0 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size Report
On the derivation of Dutch bare infinitives after perception verbs. 165. (13)(a) ..... nurrnnllyformed by a form ofhebbenfollowed by a past participle (e.g.lkheb .lfllt.


Editor: HELMUT



Bochum, Bochum, West-Germany

Board of Consulting Editors: RENATE NOAM

























RENAA T DECLERCK Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands M. 1.T., Cambridge, Mass., USA University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., USA University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel Universität Regensburg, Regensburg, West-Germany Freie Universität Berlin, .Berlin, West-Germany University of Sussex, Brighton, England Academy R. S. Roumaine, Bucarest, Rumania University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass., USA University of Leeds, Leeds, England Yale University, New Haven, Conn., USA Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., USA University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa., USA

Theoretical Linguistics publishes studies, both of natural and constructed languages, employing formal methods. Linguistic methodology is included as weil as the theory of meaning, syntax, phonology, phonetics and graphics, and pragmatics of language use. Theoretical linguistics being, historically, the outcome of independent developments in linguistics, logic, and the philosophy of language, wor kers in all of these fields are invited to submit articles to the editor. Three issues will be published yeady (in March, July and November). Two issues may be combined into a double number. Subscription price per volume of 3 issues is 108.- DM (US $ 54.00), per issue 40,- DM (US $ 20.00). per double number 80,- DM (US $ 40.00); excluding postage. Private persons in US and Canada (no institutes, libraries etc.) may subscribe at the reduced rate of app. 15% excluding postage. This subscriptions should be sent only direct to the publisher Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York. They should deelare that the subscription is for their own personal use, that ir will not replace any existing library subscription and will not be put at the dispos al of any library. $-Prices are subject to change due the monetary exchange-fluctuations. Subscriptions should be sent to the publisher WALTERDE GRUYTER& Co., 1 Berlin 30, Genthiner StraEe 13, or WALTERDEGRUYTER,INc., 200 Saw Mill River Road, Hawsthorne, N. Y. 10532, USA (for US and Canada) or to any subscription agent. For advertisement rates, please consult the publisher.


In this artiele the author investigates possible analyses of Dutch sentences of the type Ik zagjan lopen('I saw J ohn run'). A number of arguments are adduced against four analyses that have been proposed in transformational grammar, viz. the Equi analysis, the nonsentential analysis, the bare Sanalysis and the Subject-to-Object Raising analysis. The author then argues that only an analysis in terms of Verb Raising is satisfactory.



This artiele will be càncerned with 'bare' infinitives following perception verbs in Dutch, as in Ik zag/hoordeJan binnenkomen.Infinitival Perception Verb Complements (henceforth: IPVC's) like these occur in various European languages, including English, and it has often been assumed that the construction and its derivation are essentially the same in these differentlanguages (seee.g. De Geest (1980)).In this paper I will review the various transformational analyses that have been proposed for English and/or Dutch IPVC's and show that only a Verb Raising analysis can account for Dutch (but not fot English) IPVC's. (For a discussion of possible (or impossible) analyses of English IPVC's, see Declerck (1981).)


The Equi Analysis

According to Rosenbaum (1967)and Fiengo (1974)the 'subject' NP of an IPVC occurs twice in underlying structure: once as object of the perception verb and once as subject of a complement S. In this analysis (l,a) ISSN 0301 -4428 & Co., vormals G.). Göschen'sche Verlagshandlung - J. Guttentag, Verlagsbuchhandlung - Georg Reimer - Karl J. Trübner - Veit & Comp., 1 Berliri 30, Oenrhiner Strafje 13. - Printed in Germany Alt righrs reserved, including those of translations into foreign languages. No part of this journal may be reproduced in any form - by photoprint, microfilm or any other means - nor transmitted nor translated into a machine language without permission from the publisher.

© 1982 by Verlag Walter de Gruyter


Tutte, Salzweg/Passau. Printing: Union-Presse, Berlin. Binding: Ruhrmann, Berlin.

I wish to thank prof. O. Leys and prof. F.G. Droste for their comments on the fitst draft of this article. Needless to say, they bear no responsibility for the contents of this final draft.

0301-4428/82/0902-0009$2.00 Copyright by Walter de Gruyter & Co.

is thus derived from something like (1,b) by Equi NP deletion of the subject of the embedded S and subsequent de-finitization of that S.


(1) (a) Ik zag Jan binnenkomen. (b) Ik zag Jan s[J an binnenkomen] s

(7) (a) Ik heb Piet zien toekomen, maar ik heb Jan nog niet gezien. (b) Ik heb Piet zien toekomen, maar ik heb Jan nog niet zien toekomen.

At least the following objections can be raised against this analysis : 2.1. The fact that in sentences like (1,a) the 'subject' of the IPVC can at the same time be interpreted as object of zien should not be taken as evidence for (l,b), since this possibility follows pragmatical(y from the fact that IPVes always express direct perception and from the nature of the perception verb. With other perception verbs this pragmatic inference often fails. Thus, (2,a) does not imply that I heard Jan himself, nor does it follow from (2,b) that I felt the tank (see also De Geest (1973), Gee (1977)). (2) (a) Ik hoorde Jan zijn wagen starten. (b) Ik voelde de tank naderbij komen. De grond trilde onder mij. Since there need not be an object-of relation between the perception verb and the NP following it, the NP cannot be generated in (deep) object position. Further evidence of this is that the head of the NP may be an abstract noun, whose referent cannot be directly perceived (see De Geest (1973), Kirsner & Thompson (1976)):

I1 wil Piet ertoe dwingen ons te helpen, maar ik wil Jan niet [ertoe] dwingen [ons te helpen].

2.5. The Equi analysis is at"any rate incompatible with the Chomskyan version of T.G. In this framework IPVes must be S's (cf. below) and restrictions such as occur in (8) must be accounted for by the S.S.c. (or Opacity Condition). However, jan cannot be a specified subject on an Equi analysis, since deleted NP's cannot be specified subjects (cf. Chomsky (1976)). (8)

*De meisjes, zagen Jan naar zich(zelf)Jelkaarj kijken.


The nonsentential


According to Gee (1975) and Akmajian (1977), IPVes are not (derived from) S's. Rather, sentences like I sawjohn come in have the structure represented (in a somewhat simplified way) in (9), both underlyingly and on the surface :



NP---------------vP (3)

Ik heb geloof wonderen zien verrichten.

2.2. The superficial object' of the perception verb may be one of various elements that cannot be generated as objects in underlying structure, e. g. 'weather' het, the expletive het resulting from extraposing a subj eet clause, or an idiom chunk that must be a deep subject: (4) (a) Heb je het zien sneeuwen? (b) Ik heb het vaak zien gebeuren dat kinderen zo verongelukten. (c) Toen hebben wij de poppetjes aan het dansen zien gaan. 2.3. The 'object' of the perception verb cannot undergo Object Shift (Tough-movement), although base-generated objects normally can: (5)

*Door het lawaai was hij moeilijk om het liedje te horen zingen.

2.4. True Equi-verbs allow VP deletion, as in (6). Perception V's, however, do not allow VP deletion. Thus, (7,a) need not be interpreted as (7,b):







I John

I come in

Akmajian's only serious argument in support of this analysis is that IPVes like john comein "consistently test out as nonconstituents" (p. 439) since they cannot be moved by passivization, clefting, pseudo-clefting, Right Node Raising, etc. However, tests like these make clear no more than that IPVes are not consituents in the surface structure. Assuming that IPVes ace not S's in underlying structure either is not the only way of accounting for this. Any analysis in terms of a transformation which breaks up the Snode from underlying structure (e. g. Subject Raising, or Verb Raising) also offers an explanation. Moreover, the claim that IPVes never behave as constituents is incorrect, since entire IPVes can be coreferential with pronouns, as in (10)

Ik heb Tan zien weglopen, en Piet heeft het ook gezien.


Renaat Declerck

On the derivation of Dutch bare infinitives after perception verbs

As far as I can see, there is no real evidence supporting the nonsentential analysis (see Declerck (1981) for a discussion and refutation of Gee's arguments), but there is certainly plenty of evidence against it:

(13)(a) Truus heeft op haar eentje van Jan gewonnen. (b)*Truus heeft van Jan op zijn eentje gewonnen. (c)*Jan heeft tegen Truus op haar eentje het onderspit gedolven.

3.1. The analysis assumes that the 'subject' of the IPVC is base-generated In object position, thus raising again the problems treated in 2.1-3.


3.2. In sentences like (11) the reflexive or reelprocal pronoun refers back to the NP following the perception V, not to the subject of the matrix: (11)

De jongens zagen de meisjes naar zich/elkaar kijken in de spiegel.

This proves that IPVe's must be S's at some stage in the derivation, since (a) it is well-known that reflexive pronouns always refer back to a subject NP (except when occurring in picture 0] NP' s and idioms like iemand aan zichzelf overlaten, tegen zichzelf beschermen), and (b) in the Chomskyan framework de meisjes functions as a specified subject blocking coreference between zich/elkaar and dejongens; in Postal' s (1974)clausemate theory of reflexivization and Reciprocal Marking IPVe's must also be (derived from) S's since the facts of (11)prove that there must be an Sinvolving de meisjesand zich/elkaar, but not dejongens. 3.3. It is well-known that zelf must follow the NP it emphasizes, except when the latter is a subject (in which case zelf can 'float away' from the NP). The fact that zelf can easilyfloat away from the 'subject' NP of an IPVC, as in (12), therefore proves that this NP cannot be base-generated in object position but must be a true subject at some stage in the derivation. (12)

Ik heb Jan niet zelf zien stelen, maar zijn vrouw wel.

3.4. Like English Iry himselj, the Dutch adverbial op zijn eentje can occur in conneetion with subjects only.ê Sentence~ like (13,a-c) illustrate this. However, as appears from (14),op zijn eentjecan be related to the 'subject' NP of an IPVC, which must therefore be a true subject on some level.


Ik heb Truus op haar eentje van Jan zien winnen.

3.5. Subjectless nonfinite adverbial clauses are obligatorily interpreted as having the same subject as the S in which they are embedded. Thus, in (14,a) the NP to be interpreted as subject of verlaten is Piet; in (14,b) it is either ik or Piet because the adverbial can be embedded in the highest S as well as in the complement S. (14,b) is therefore ambiguous. Neither (14,a)nor (14,b) yield an interpretation in which Jan is the controller NP. (14)(a)Piet berispte Jan vooraleer het huis te verlaten. (b)lk zag dat Piet Jan berispte vooraleer het huis te verlaten. Consider now sentence (15). This sentence is ambiguous in exactly the same way as (14,b). The fact that the controller NP can be Piet (the 'object' of the I ereepeion V) means that Piet (or its trace) must be in subject position at the time when Equi-NP deletiorr (or whatever rule governs the possible interpretations) applies. An underlying structure of the form of (9), in which Piet is generated directly in object position is therefore inadequate: it wrongIy predicts that only ik can be the controller NP in (15). (15)

Ik zag Piet Jan berispen vooraleer het huis te verlaten.

3.6. As noted above, entire IPVe's may be coreferential with anaphoric pronouns (cf. (10». This means that IPVe's must be single constituents on sorne level, hence that the nonsentential analysis cannot be correct. 3.7. Although it does not concern Dutch IPVe's directly, it may be interesting to note that in some languages the infinitive in IPVe's is inflected to agree with its 'subject' NP. Thus, Perlmutter (1972:88) notes that in Portuguese "we find sentence pairs like the following: (16)(a)*Vi os cavalos correr. (b) Vi os cavalos correrem. ('I saw the horses run')

The restrietion in question holds only for the adverbial use of these phrases. It does not prevent them being used as subject complement or object complement (predicative adjunct), as in Heb je Jan ooit op zijn eentjegezien?

(16,a) has the ordinary infinitive correr, but in (16,b) the infinitive has the plural ending -em, in agreement with its subject (oscavalos)". As I know of no attested cases where Number Agreement isnot a clause-internal rule involv12 TI.IX


Renaat Declerck

On the derivation of Dutch bare infinitives after perception verbs

ing a V and its subject, I think this is evidence that os caualos is subject of correrem on some level, hence that the IPVC is derived from an S.

by the S.S.c. if hem were a subject in the surface structure. (Note that the .S.C. does operate as expected in (19,b), which is therefore not interpretable.)

3.8. Like the Equi analysis,the nonsentential analysisis at any rate incornpatible with the Chomskyan version of T. G. Chomsky has stressed repeatedly that in his framework "there is no non-clausal souree for infinitives" (Chomsky (1980:9». A nonsentential analysisof IPVC's runs counter to several of Chomsky's most basic hypotheses. To give one illustration only: as appears from (17), WH-movement can extract elements from IPVC's. However, in Chomsky's theory WH-movement goes COMP-toCOMP, and only S's have a COMP. (17)

Welk huis heb je Jan zien binnengaan?

The general conclusion from this section is that the nonsentential analysisis untenable, both within and without the Chomskyan framework.


The bare Sanalysis

SinceIPVC's are S's in underlying structure, the most plausible analysis within the Chomskyanframework would seemto be a 'bare S' analysis similar to the analysisthat Chomsky (1973)assigns to sentenceslike I believe John to be an idiot. (The term 'bare S' initiallymeant 'an S without COMP' but is now used in the sense of 'an S with a nullCOMP'.) On a bare Sanalysis IPVC's are S's in both underlying and surface structure. Sentenceslike (1,a) are thus bisentential, and no transformation is involved in their derivation. However, such an analysis raises at least the following problems: 4.1. As pointed out by Chomsky (1973),the interpretive rule which associatesnot with enoughin (18,a)is blockedby the S.S.C.in (18,b),so that this sentence "receives no direct interpretation'. (18)(a) You didn't understand the proofs of enough of the theorems (for me to be justified in giving you an A). (b)*You didn't understand Euclid's proofs of enough of the theorems (for me to be justified in giving you an A). Consider now sentence (19,a).This sentence {inwhich niet has been moved into the matrix by NEG-raising but should really be associated with voldoende)is fully grammaticaland intelligible. Yet it would have to be blocked


('19)(a) Ik denk niet dat ik hem voldoende Engels heb horen spreken (om te kunnen oordelen of hij vlot Engels spreekt). (b)*Jk denk niet dat ik gehoord heb dat hij voldoende Engels sprak (opdat ik zou kunnen oordelen of hij vlot Engels spreekt). 4.2. In Dutch a negator whose scopeis an entire S mayor must sometimes b incorporated into one of the lexicalitems of that S. Thus, an S with the logical form 'NIET (ik weet iets)' lexicalizesnot as Ik weet niet iets (except when used as an 'echo' in the sense of Seuren (1979» but as Ik weet niets. Similarly, 'NIET (ik ging ergens heen)' and 'NIET (ik zag een van hen') normally reach the surface as Ik ging nergens heen and Ik zag geen van hen, r ispectively. For the interpretation of such sentencesit is necessary that an int rpretive rule associates the incorporated negator with the verb of the s ·ntence. This tule is subject to the S.S.c., as appears from (20,a-b)


(20)(a) Ik betreur de moord geen van hen. (b)*Ik betreur Piets moord op geen van hen. In (20,a) the negator incorporated in geen (which is part of the object NP) must be associatedwith betreur (and thus with the entire sentence).In (20,b) this association is blocked because the object NP has a specified subject (f iBts). Consider now (21,a-c). In aUthese sentences the negator incorporat clin one of the lexicalitems of the IPVC really bears on the matrix. (For this reason the sentences can be supplementeclwith enJan evenmin, but not with enJan ook.) If the IPVC's were S's on the surface(asassumedby the bare analysis),the 'subject' NP's of the IPVC's would be true specifiedsubjects and the sentences would be blocked by the S.S.c.

(21)(a) Ik heb hem met niemand anders zien spreken. (b) Ik heb haar naar geen van die plaatsen zien gaan. (c) Ik heb haar nergens naar toe zien gaan. 4.3. The process of negator incorporation is strictly clause-internal: a negator that is to bear on a particular Scannot be incorporated into a lexical item of a higher or lower S. This is clearfrom (22)-(23), where the (a)and (b) sentences are not synonymous because the incorporated negator bears on differentS's. Now, the negator incorporated in the IPVC's of (21,a-c) bears



Renaat Declerck

On the derivation of Dutch bare infinitives after perception verbs

not on the IPVe's but on the (S's containing the) perception verbs. It follows that the IPVe's cannot be S's in the surfacestructure. Rather, sentences like (21,a-c) must be superficiallysimplex.

structure of (25,a),cannot at the sametime represent its surface structure, as it is well-known that niet cannot be shifted into a lower S without change of S Cli • (There is no 'NEG-lowering' in Dutch.)

(22)(a) Ik had niet gezien dat iemand was binnengekomen (en Jan evenmin). (b) Ik had gezien dat niemand was binnengekomen (en Jan ook).

(25)(a) Ik zag Jan niet komen. (b)*Ik zag niet Jan komen. ( ) Ik zag niet s[Jan komen],

(23)(a) Ik heb niet geprobeerd een van hen te ontmoeten (en Jan evenmin). (b) Ik heb geprobeerd geen van hen te ontmoeten (en Jan ook).



4.4. In spoken Dutch the pronouns hem and haar are often reduced to 'm snd (d)'r. This reduction may occur both if the pronoun is a normal object (as in Ik zag 'r, Ik hoorde 'm) and if it is the 'subject' of an IPVC (as in Ik zag'r lopen, Ik hoorde m zingen). Now, Bresnan (1971:6) argues that an item that undergoes vowel reduction must necessarilybe a surface 'syntactic dependent' (sister constituent) of the item to which it adheres. For this reason the fact that want togo can be reduced to wannago is taken by Bresnanto mean that there must be a transformation turning go (which is initially a syntactic dependent of go) into a syntactic dependent of want. If Bresnan's theory is correct, it follows that reduced pronouns that are 'subjects' of IPVe's must be surface syntactic dependents of the perception verb, hence that IPVe's can no longer be intact S's in surface structure. I

4.5. As appears from (24,a-b), the 'subject' of the IPVC must preeede the perception verb if the matrix involves an auxiliary.On a bare Sanalysis like (24,c)this is inexplicable,sincethe S.S.c. should block the movement of the perception verb into the IPVC. (One cannot obviate this problem by assuming that the word order of (24,a)is due to the stylisticrule of'scrambling', as it is well-known that scrambling of constituents is a dause-internal operation, which, moreover is normally optional.) The word order of (24,a) proves, then, that the sentence is superficiallysimplex. (24)(a) Ik heb Jan zien vertrekken. (b)*Ik heb zien Jan vertrekken. (c) Ik heb zien s[Jan vertrekken]s 4.6. Another argument to the sameeffectisthat niet must normally be put inside the IPVC, even though it bears on the sentenceas a whole. Sentences (25,a-b) illustratethis. If followsthat (25,c),which representsthe underlying


Huddleston (1971:159)considers it an argument for a Raising ana-

lysis of sentenceslike 1 believehim to be honest that him is in the objective case. A . ()rdingto him the pronoun would have to be in the norninative caseif it

a (derived) subject. Postal (1974:252-3), however, rejects this argum 'nt becauseeven derived subjectscan sometimesbe found in the objective '~IS. in English, as in (26,a-e): w


(2ó)(a) I resent him 6nishing ahead of me. (b) Him being drunk, I had to 6nd Joan. ( ) For him to win would be revolting. (cl)Who shouted that? - Him, (e) Harry may like applesauce, but not me. Ilow 'ver, if the argument failsfor English, it does hold for Dutch. In Dutch I hcrc Me no

constructions with gerunds such as (26,a)or infinitivesthat have sul j , es as in (26,c); 'absolute' participial dauses as used in (26,b) are ext r 111 .ly formal but, if used, involve a pronoun in the nominative case. Sub] . t pronouns in 'free floating' positions, as in (26,d-e), also have the norninative case. In sum, there are no casesof subject pronouns occurring in th i obj ctive casein Dutch. It follows that the 'subject' of an IPVC must be an object in derived structure, since it obligatorily occurs in the objective 'as (cf. (27)). A bare Sanalysis of IPVe's is therefore disproved. (27)

Ik hoorde hem/*hij weglopen.



The preceding sections have made dear that Dutch sentencesinvolvlog IPVe's are bisentential in underlying structure but simplex on the surface. It follows that the correct analysis of IPVe's must be in terms of a transformation which either destroys the complement Snode itself or is foll wed by pruning of that node. In the linguistic literature there are only rwo transformations that can achieve this effect: Subject-tc-Object Raising

On the derivation of Dutch bare infinitives after perception verbs

Renaat Declerck


(seePostal (1974»3and Verb Raising (cf. Aissen (1974),Evers (1975».1 will argue below that it is the latter transformation that is involved in the derivation of Dutch (but not English) IPVC's. (English IPVC's are presumably derived by Subject-to-Object Raising - see Declerck (1981).) The claim that Verb Raising operates as acyclic transformation in the Dutch (and German) verb complement system was first made in Evers (1975).The transformation in question extracts the V from a complement S and Chomsky-adjoins it to the V of the immediately higher S. For example, given an underlying structure like (28), successive applications of Equi NP deletion (of the PRO elements), Verb Raising and subsequent pruning of the Snode from which the V has been extracted will yield (29). (I am assuming here that the underlying order of constituents in Dutch is SOV, as argued in Koster (1975), though nothing crucial depends on this assumption.)" (28)

jan, s[PROi s[PROi dat liedje zingen]s leren]s willen S

(29) NP







I dat liedje

~ V











Structure (29)will have to undergo the 'Verb Second' rule, which moves the 'operator' (i.e. the verb form that is marked for tense, number and person) to the position following the subject in sentences that do not begin with an overt complementizer. The result is (30,a).If there is a complementizer, as in (30,b), Verb Second does not apply and the three verbs follow each other, as predicted by (29). Postal himself does not hold that Subject Raising is followed by pruning because of some problems that are attached to this. However, Declerck (1981) shows that not pruning the Snode raises some serious problems too. There is thus evidence both for and against pruning, so that this question is one of the problematic points about Subject-to-Object Raising. Nieuwenhuysen (1976) and Hoekstra & Moortgat (1979) suggest that the complements of the V's that trigger Verb Raising (among which our perception verbs) are not S's but VP's. However, the arguments in section4 show conclusively,I think, that this claim is untenable (at least as far as IPVes are concemed).


(30)(a) Jan wilde dat liedje leren zingen. (b) ... omdat Jan dat liedje wilde leren zingen. Evers (1975)also reaches the conclusion that there are five classes of v .cbs that trigger Verb Raising (either obligatorily or optionally) in Dutch


-erman, One of these classes contains the perception verbs that can be followed by a bare infinitive. For these verbs Verb Raising is obligatory if rh 'Y are followed by a tenseless (nonfinite) complement S. The arguments advanced by Evers in support ofhis theory are partly 10 the effect of showing that sentences like (30,a) are complex (i. e. involve more than one S) in underlying structure and partly to the effectof showing Ihat their surface structure must be simplex. This means that they are of 'xa tly the same nature as many of the arguments that have been adduced in ih previous sections of this article. In fact, Evers' evidence (though it is dev loped on the basis of German examples) can easilybe shown to hold for ( ut h sentences with IPVC's as well. It therefore confirms the conclusion 11H\.t we have reached on independent grounds. In this artiele I will not go inro Evers' arguments again. Rather I will confine myself to illustrating that I':v J's' theory yields the correct results for Dutch IPVC's and to pointing out som ' additional evidence that has not been noted in the previous sections, 110.r in 'Evers (1975). Consider the following Dutch sentences : 1,) (a) Jan wil Peter zien zwemmen. (b) ... omdat Jan Peter wil zien zwemmen. (c)*Jan wil zien Peter zwemmen. (d)* omdat Jan wil Peter zien zwemmen. (e)* omdat Jan wil zien Peter zwemmen. The structure underlying these sentences is as in (32,a).Verb Raising (first of Z"lemmen and then of the complex V node zien zwemmen), together with Equi NP deletion of PRO, yields (32,b), which is the structure corresponding to (31,b). Sentence (31,a) is the result of applying Verb Second to (32,b). ( 2) (a) jan, s[PROi s[Peter zwemmen]s zien]s willen (b) Jan Peter v[willen zien zwemmen]v This Verb Raising analysis also naturally accounts for the ungrammaticality of (31,c-e). Sentences (31,c) and (31,e) could only be derived by applying Verb Raising to zien but not to zwemmen, thus generating (33). Iowev r, (33) cannot underlie a grammaticaI sentence because after zien


Renaat Declerck

(and the othér perception verbs that trigger Verb Raising) Verb Raising is obligatory if the complement is a tenseless dause (cf. Evers (1975:4». (For the derivation of (31,c) there would be the additional problem that Verb Second would have to move zien along with the operator willen, which is impossible.) (33)

Jan s[Peter zwemmenjg v[willen zien]v

Sentenee (31,d), finally, violates the requirement that Verb Raising applies obligatorily to the nonfinite complement S of willen (cf. Evers (1975:5»: (31,d) would have to be derived by raising zwemmen only (along with Equi NP deletion of PRO and followed by Verb Second). It is clear, then, that a Verb Raising analysis makes the correct predictions for Dutch sentences involving IPVC's. The following facts further corroborate this condusion : 5.1. Only Verb Raising can account for the case and the position of the pronoun that is 'subject' of the IPVC in sentences like (34). On the Verb Raising analysisthe derivation of (34)is as represented in (35,a-c). After the raising of zwemmen and the pruning of the Snode the PRO form that is subject of the complement S in underlying structure automatically occurs in the position on whieh the relation object-of is defined in an SOV phrase marker. It therefore shows up in the objective case (hem). (34)

Ria heeft hem zien zwemmen.

(35)(a) Ria s[PRO zwemmen]s heeft gezien (b) Ria PRO heeft gezien-zwemmen (Verb Raising) (c) Ria heeft PRO zien zwemmen (Verb Second)" Notice that, if Verb Raising did not apply, (35,a) would undergo extraposition of the embedded S and would reach the surface as (36). The word order of (36) is actually that of sentences involving a non-raising verb, like (37,a). The derivation of (37,a) is as represented in (37,b-d). (36)

*Ria heeft gezien PRO zwemmen

(37)(a) Ria heeft aanvaard hem te ontmoeten. (b) Riai s[PROi PROj te ontmoeten'[- heeft aanvaard

See below (section 5.2.) for an explanation of the use of zien instead of gezien.

On the derivation of Dutch bare infinitives after perception verbs


(c) Ria; heeft aanvaard s[PRO; PROj te ontmoeten]s (extraposition) (d) Ria heeft aanvaard hem te ontmoeten. (Equi NP deletion of PRO; and lexicalization of PROj) The Verb Raising hypothesis offersan explanation for the fact that in p 'rf .cr tenses the infinitive form of a perception V sometimes substitutes 1'1)1' t hc participle form. In Dutch, like in English, the perfect tenses are nurrnnllyformed by a form of hebbenfollowed by a past participle (e.g.lkheb .lfllt.~QZioll). The traditional way of dealing with this fact in T .G. is to assume a PS rulc generating the node hebben ge (either from AUX or from VP) and a I ransformation (AffixHopping) attaching this node to the V. However, in HOm' cases where the V is followed by an infinitive, the perfect tenses are !"< irmcd, not by means of hebbenplus a participle, but by means of hebben plus nn infinitive form. For example: I IH.'


(.18)(a) Ik heb Jan zien zwemmen. (I»*[k heb Jan gezien zwemmen. 1I cnnnot be a coincidence that the verbs that occur in such 'Infinitive Pro Pal-I i ipio' constructions are precisely those that trigger Verb Raising. As

cd by De Geest (1975), a natural explanation of this phenomenon is -r {or that the complex V node resulting from Verb Raising is a lexical lond,6into which no grammatical forrnatives such asge- can be introduced.? 'l'hiH XI lanation concurs with the fact that verbs which optionally trigger V srb Raising (e.g. proberen) ean take both the participial and the infinitival orm in the perfect tenses, as shown in (39,a-b). (As appears from the word nrd 1', Verb Raising has applied in (39,a), but not in (39,b). It therefore onfirrns our hypothesis that we find the infinitiveproberen in (39,a) and the I articiple geprobeerd in (39,b).) llol


S 'U ren (1975)defines a lexicalisland as any subtree which is exclusivelydominated by a lil 'goey symbol (V, N, Adj, etc.) Th hypothesis that ge- cannot be introduced into the lexica!island is consistent with 111 'fn L thatgll- catmot be attached to any of the V's in the is!and when we try passivizInA' 8 mt nccs like Ria zagjan ZIJJemmen.Rather passivization is blocked altogether (*Jan IJI.,.,/ (/I,6)ZiulI ZIIJCmfl,etl,*Jan nerd (ge)ziengeZJ/)ommen). A weak point of the argument, howev c, is that grammatical morphemes expressing person, number and tense can be nun h xl 10 the highest V of rhe lexicalisland (though not to any other V). Perhaps the nnsrrain: is rhat grammatical formatives can be added to the complex V as a whole (in which asc rhey are attached to the highest V) but cannot penetrate into the lexical IRlrlne] (i. '. annot be attacbed to a lower V).

n the derivation of Duteh bare infinitives after pereeption verbs

Renaat Declerck


(39)(a) (b)

omdat ik Jan heb proberen te zien. omdat ik geprobeerd heb Jan te zien.

5.3. Another fact that is explained by the Verb Raising analysis is that active IPVC's may sometimes yield a passive interpretation. Thus, Ik hoorde Jan roepen is ambiguous between an active reading Cl heard Jan call someone/something') and a passive one Cl heard someone call Jan' or 'I heard Jan being caUed'). The corresponding English sentence I heardJohn call can only have the active meaning. The hypothesis that Verb Raising operates in Dutch, but not in English, accounts for these facts. The active interpretation corresponds to an underlying structure something like (40,a), whereas the passive interpretation corresponds to (40,b). Application of Verb Raising, pruning of the S and pruning of the empty NP node in both cases yield (40,c), from which Verb Second derives the ambiguous (40,d).8 (40)(a) Ik (b) Ik (c) Ik (d) Ik

[Jan 6 roepen] hoorde [6 Jan roepen] hoorde Jan hoorde-roepen hoorde Jan roepen.

Admittedly, there is one problem attached to this explanation. Since the passive reading of (40,d) does not result from passivization, we would expect that a door-adjunct could not be added to (40,d). However, this expectation is not borne out, since (41,a)is fully grammatical and alternates with (41,b) (which results from applying regular passivization to the complement S befere Verb Raising applies): (41)(a) Ik hoorde je naam door de voorzitter afroepen. (b) Ik hoorde je naam door de voorzitter afgeroepen worden. We cannot explain the cooccurrence of a door-adjunct (suggesting that passivization has applied) with an active form in (41,a) by assuming that passivization has operated after the V of the complement S was raised (so that ge- cannot penetrate into the lexica] island). Such a hypothesis fails to The two analysesthat are assigned here to Ik hoordeJan roepen run parallel to the two analyses that ean be assigned to ambiguous English sentenees like (i). On the aetive reading, (i) is probably derived (by Equi NP deletion) from (ii), on the passive reading from (iii). (i) He is too good a man to kill. (ii) He is too good a man [for him to kill .c:,.] (iii) He is too good a man [for .c:,. to kill him]


XI lnin the absence of worden (the auxiliary of the passive) in (41,a) and is dl prov d by the observation that passivization of a sentence involving a ('ompl 'X V node always yields ungrammatical results :

112) ('I) ... omdat wij Jan probeerden te helpen. (b)·...


mdat Jan door ons werd geprobeerd/proberen te helpen.

l Io w, then, is (41,a) to be accounted for? I would suggest the followinforrnal explanation, which perhaps fails to show how sentences like




don is that Dutch speakers havecome to use (41,a) as an alternative to

1'0 be derived but accounts for the fact that they are used. The

41 tb) on the analogy of using (43,a) as an alternative to (43,b): . . (4 ) (a) 1k hoorde je naam afroepen.

(b) Ik hoorde je naam afgeroepen worden, 1\ (44)


have seen, (43,a) is derived by Verb Raising from 11