Back to list

Detail of contribution

Auteur: Christopher LAENZLINGER

The CP/DP (Non-)Parallelism Revisited

Abstract/Résumé: This talk represents the result of a comparative study of word order variations across 13 languages within the cartographic approach (Cinque 1999, 2011, Cinque & Rizzi 2010, Haegeman 2010, Rizzi 1997, 2004a/b, a.o) considering a parallel between clauses and noun phrases. The main hypothesis is that adverbs and adjectives have fixed positions in the midfield of the clause and of the noun phrase, while subjects and complements float among modifiers. The 13 languages are: (i) strict SVO languages (French, Hebrew, English and Swedish) (ii) possible inversion (VS(O)) languages (Italian, Spanish, Romanian and Greek) (iii) scrambling SOV languages (German, Tatar, Japanese) and (iv) scrambling SVO languages (Russian/Serbo-Croatian). We test the distribution of the verb, subject and direct object among a high modal adverb, a medial frequency adverb and a low manner/voice adverb. As for the noun phrase, these languages are: (i) PP/DP < Adj1 < Adj2 < N (Tatar, Japanese) (ii) N < Adj2 < Adj1 < PP (Hebrew) (iii) Adj1 < Adj2 < N < PP/DP (English, German, Swedish, Russian and Serbo-Croatian) and (iv) Adj1 < N < Adj2 < PP (French, Italian, Spanish, Romanian, Greek). In the SVO configuration the subject must raise past VoiceP, AspP and possibly ModeP, while the object can move past VoiceP and (marginally) AspP, but not past ModeP. We propose that these word order variations depend not only on the Case/agreement system, but also on informational features parasitic on subject-, verb- and object-related positions in the midfield. The object in the VSO configuration can raise up to AspP, but not past ModeP. The subject moves past VoiceP, AspP and possibly past ModeP. In the SOV configuration the subject and the object can float among the adverbs. This is the generalized scrambling approach based on informational effects. The noun phrase differs however from that of the clause. The midfield is the domain of adjectives in its lower part and that of PP/DPCase-complements/adjuncts in its upper part. They are hierarchically structured in a way which is overtly expressed in head-final languages: (D <) PPadjunct < PPargument < DPargument+Case < Adjectives* > N. There is no N(P)-movement and the noun complement(s) move(s) to the P-related domain (Kayne 2002). While Romance shows the order (Adj* < ) N < (Adj* < ) PPGen < PPDat < PPObl < PPadjunct), Germanic and Slavic languages show the order Adj* < N < DPCase < PPArg < PPAdjunct, which is obtained after movement of the extended NP-projection past the P/DCase-related projections. As a result, there is no strict parallelism between the clause structure and the noun phrase. Although the 13 languages share common syntactic cartographic properties within the clause and noun phrase, they essentially differ in their movement possibilities.