Applicatives under Phase Theory

Following Pylkkänen (2002, 2008), McGinnis (2001) assumes that there are two types of applicatives, low and high. The low applicative is a co-argument of the theme, and the high applicative merges above VP. McGinnis argues that the asymmetries in passives of ditransitives are due to the asymmetries in the two types of applicatives (McGinnis, 2001). Crucially, McGinnis takes high applicative heads to constitute phases, similarly tov orC, andlow applicatives to be non-phase heads. As a consequence of this proposal, high applicative phrases allow movement to their edge, while low applicatives do not do so. Following this hypothesis, McGinnis proposes that symmetric passive languages have high applicative structures, which allow for movement of the theme to the outer [Spec;ApplPhigh]. In contrast, asymmetric passive languages have low applicative structures, which do not allow the movement of the theme above the recipient/goal. The difference in these two structures and their predictions for Phase Theory are represented in (34).

(34) a. EPP-marked high applicative, allowing movement ApplP

DO ApplP

IO Appl’

Appl_High [EPP]

VP V DO

b. non-EPP-marked low applicative, not allowing movement⁴

4Throughout this chapter, movement that is blocked will be marked with a dashed arrow.

vP

v VP

V ApplP

DO ApppP

IO Appl’

Appl_Low [EPP]

DO

(McGinnis, 2001, 7, ex.16) Later, e.g. Jeong (2007); Lee (2005) proposed an advancement to McGinnis’

account arguing that the lack of movement to the outer specifier of the low applicative head is due to anti-locality. Various versions of anti-locality have been proposed in the literature (Abels, 2003; Bošković, 1994; Grohmann, 2003, a.o.). Both Lee (2005) and Jeong (2007) follow Abels’ version, formulated in (35).

(35) Anti-locality constraint

*[XP YP X tY P ]

(Abels, 2003, 12) Under (35), movement of the complement of a given head to the specifier of the same head is too short, and it is therefore ungrammatical. Thus, the DO, part of the low applicative projection, cannot move the outer [Spec;ApplP_low], because the movement is too local.

Assuming the anti-locality constraint, one can argue that all applicative heads are phases, irrespective of whether they are high or low. However, due to the different structure of the two, DO’s movement to [Spec;ApplP_Low] is banned under anti-locality (Jeong, 2007; Lee, 2005). Therefore, the non-phasehood of the low applicative head derives from an independent language property, i.e.

language’s resistance to movement that is too short. In theoretical terms, the anti-locality constraint as an independent factor blocking DO’s movement to [Spec;ApplP_Low] is a desirable explanation for the lack of theme passivisation in low applicative contexts.

However, in the light of the Polish data, a problem arises. Namely, as already illustrated in (5), Polish low applicatives allow DO passivisation. What is more,

these contexts allow only the DO to move to [Spec;TP]. Thus, it seems that under the low applicative structure of Pylkkänen (2002, 2008), Polish can violate the anti-locality constraint illustrated in (34b). If we take the Polish DO to be a co-argument of the IO, the DO is expected to be blocked from movement to [Spec;ApplP_Low], contrary to the facts.

The analysis of low applicatives proposed in Chapter 3 seemingly solves the problem of the lack of anti-locality violation in Polish passives of DOs. Recall that in Chapter 3, we rejected the low applicative structure of Pylkkänen (2002, 2008), assumed by McGinnis. We proposed an alternative representation for low applicatives, where the applied IO is not a co-argument of the DO, as in (36).

(36) low applicative structure proposed in this thesis Appl

IO Appl √ DO

Crucially, under (36), anti-locality does not restrict the movement of the DO to [Spec;ApplP]. If we assume that all applicative heads constitute phases, under (36) the DO is expected to move to the outer specifier of theApplP, as in (37).

(37) ApplP

DO Appl

IO Appl

[EPP] √ DO

However, a new problem arises. Under (37), we predict that either of the objects in Polish can passivise. Because both objects are in a specifier position of the same head, they are both equidistant from a higher c-commanding head with EPP, be it v orT. This is contrary to the facts; as already shown in (5), only DOs can passivise in Polish. Thus, even under (36), we still cannot fully explain the Polish data if we assume that allApp heads are phases.

Nevertheless, as already pointed out, the assumption thatApp heads consti-tute phases seems stipulative. Under thevP-internal vs.vP-external applicative kinds hypothesis, we do not have to assume the phasehood of Appls at all. In Chapter 2, we proposed that applicative arguments come in two different types.

There are applicatives that are licensed by the v head, and those that are li-censed byAppl. In syntactic terms, the maximal projection of one applicative

type is that of vP, whereas that of the other kind is ApplP, as in (1), recalled for convenience in (38).

(38) a. vP-internal applicative vP

applied object v

Appl ...

b. vP-external/Appl-internal applicative ApplP

applied

object Appl ...

We predicted that applied arguments projected as part ofvPshould show prop-erties typical of internal arguments, e.g. they should passivise. In contrast, ap-plicatives licensed as part of ApplP are expected to lack properties typical of internal arguments. Thus, we do not expect vP-external applicatives to pas-sivise. As we demonstrate below, this difference in the maximal projection of the applicative-licensing phrase, in (38), is relevant for the standard Phase The-ory, which takes the v head, but not the Appl head, to be a phase (Chomsky, 1999, 2000, 2001, e.g.). Under the standard Phase Theory and (38), only verbal applicative heads, in (38a), are phases. If true, we can eliminate the assumption as to the phase status of Appl heads.

In what follows, we take vs to be phases, and we show how this assumption combined with the notion of equidistance (Chomsky, 1995), where two speci-fiers of the same head are equidistant from a c-commanding head that attracts movement, can account for the (a)symmetries in passive patterns. We illustrate our analysis with two languages - asymmetric Polish and symmetric Icelandic.

The differences concerning passivisation patterns in Icelandic and Polish, in (39), motivate the choice of these two languages.

(39) a. Polish - allows only DOs to passivise⁵

b. Icelandic - allows: a) only IOs, or b) IOs and DOs, depending on the predicate, or more precisely on the case-marking of the two objects of a given predicate.

Moreover, by comparing Polish with Icelandic, we can account for all the pos-sible passivisation patterns: a) symmetric, b) asymmetric with passivised IO,

5Exceptions do exist, we briefly comment on them in Section 5.1.5.

and c) asymmetric with passivised DO. What is more, because Icelandic di-transitives are similar to English in that they involve a small clause projection (Collins and Thráinsson, 1996; Ottósson, 1991, e.g.), the structure proposed for Icelandic can be easily extended to the English ditransitives discussed in Chapter 3.

The edge of phase under the Voice theory However, before we turn to discuss Polish and Icelandic in more detail, a word of explanation is due. This is because, in the previous chapters, we assumed after, e.g. Alexiadou et al.

(2006); Cuervo (2003); Harley (2013); Kratzer (1996); Pylkkänen (2002, 2008) that the external argument is licensed by a head distinct fromv, namelyVoice.

Therefore, the question arises as to whether [Spec;vP] or rather [Spec;VoiceP] is the escape hatch under Phase Theory.

Under the LarsonianVP structure (Larson, 1988, 1990, et seq.),vis a phase, and therefore it is [Spec;vP] that constitutes the edge of the phase. Because un-der this architecture of grammar,vlicenses the external argument, it might seem that under the Voice theory, the edge of the v phase is [Spec;VoiceP], rather than [Spec;vP]. For expository reasons, in what follows, we assume [Spec;vP] as the edge of the phase associated withv. Because our account is based on analy-ses that follow theVP-shell of Larson, taking [Spec;VoiceP] to be the edge, we would loose the explanatory and comparative power of our analysis.

Note, however, that conceptually, it is possible that it is indeed [Spec;vP] that constitutes thev phase edge, even under the theory ofVoice. Under the initial understanding of phases, it has been proposed that only transitive vs provide heads associated with Phase-EPP. However, more recent studies show evidence that unaccusative verbs, whether analysed under the VP-shell hypothesis as projectingVP only or a defective v, are also phases (Ingason and Wood, 2017;

Legate, 2003; Marantz, 2007, a.o.). In the system proposed in this work, un-accusative verbs project the verbalisingv, but they lack Voice. In a way then, the verbalisingv of unaccusatives is the equivalent of the unaccusative V/vdef

under the VP-shell. If such v of an unaccusative verb is a phase, then the only possible landing site for the movement to the edge underVoice theory is that of [Spec;vP].⁶ Thus, we take it that it is [Spec;vP], not [Spec;VoiceP] that constitutes the edge of the phase.

6Note, additionally, that if unaccusatives do show movement to [Spec;vP], under the anal-ysis proposed in this work, there is no need to distinguish between vs in transitive and unaccusative structures - in both cases, the EPP-feature is associated with the verbalising v. The EPP attracts a lower DP to [Spec;vP], regardless of whether the Voice head is projected above or not.