[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.) The sequence they ve in (16a) does not rhyme withgrave in careful speech styles, since it is pronounced /ðeI v/ not /ðeIv/.Likewise, the sequence we ve in(16b) is not homophonous with weave in careful speech styles, since we have in (16a) can be reduced to/wi v/ but not /wi:v/.Similarly, you ve doesn t rhyme with groove in (16c), nor I ve with hive in (16d).Why should cliticisation of have onto the pronoun be blocked here? We can give a straightforward answerto this question if we posit that when an inverted auxiliary moves from T to C, it leaves behind a null copyof itself in the T position out of which it moves.Given this assumption, a sentence such as (16a) will havethe simplified structure shown below (if we assume that have is an AUX heading AUXP  see §5.6):(17) CPC TPShould+QPRN T'theyT AUXPshouldAUX VPhave called the policeIn the previous chapter, we characterised have-cliticisation along the following lines:(18) Have can encliticise onto a pronoun which asymmetrically c-commands have if the pronoun endsin a vowel or dipthong, and if there is no intervening constituent separating the two (i.e.if there isno intervening constituent c-commanding have and c-commanded by the pronoun).Although in (17) the pronoun they ends in a diphthong and asymmetrically c-commands have (in the sensethat they c-commands have but have does not c-command they), the two are separated by the interveningnull auxiliary should which occupies the head T position of TP: since should c-commands have and is inturn c-commanded by they, it intervenes between the two in the relevant technical sense and hence blockshave-cliticisation, thereby accounting for the ungrammaticality of (16a) *Should they ve called the police?Note that a crucial plank in the argumentation here is the assumption that T-to-C movement leaves behinda null copy of the moved auxiliary in the head T position of TP, and this null auxiliary serves to block 112cliticisation of have onto a c-commanding pronoun.Our discussion of auxiliary inversion here has interesting implications for the derivation of sentences.In this connection, consider how we derive a sentence such as:(19) Can you swim?The first stage is to go to the lexicon (= dictionary) and choose a lexical array (i.e.a selection of lexicalitems out of which the sentence is going to be built).In the case of (19), the lexical array will consist ofthe verb swim, the pronoun you, the auxiliary can, and the null interrogative complementiser Q.The nextstage is for the auxiliary can and the verb swim to be taken out of the lexical array and merged, so derivingthe T-bar can swim.The pronoun you is then taken from the lexical array, and merged with the T-bar canswim to form the TP you can swim.The null interrogative complementiser Q is then taken from the lexicalarray and merged with the TP you can swim to form the CP Q you can swim.Since Q is affixal and has atense feature attracting a tensed head, Q triggers merger of a copy of the present tense auxiliary can withQ, forming Can+Q you can swim.Subsequent deletion of the original occurrence of can in T derivesCan+Q you can swim.5.4 V-to-T movementHaving looked at T-to-C movement in English, we now turn to look at a rather different kind ofmovement operation, which involves V-to-T movement  more specifically, movement of a finite mainverb from the head V position of VP into the head T position of TP.We shall see that this kind of verbmovement operation was productive in Elizabethan English (i.e.the English used during the reign ofQueen Elizabeth I, when Shakespeare was writing), but is no longer productive in present-day English.Since part of the evidence for V-to-T movement involves negative sentences, we begin by looking at thesyntax of negation.In Elizabethan English, clauses containing a finite auxiliary are typically negated by positioning notbetween the auxiliary and the verb: cf.(20)(a) She shall not see me (Falstaff, Merry Wives of Windsor, III.iii)(b) I will not think it (Don Pedro, Much Ado About Nothing, III.ii)(c) Thou hast not left the value of a cord (Gratiano, Merchant of Venice, IV.i)Let s suppose (for the time being, pending a reanalysis of negation in §5.7) that not in Elizabethan Englishis an adverb which functions as the specifier of the verbal expression following it (so that e.g.not is thespecifier of see me in (20a) above, and hence modifies see me) [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]