [Q' minder [AP ti daarop]]] trotsei]]C. [AgrP PRO [Agr' [QP veel [Q' minder [AP ti, daarvan]]] afhankelijkei

The contrast between (d) and (D) is explained along the same lines as the previouspair (c-C). That is, (d) is out because the N-dominant adjective trots cannot overtlyraise to the V-dominant right branch Agr-node. The pair (d-D) differs from the pair(c-C) in having an additional reordering operation within the adjective phrase, viz.scrambling of the R. pronoun daar from within the PP-complement to a positionadjoined to QP. The derived structures are schematically represented in (118).

83 The pairs a-A and b-B are predicative APs, for the simple reason that post-adjectivalPP-complements are impossible with attributive APs.

84 An analytic comparative form that has undergone raising to the N-dominant Q-node in overtsyntax cannot move on to the V-dominant Agr-node. This is shown by the ill-formedness ofa sequence like *een [veel daarvan afhankelijkere] man (a [much there-ondependent-COMPAR)man, ‘a manmuchmore dependent on that’). In this string, afhankelijkerehas first raised to Q and has subsequently been moved to the right branch Agr-node leavingbehind the modifying element veel, which occupies Spec, QP.

85 Raising of the adjective afhankelijk to Agr in (116C) crosses the functional head Q. In thespirit of Rizzi's (1990) notion of Relativized Minimality, I will assume that a +V dominantadjectival predicate (i e [+n, +V]) can skip a nominally oriented (i.e. [+N, +v])) functional head.


361

(118)d. *[AgrP PRO [Agr'[QP daarj [QP veel [Q' minder [AP ti [tj op]]]] trotsei]]D. [AgrP PRO [Agr' [QP daarj [QP veel [Q' minder [AP ti [tj van]]]]] afhankelijkei]]

The pair (e-E) does not exhibit any contrast in grammaticality. The quantifier minderheads QP and theta-binds the degree-argument G of the adjectival predicate. ThePP-complement has been scrambled and adjoined to QP. 86Notice that the sequencein (E) may be derived both under the +N-dominant option (cf. (119E)) and the+V-dominant option (cf. (119E')).

(119)e. [AgrP PRO [Agr' [QP daaropj [QP veel [Q' minder [AP trotse tj]]]] Agr]]E. [AgrP PRO [Agr' [QP daarvanj [QP veel [Q' minder [AP afhankelijke tj]]] Agr]]E'. [AgrP PRO [Agr' [QP daarvanj [QP veel [Q' minder [AP ti tj]]]] afhankelijkei]]

The pair (f-F) illustrates an adjectival word order pattern involving the adjectivaldegree modifier erg(e). In Section 4.2, it was argued that the agreeing adjectivaldegree modifier occupies Spec, QP and exhibits overt agreement (-e) with the headA° of the extended adjectival projection, after A° has raised to Q°. Hence, agreementbetween the adjectival modifier and A° implies the application of overt A-to-Q raising.It was further proposed in Section 4.2. that in the non-agreement pattern, the degreemodifier is adjoined to QP rather than in Spec, QP (i.e. sister to Q'). Even though Araises overtly to Q, no agreement relation is established since the two adjectivalelements do not stand in the required spec-head relation to each other.Let us first consider the ill-formed pattern (116f). Although the first head movement

step in the derivation (A-to-Q) is legitimate since trots is + N-dominant, thesubsequent raising of the adjective to Agr is illegitimate, since an N-dominantadjective cannot raise overtly to a V-dominant functional head (cf. (120f, f'))- Turningto the patterns in (116F), we notice that only the pattern with overt agreement isimpossible. Recall

86 Since a N-dominant adjective like trots cannot raise overtly to Agr, yielding an order in whichthe adjectival head surfaces in final position within the attributive adjective phrase, the onlyway a string can be made which does not violate the Head Final Filter is by leftward scramblingof the PP-complement.


362

that agreement pattern is allowed if the two adjectival elements stand in a localspec-head relation in overt syntax, which implies that the gradable adjective hasraised overtly to Q. Head movement of A to Q implies that the ‘N-oriented track’ hasbeen taken and that the categorial feature +N of afhankelijk is dominant in thatstructure. But, if +N is dominant, the adjectival predicate can never raise overtly tothe verbally oriented Agr-node, with the Result that such patterns as ‘MOD-ePP-complement A-e’ are never found. What about the non-agreement pattern in(116F)? In that adjectival structure, afhankelijk has a V-dominant interpretation.Overt A-to-Agr can apply, yielding the well-formed pattern erg daarvan afhankelijk.The degree argument G of the adjectival predicate can be licensed at LF viatheta-modification by erg, after the property G has raised to Q.

(120)f. *[AgrP PRO [Agr' [QP erg [QP [Q' t'i [AP ti daarop]]]] trotsei]]f'. *[AgrP PRO [Agr' [QP erge [Q' t'i [AP ti daarop]]]] trotsei]]

(121)F. [AgrP PRO [Agr' [QP erg [QP [Q' Q [AP ti daarvan]]]] afhankelijkei]]F'.*[AgrP PRO [Agr' [QP erge [Q' t'i [AP ti daarvan]]]] afhankelijkei]]

In (g-G), we find the same contrasts as in (f-F), the only difference being that theR-pronoun daar has been scrambled out of the PP-complement and adjoined toQP. The ill-formed examples are not out because of illegitimate scrambling;scrambling out of the PP-complement is permitted because the PP simply occupiesits base-generated, L-marked position. The ill-formed patterns are out because ofillegitimate overt movement of a +N-dominant adjective to the +V-dominant Agr-node.In the well-formed patterns in (h-H), the PP-complement has been scrambled and

adjoined to QP. The agreement patterns in (h-H), involve overt raising of the gradableadjective to Q, whose Spec is occupied by the adjectival modifier. The scrambledPP is adjoined to QP (cf. (122h'), (123H')). The non-agreement pattern in (116h) isderived in the same way as the agreement pattern, with the only difference that theadjectival modifier is adjoined to QP rather than in Spec, QP (cf. (122h)). Finally,the non-agreement pattern in (116H) can be derived in two ways. If afhankelijk is+N-dominant, it has the same derivation as the agreement pattern (again the onlydifference being that the modifier is now adjoined to QP); but if afhankelijk is +V-dominant, the adjective raises to Agr and not to Q (cf. 123H).


363

(122)h. [AgrP PRO [Agr' [QP daaropj [QP erg [QP [Q' trotsei [AP ti [tj]]]]]] Agr]]h'. [AgrP PRO [Agr' [QP daaropj [QP erge [Q' trotsei [AP ti [ti]]]]] Agr]]

(123)H. [AgrP PRO [Agr'[QP daarvanj [QP erg [QP [Q' Q [AP ti [tj]]]]] afhankelijkei]]H'. [AgrP PRO [Agr' [QP daarvanj [QP erge [Q' afhankelijkei [AP ti [tj]]]]] Agr]]

Consider, finally, the patterns (i, j, k) and (I, J, K). In these examples, the adjectivalprojection contains the functional DegP-layer (headed by te ‘too’). The lexical itemveel (‘much’) in brackets is the dummy element inserted in Q, which copies thedegree argument G of the adjectival predicate, this way creating the appropriateconfiguration for theta-binding between the Deg-operator and the degree argument(cf. Section 3.2.).Let us first consider the structures (i, j, k) lacking the dummy veel. In these

examples, the N-dominant adjective trots raises to Q, where the degree argumentG of the adjectival predicate is close enough to Deg to be bound by this operator.After having raised to the nominally oriented Q-head, the N-dominant gradableadjective cannot move on to the verbally oriented Agr-node. In the ill-formedexamples, this second head movement step has been illegitimately applied, creatingthe following structures:

(124)i. *[AgrP PRO [Agr' [DegP veel [Deg' te [QP [Q'. t'i [AP ti daarop]]]]] trotsei]]j. *[AgrP PRO [Agr' [DegP daarj [DegP veel [Deg' te [QP [Q' t'i [AP ti [tj op]]]]]]] trotsei]]

As shown by (124j), scrambling has applied to the R-pronoun daar in (116j). However,it is not this scrambling operation which is illegitimate; the R-pronoun has beenremoved out of an L-marked PP-complement.The sequence daarop veel te trotse in (116k) is well-formed. Besides A-to-Q

raising of trots, the PP-complement has been scrambled and adjoined to DegP.What is important is that no overt raising of the N-dominant gradable adjective tothe verbally oriented Agr has taken place. The relevant structure is the one in (125k).

(125)k. [AgrP PRO [Agr' [DegP daaropj [DegP veel [Deg' te [QP [Q' trotsei [AP ti [tj]]]]]]] Agr]]

The sequences in which the dummy element veel is present in (i, j, k) are allill-formed. The unavailability of these structures may be explained


364

in terms of economy. Since the N-dominant adjective may undergo A-to-Q raising,a head movement operation made available by UG, this rule will always blockapplication of the language-specific process of veel-support (cf. Section 3.2. fordicussion).Let us next consider the complex structures in (I, J, K). The patterns (I, J), which

lack the dummy veel, are out for the same reason as the dummy-less examples in(i, j): afhankelijke raises overtly to the N-dominant Q (cf. 3.2.). This is only possibleif the adjective has taken the N-dominant option (i.e. [+N, +v]). Being N-dominant,afhankelijke cannot move on to the V-dominant functional head Agr. As a result, thedummy-less patterns (I, J) will never be derived. The dummy-less pattern in (116K),however, is well-formed. The reason is that in this example, afhankelijke has takenthe + N-dominant option; its right-peripheral occurrence in the adjectival string (inline with the Head Final Filter) is the result of leftward scrambling of thePP-complement to a position adjoined to DegP (analogous to (125k)).As regards the patterns containing the dummy veel, recall that the dummy copies

the degree argument G of the gradable adjectival predicate, this way enabling theDeg-operator te to locally theta-bind G. Clearly, afhankelijk in these dummy-contextsis not N-dominant, since if it were, we would expect A-to-Q raising to have operatedrather than the more costly rule of veel-support. Hence, afhankelijke beingV-dominant, raises directly to the V-dominant Agr-node, ending up in a positione-commanding the functional heads Deg andQ. This, however, has no consequencesfor the theta-binding requirement on the Deg operator te the inserted dummy elementveel has copied the degree argument G from the raised adjectival predicate andcreates the proper configuration for theta-binding to take place. Notice, finally, thatin (116I), the PP-complement occurs in its base position, that in (116J) the R-pronounhas been scrambled out of the PP, and that in (116K) the entire PP-complementhas undergone leftward scrambling.Summarizing, I have studied various word order (a)symmetries between two types

of adjective phrases, one headed by the N-dominant trots, the other by the adjectiveafhankelijk, which is optionally N-dominant or V-dominant. Under the assumptionthat an α-dominant adjective can only substitute for an α-dominant functional head,a kind of structure preservingness requirement, various intricate word orderphenomena could be explained. Of course, in view of the limited sample of adjectivesdiscussed here, a fuller investigation of the relation between categorial featuredominance and word order possibilities is definitely required.


365

8. Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to get insight into the phrase structural and wordorder properties of the extended adjectival projection, a phrase structural domainwhich has received relatively little attention in the generative literature. Focusing onthe internal syntax of Dutch adjective phrases, I have come to the followingconclusions. First of all, there is a strong empirical (and theoretical) basis forextending the functional head hypothesis to the adjectival system (i.e. for adoptingthe DegP-hypothesis). Secondly, a distinction should be made between two typesof functional degree categories: Deg(P) and Q(P). This split is representedstructurally, with Deg selecting QP and Q selecting AP (the split degree systemhypothesis). Thirdly, besides DegP and QP a third functional projection is found inthe extended adjectival projection, viz. AgrP. Fourthly, as regards directionality ofheadedness within the functional system, it was concluded that Deg and Q taketheir complements to the right, whereas Agr takes its complement to the left. Thisasymmetry of headedness within the adjectival system was assumed to be relatedto the nominal orientation of the Deg and Q heads and the verbal orientation of Agr.Finally, three movement operations have been identified within the Dutch adjectivalsystem: A-to-Q raising, A-to-Agr raising and leftward scrambling. The latter two,especially, are at the basis of the word order variation which is found within theDutch adjectival system.

References

Abney, Steven: 1987, The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect,Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.Abney, Steven: 1991, ‘Syntactic Affixation and Performance Structures’, in D.Bouchard and Leffel (eds.), Views on Phrase Structure, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Baker, Mark: 1988, Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing,University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Barbiers, Sjef: 1995, The Syntax of Interpretation, Doctoral Dissertation, HIL,University of Leiden.Bayer, Josef: 1996, Directionality and Logical Form: On the Scope of FocusingParticles and Wh-in-situ, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Belletti, Adriana: 1990, Generalized Verb Movement, Rosenberg and Sellier,Torino.Bennis, Hans: 1991, On the Structure of the Verbal Complex, Handout of talkat the conference Going Romance, and beyond, June 1991.Bennis, Hans and Teun Hoekstra: 1984, ‘Gaps and Parasitic Gaps’, TheLinguistic Review 4. 29-87.Besten, Hans den: 1981, ‘A Case Filter for Passives’, in A. Belletti, A. Brandiand L. Rizzi (eds.), Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar, ScuolaNormale Superiore di Pisa, Pisa, pp. 65-122.


366

Bolinger, Dwight: 1972, Degree Words, Mouton, The Hague.Bowers, John: 1975, ‘Adjectives and Adverbs in English’, Foundations ofLanguage 13, 529-562.Bowers, John: 1987, ‘Extended X-bar Theory, the ECP and the Left BranchCondition. WCFFL, 47-62.Brame, Michael: 1986, ‘Ungrammatical Notes 11: much ado about much’,Linguistic Analysis 16, 3-24.Bresnan, Joan: 1973, ‘Syntax of the Comparative Clause Construction inEnglish’, Linguistic Inquiry 4(3), 275-343.Chomsky, Noam: 1955, The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, TheUniversity of Chicago Press, Chicago/London.Chomsky, Noam: 1970, ‘Remarks on Nominalization’, in R. Jacobs and P.Rosenbaur (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar,Massachusetts: Ginn, Waltham pp. 184-221.Chomsky, Noam: 1986, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Chomsky, Noam: 1991, ‘Some Notes on Economy of Derivation andRepresentation’, in R Freidin (ed.), Principles and Parameters in ComparativeGrammar, MIT Press, Cambridge. MA., pp. 417-454.Chomsky, Noam: 1993, ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory’, in K. Haleand S.J. Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20, pp. 1-52.Chomsky, Noam: 1995, The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Chomsky, Noam and Howard Lasnik: 1993, ‘Principles and Parameters Theory’,in J. Jacobs A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld and T. Vennemann (eds.), Syntax:An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Walter de Gruyter,Berlin, pp. 506-569.Cinque, Guglielmo: 1990, Types of A'-dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge,MA.Cinque, Guglielmo: 1990, Agreement and Head-to-Head Movement in theRomance Noun Phrase, Handout of talk at ESF-workshop on clitics, Tilburg,February 1990.Corver, Norbert 1990, The Syntax of Left Branch Extractions, DoctoralDissertation University of Tilburg.Corver, Norbert: 1991, ‘Evidence for DegP’, in Proceedings of NELS 21,University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 33-47.Corver, Norbert: 1997, ‘Much-support as a Last Resort’, Linguistic Inquiry 28,119-164.Corver, Norbert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.): 1994, Studies on Scrambling.Movement and Non-Movement Approaches to Free Word-Order Phenomena,Mouton de Gruyter Berlin.Cresswell, M.J.: 1976, ‘The Semantics of Degree’, in B. Partee (ed.), MontagueGrammar Academic Press, New York, pp. 261-292.Emonds, Joseph: 1976, A Transformational Approach to English Syntax,Academic Press New York.Fukui, Naoki and Margaret Speas: 1986, ‘Specifiers and Projection’, in N. Pukui,T. Rapoport and E. Sagey (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8. MIT,Cambridge, MA.Giusti, Giuliana: 1991, ‘The Categorial Status of Quantified Nominals’,Linguistische Bericht136, 438-452.Grimshaw, Jane: 1991, Extended Projection, Ms. Brandeis University, Waltham,Mass.Higginbotham, James: 1985, ‘On Semantics’, Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547-594.


Hoekstra, Eric: 1991, ‘Licensing Conditions on Phrase Structure’, DoctoralDissertation University of Groningen.Hoekstra, Teun: 1984, Transitivity: Grammatical Relations in GovernmentBinding Theory Foris, Dordrecht.Jackendoff, Ray: 1977. X'-Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, MIT Press,Cambrodge MA.Johnson, Kyle: 1991, ‘Object Positions’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory9. 577-636.


367

Kayne, Richard: 1989, ‘Facets of Past Participle Agreement in Romance’, inP. Benincà (ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht.Kayne, Richard: 1994, The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge,MA.Koopman, Hilda: 1987, On the absence of Case Chains in Bambara, Ms. UCLA.Klein, Ewan: 1982, ‘The Interpretation of Adjectival Comparatives’, Journal ofLinguistics 18. 113-136.Klima, Edward: 1964, ‘Negation in English’, in J. Fodor and J. Katz (eds.), TheStructure of Language, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp. 246-323.Koster, Jan: 1978, ‘Why Subject Sentences Don't Exist’, in S.J. Keyser (ed.),Recent Transfromational Studies in European Languages, MIT Press,Cambridge, MA, pp. 53-64.Koster, Jan: 1987, Domains and Dynasties. The Radical Autonomy of Syntax,Foris, Dordrecht.Kroch, Anthony: 1989, ‘Amount Quantification, Referentiality, and Longwh-movement’, Unpublished article, University of Pennsylvania.Larson, Richard: 1988, ‘On the Double Object Construction’, Linguistic Inquiry19, 335- 392.Longobardi, Giuseppe: 1991. ‘Extraction from NP and the Proper Notion ofHead Government’, in A. Giorgi and G. Longobardi (eds.), The Syntax of NounPhrases: Configuration, Parameters and Empty Categories, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 57-112.Longobardi, Giuseppe: 1994, ‘Reference and Proper Names: A Theory ofN-movement in Syntax and Logical Form’, Linguistic Inquiry 25, 609-665.Maling. Joan: 1983, ‘Transitive Adjectives: A Case of Categorial Reanalysis’,in Heny, F. and B. Richards (eds.), Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and RelatedPuzzles, D. Reidel. Dordrecht, pp. 253-289.Neijt, Anneke: 1979, Gapping, a Contribution to Sentence Grammar, Foris,Dordrecht.Pollock, Jean-Yves: 1989, ‘Verb Movement, Universal Grammar and theStructure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry 20(3), 365-425.Reinhart, T: 1976, The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora, Doctoral Dissertation,MIT.Riemsdijk, Henk C. van: 1978, A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: theBinding Nature of Prepositional Phrases, Foris, Dordrecht.Riemsdijk, Henk C. van: 1989, ‘Movement and Regeneration’, in P. Benincá(ed.), Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht, pp.105-135.Ritter, Elizabeth: 1990, ‘Two Functional Categories in Noun Phrases: Evidencefrom Modern Hebrew’, in S.D. Rothstein (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 25.Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing, pp. 37-62.Rizzi, Luigi: 1990, Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Ross. John R.: 1967, ‘Constraints on Variables in Syntax’, Doctoral DissertationMIT (also published as Infinite Syntax! Ablex, New Jersey, 1986)Ross, John R.: 1969, ‘Adjectives as Noun Phrases’, in D. Reidel and S. Schane(eds.),Modern Studies in English: Readings in English TransformationalGrammar, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 352-360.Shlonsky, Ur: 1991, ‘Quantifiers as Functional Heads: A Study of QuantifierFloat in Hebrew’, Lingua 84, 159-180.Stowell, Timothy: 1981, Origins of Phrase Structure, Doctoral Dissertation,MIT.


Stowell, Timothy: 1991, ‘Determiners in NP and DP’, in K. Leffel and D.Bouchard (eds.), Views on Phrase Structure, pp. 37-56.Szabolcsi, Anna: 1987, ‘Functional Categories in the Noun Phrase’, in I. Kenesei(ed.),Approaches to Hungarian, Vol. 2. Jate-Szeged, 167-189.Webelhuth, Gert: 1989, Syntactic Saturation Phenomena and the ModernGermanic Languages, Doctoral Dissertation. University of Massachusetts,Amherst.Wetzer, Harrie: 1992, ‘Nouny’ and ‘Verby’ Adjectivals: A Typology of PredicativeAdjectival Constructions', in M. Kefer and I. van der Auwera (eds.), Meaningand Grammar. Cross-linguistic Perspectives, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin-NewYork, pp. 223-262.


368

Williams, Edwin: 1981, ‘Argument Structure andMorphology’, Linguistic Review,1 81-114.Williams, Edwin: 1982, ‘Another Argument that Passive is Transformational’,Linguistic Inquiry 13, 160-163.Zwart, Jan-Wouter: 1993, Dutch Syntax. A Minimalist Approach, DoctoralDissertation University of Groningen.Zwarts, Joost: 1992, ‘X'-Syntax - X'-Semantics. On the Interpretation ofFunctional and Lexical Heads’, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Utrecht.

Received: 25 June 1996Revised: 20 January 1997

Grammar Models/Center for Language Studies (CLS)Tilburg UniversityP.O. Box 901535000 LE TilburgThe NetherlandsE-mail: [email protected]


‘theinternalsyntaxofthedutchextended adjectivalprojection’ ·...

Documents