II. Polish applicatives: two case studies 65
4.2. Analysis - Exps as high applicatives
4.2.2. Two orders of Exp-Ths - DAT-NOM and NOM-DAT
In the previous section, we proposed that verbal and non-verbal Exp-Th pred-icates in Polish have a high applicative unaccusative structure. In this section, focusing on verbal predicates, we briefly comment on the two possible main constituent orders of the construction in question, namely the ExpDAT-ThN OM (DAT-NOM) and the ThN OM-ExpDAT (NOM-DAT) order.15A comprehensive analysis of information structure in Exp-Ths lies outside of the scope of this work. In what follows, we only briefly comment on the observations made in Jiménez-Fernández and Rozwadowska (2016), who account for all-focus and topic-focus contexts. We also propose an alternative analysis of the discussed data.16
Based on a survey, Jiménez-Fernández and Rozwadowska (2016) indicate that in Polish, either order, DAT-NOM or NOM DAT, is possible in all-focus, i.e.
discourse-neutral, contexts. Native speakers show no preference for any of the two word order permutations, illustrated in (49).
(49) a. ExpAboutness Topic - ThInformation Focus
Ewie Ewa.dat
spodobała appealed
się REFL
nowa new
nauczycielka teacher.nom
od from
polskiego.
Polish.gen
‘The new teacher of Polish appealed to Ewa.’
b. ThAboutness Topic - ExpInformation Focus
Nowa new
nauczycielka teacher.nom
od from
polskiego Polish.gen
spodobała appealed
się REFL
Ewie.
Ewa.dat
‘The new teacher of Polish appealed to Ewa.’
For both of these orders, Jiménez-Fernández and Rozwadowska (2016) pro-pose that the preverbal argument moves to the [Spec;CP] position. However, in contrast to the authors, we argue that in all-focus contexts, there is no need for movement to the CP domain. We take it that the Th argument moves to
15To be more precise, more constituent orders in the Exp-Th constructions are possible. As noted in Miechowicz-Mathiasen and Scheffler (2008), a corpus study of podobać się ‘to appeal’ indicated the following possible orderings: a) ExpDAT - REFL - verb - ThNOM, b) ExpDAT - verb REFL - ThNOM, c) ThNOM - REFL - verb - ExpDAT, d) ThNOM verb -REFL - ExpDAT, e) ThNOM - ExpDAT - verb - REFL. However, because in what follows, we concentrate on the the question of the movement of the Exp and Th arguments to the preverbal position, we focus only on the ExpDAT-ThNOM and ThNOM-ExpDAT orders.
16The analysis presented in this section follows, with some changes, the account presented in Gogłoza and Łęska (2018). However, Gogłoza and Łęska (2018) assume an unaccusative structure of Exp-Ths and the Larsonian VP-Shell, and thus they take the ExpDAT argu-ment to be merged in [Spec;VP]. In this section, we propose an alternative unaccusative account, namely the applicative one.
[Spec;TP] while the Exp remains in situ, in [Spec;ApplP], as represented (and simplified) in (50).
(50) a. ExpAboutness Topic - ThInformation Focus
ApplP
Exp Appl ...
... Th
b. ThAboutness Topic - ExpInformation Focus
TP
Th T ApplP
Exp ...
... Th
That the Th in NOM-DAT moves to [Spec;TP] can be supported with binding phenomena. A preverbal Th of Exp-Ths can act as anaphor antecedent, as illustrated in the example in (51), tested experimentally with native speakers.
(51) Tomeki
Tomek.nom
podoba appeal
się REFL
swojeji
self’s.dat
/*jegoi
/his.gen
koleżance.
friend.dat
‘His (female) friend appeals to Tomek.’
(Gogłoza and Łęska, 2018, 520, ex. 11b) The ability to antecede anaphors by the Th from a preverbal position indicates that the Th must move to [Spec;TP]. This observation applies to both all-focus and discourse-marked contexts.
Under the analysis of Jiménez-Fernández and Rozwadowska (2016), preverbal Ths and Exps are not predicted to be licit anaphor binders, contrary to (51), and to what we discussed in Section 4.1.1. This is because in Jiménez-Fernández and Rozwadowska (2016), both the Th and the Exp move from VP to CP (both without stopping in theTP domain). Thus, with regard to binding under the account of Jiménez-Fernández and Rozwadowska (2016), the Th and Exp will reconstruct to their position within VP. In this position, neither of the arguments can act as a licit anaphor binder, contrary to the facts. Under our proposal, both the Th, in [Spec;TP], and the Exp, in [Spec;ApplP], can antecede anaphors, which we take to support our analysis.
We take it that in discourse-neutral contexts, a preverbal ThN OM moves from√P to [Spec;TP] where it remains, as in (50b). In discourse-marked con-texts, the Th moves further, from [Spec;TP] to [Spec;CP], as represented (and simplified) in (52).
(52) ThGiven Topic - ExpInformation Focus
CP
Th C TP
Th T ApplP
Exp ...
... Th
The ThN OM can antecede anaphors when in [Spec;CP], because it reconstructs to [Spec;TP] with regard to binding. Thus, both when moved to [Spec;CP] and [Spec;TP], the preverbal ThN OM can act as a licit anaphor antecedent of the c-commanded argument, here the ExpDAT.
For the discourse-marked DAT-NOM order of non-verbal Exp-Ths, we pro-pose that, the Exp moves to [Spec;CP], as in (53). This movement is akin to the movement of the Ths in discourse-marked NOM-DAT order.
(53) ExpGiven Topic - ThInformation Focus
CP
Exp C
T ApplP
Exp ...
... Th
When in [Spec;CP], the Exp reconstructs to [Spec;ApplP] for the purpose of binding. In [Spec;ApplP], the argument is high enough to act as anaphor binder, as long as such binding is not blocked by the Anaphor Agreement Effect, dis-cussed in Section 4.1.1. In verbal Exp-Ths in the DAT-NOM order, the ExpDAT
cannot act as the anaphor antecedent, as the c-commanded Th is marked with nominative, which causes the AAE. However, in non-verbal Exp-Ths in the DAT-nonNOM order, the Exp is a licit anaphor binder, as the Th is marked with a non-nominative case - genitive - not causing the AAE. The difference with regard to binding by ExpDAT and the Anaphor Agreement Effect is illus-trated in (54).
(54) a. verbal Exp-Ths, DAT-NOM Tomkowii
‘His friend appealed to Tomek.’
b. non-verbal Exp-Ths, DAT-nonNOM Tomkowii
‘Tomek feels sorry for his friend.
The grammaticality judgments are based on the observations drawn from two experimental studies on binding by ExpDATs in Polish, reported in Gogłoza and Łęska (2018); Gogłoza et al. (2018, to appear b).
Note also that we take it that in (54), the Th does not move to [Spec;TP] for case. If the Th moved to [Spec;TP], it would become a licit antecedent of any c-commanded argument. In such structural configuration, the Th in [Spec;TP]
could act as an antecedent for an anaphor in the [Spec;ApplP] - a position to which the Appl argument would reconstruction for the purpose of binding. This means that we could have a preverbal Exp with an anaphor, followed by a Th, as in (55). Intended: ‘Self’s wife appealed to Tomek.’
b. *Swojeji Intended: ‘Self’s wife was sorry to Tomek.’
We take the ungrammaticality of (55) to indicate that the Th in (55) does not move to [Spec;TP]. This, however, does not mean that we never see dative-marked anaphors in a preverbal position. In left-dislocated contexts, it is possi-ble to have the Th in [Spec;TP] and a dislocated Experiencer with an anaphor, bound by the Th, as in (56).
‘His wife, Tomek appealed to.’
CP
Exp C TP
Th T ApplP
Exp ...
... Th
Summing up, in contrast to Jiménez-Fernández and Rozwadowska (2016), we take it that in all-focus contexts, there is no movement of the Exp or the Th to [Spec;CP]. For the DAT-NOM order, we proposed that the Exp remains in situ, in [Spec;ApplP], from where the Exp c-commands the Th. In the NOM-DAT order, a nominative-marked Th moves to [Spec;TP], where it becomes a licit anaphor antecedent. In discourse-marked contexts, the Exp or the Th can move to [Spec;CP]. For the NOM-DAT order, the Th moves from its base-generated position to [Spec;CP] stopping at [Spec;TP], contra Jiménez-Fernández and Rozwadowska (2016). In the DAT-NOM order, the Exp moves from [Spec;ApplP] to [Spec;CP] while the Th remains in situ.
In Chapter 5 to follow, we return to the movement of the arguments of the Exp-Th construction in Polish, particularly the movement of the nominative Th to [Spec;TP] in discourse-free NOM-DAT order. We show how A-movement in Polish Exp-Ths differs from such movement in Icelandic. Based on the differ-ences between Polish and Icelandic we argue that dative case in Icelandic is a quirky case, i.e. a combination of an inherent and structural case. In contrast, the Polish dative on ExpDATs lacks the additional structural case, i.e. the da-tive is not quirky. Moreover, based on A-movement in Exp-Th constructions in Polish as opposed to Icelandic, we show that Polish ExpDATs are verb-external while Icelandic ExpDATs appear to be verb-internal. This is following the hy-pothesis introduced in Chapter 2 as to the cross-linguistic distinction intoAppl heads whose maximal projection is that ofvP (verb-internal) and those whose maximal projection is that of ApplP (verb-external). However, before we turn to Chapter 5, we very briefly comment on the difference between dative-marked and accusative-marked experiencers in Polish stative psychological verbs.