Probus 3.3: 237-278
TYPES OF VERBAL MOVEMENT IN OLD SPANISH:
MODALS, FUTURES, AND PERFECTS
JOSE LEMA
Universidad Autonoma
Metropolitana-htapalapa
-LUISA RIVERO
University of Ottawa
0. INTRODUCTION*
This paper identifies three different types of movement affecting verbal
items in O(ld) Sp(anish), or the period from roughly the 12th to the 15th
Century.
First, OSp exhibits VP-Preposing, or the fronting of a VP äs Xmax,
licensed by modals äs in (1). Although it is known that VP-Preposing exists
in many languages, it is less known that only certain auxiliaries licenst this
process in some languages.
(1)
Que ninguno [fazer plaser a Dios] non puede
that nobody make pleasure to God not can
'Since nobody can please God'
Cor 47
Second, in contexts licensed by future and conditional auxiliaries, but not
by modals, OSp shows two modalities of Head-Movement, or the raising of
V äs X° (Lema 1989). On the one hand, V incorporates into the AUX, and
forms the synthetic futures and conditionals familiär in present Romance,
with the clitic preceding the complex, äs in (2).
(2)
a. Sabe
que lo matarä
he-f knows that him kill+will
'He knows that he will kill him'
Cal 145
Research for this paper was subsidized in pari by the SSHRCC under grants 410-88-0101
and 452-89-0289. We thank Rodica lonescu for judgments and help with Romanian,
Montserrat Morales for help in surveying Old Spanish texts, and Prof. Donskov for his help
with Serbo-Croatian. We also thank P. Hirschbühler, R. lonescu, I. Roberts, E. Trevino, M.
Suner for comments on earlier versions of this paper. Special thanks to C. Platzack for
bringing to our attention the relevance of Icelandic Stylistic Fronting to our work, and for
his written comments. The Old Spanish examples have been written following modern
accentuation norms; the English glosses are only approximative in some cases.
Probus Vol. 3.3 (1991) 0921-4471
Copyright © 1991 by Walter de Gwyter, Berlin
238
(2)
b. E sopieres
otrossi que lo averä
and you+should+know too
that it have+will
Jui 42A 18
el demandador
the requester
* And you should know too that the one who requests it will have
it'
Alternatively, V may front by means of L(ong) H(ead) M(ovement) (Lema
and Rivero 1989b), in the pattern traditionally known äs the anafytic or sptit
future in (3). In these structures, V bypasses iheAUX äs well äs intervening
clitics, and patterns like Germanic V-second. The existence of LHM is
attested in Old Romance, with the exception of French, and is found in
literary European Portuguese (see Lema and Rivero 1989a,b), Romanian
and Southern Slavic at present.
(3)
a. Dar-te he
un exemplo
give-you I+will an example
will give you an example'
b. E si fuere en el ängulo de occidente,
and if it+were in the angle of occident,
Cal 291
Jui 197A 21-2
aver-lo-hä
en su senectut
have-it-he+will in his old+age
'And if it was in the angle of occident, he will have it in his old
age'
Third, in OSp perfects the (bracketed) participle may front, äs in (4). This
movement is different from VP-Preposing or LHM, though it shares
characteristics of each, and resembles participle raising in Old French, a
language without LHM, äs well äs Stylistic Fronting in Modern Icelandic.
(4)
E amigos, yo [dicho] he lo que vos avia a
and friends, I [said] have that which you I+had to
Zif 299
dezir
teil
Triends, I have told you what I had to teil you'
The paper is organized äs follows. Section l contrasts VP-Preposing with
LHM, or the constructions in (1) and (3), establishing a distinction between
them on the basis of five formal criteria: (a) locality, (b) effects of Negation,
(c) types of licensing AUX, (d) root/non-root dichotomy, and (e) triggering
factors. Section 2 contrasts "short" Head-Movement or incorporation with
239
LHM, that is (2) with (3), and related constructions, and discusses the
theoretical implications of this syntactically determined alternation within
the analysis in (Lema and Rivero 1989a,b), which encompasses Romance
and Slavic. Section 3 turns to the perfect inversions in (4) in a tentative
tone, establishing contrasts with VP-Preposing and LHM for this less well
defined type of verbal movement.
1. OLD SPANISH LONG HEAD MOVEMENT VS. VP-PREPOSING
In this section, we contrast the LHM version of V-movement with
VP-Preposing, that is X° with Xmax-movement, the two Move a-options
allowed within the Barriers model (Chomsky 1986) for verbal items. As we
see, the two can be easily distinguished.
As stated above, the two fronting operations exhibited by OSp have
different formal properties. On the one hand, the analytic futures and
conditionals in (3) involve LHM, which no longer exists in most Romance
languages. On the other hand, modal and passive constructions with main
V before AUX äs in (1) show the type of VP-Preposing still current in
Romance. Although in certain situations, the constructions with analytic
futures and conditionals may show identical word order to that of inverted
passive and modal patterns, the syntax of the two verbal movements differs
in its formal aspects distinguishing Head vs. Phrasal movement.
Similarly, in Dutch and German, the word order of constructions like (5)
may resemble that of the OSp Inverted Conjugations in (3) formed by
LHM: the non-finite V precedes the finite AUX. Nevertheless, this
Germanic pattern differs crucially from LHM constructions. According to
Webelhuth (1985) and Koster (1987), it involves the equivalent of
VP-Preposing. In this sense Germanic (5) is the counterpart of the OSp
modal construction in (1):
(5)
Dutch: [Gelezen] heeft hij het boek niet
[read]
has he the book not
'He has not read the book'
(Koster 1987)
For Webelhuth and Koster, the finite AUX in (5) is in C, äs the result of
successive local applications of Head-Movement from AUX-to-I-to-C; in
contrast, the non-finite V moves äs a phrase to the Spec-of-CP, or to a
higher position, and the object NP is scrambled. Instead, Van Riemsdijk
(1989) proposes to move the inner Shell of the VP, while leaving the outer
Shell unaffected, but does not envision such an Operation äs Head-Movement.
In (6), the non-finite V and the object NP are fronted together, and the process
240
contrasts with the LHM treatment of the initial non-finite V in the OSp
Inverted Conjugations in (3) and in similar Romance and Slavic patterns
discussed in (Lema and Rivero 1989b), where only an order parallel to (5)
is grammatical, while that corresponding to (6) is ungrammatical.
(6)
German: [Das Buch gelesen] hat Hans nicht
[the book read]
has Hans not
'Hans has not read the book'
(Webelhuth 1985)
Since OSp exhibits in different constructions a VP-Preposing Operation
similar to Germanic (5)-(6) and LHM, the properties of the two processes
can be contrasted. Taking the more familiär Xmax movement äs point of
departure, VP-Preposing and LHM are distinguished by the following
properties, listed in decreasing order of generality crosslinguistically.
I. As seen in subsection 1.1, VP-Preposing affects the main VP, i.e., the
one with argument structure (and see Zagona 1988 for recent discussion).
As a result, the process can create an unbounded effect, if several
intervening auxiliaries are crossed. In contrast, LHM does not necessarily
target the main V; it is strictly local, and affects only the V or AUX
immediately adjacent to the finite future or conditional AUX which is
crossed. In this respect OSp is parallel to extant languages such äs Bulgarian
(Lema and Rivero 1989b).
II. VP-Preposing applies across NEGP in Germanic and Romance,
including OSp. In contrast, LHM cannot cross a negation in the path, äs
discu&&ed itv sub^ectiotv 1.2 atvd sectkm 2,, making OSp paia\\e\ to
Romanian, Bulgarian, and Serbo-croatian, among other languages.
III. In languages with LHM and VP-Preposing, such äs OSp and Romanian,
two classes of Auxiliaries can be distinguished: those which license LHM vs.
those licensing VP-Preposing. In OSp and Modern Spanish too, the
VP-Preposing auxiliaries are the modals; the OSp LHM auxiliaries are the
future a *will' and the conditional VoukT, äs seen in subsection 1.3 and
section 2.
This property follows from different Lexical-Conceptual structures (in the
sense of Haie and Keyser 1986) for each type of AUX. The LHM AUX is
temporal, resembling affixes in its content, even though it may surface äs an
independent word, and isfunctional like COMP or INFL (Chomsky 1986).
The VP-Preposing AUX is also an independent word, but has a richer
semantic content relating to modality, and is lexical like a V of
propositional attitude.
While Romance modals of the must/can type are always lexical, Romance
aspectual have shows synchronic and diachronic Variation äs to the dicho-
241
tomy functionalllexical, with the clearest cases being Italian on the lexical
side, and Romanian on the functional side (and see Salvi 1982, 1987 for
relevant discussion on diachronic evolution in this area).
In Italian, lexical avere (a) allows VP-Preposing Mangiato la torta non ho
(Salvi 1980) have not eaten the cake', (b) encodes the Aktionsart of the
main V in the avere/essere distinction discussed under the label of the
Unaccusative Hypothesis by Perlmutter, among others, and (c) allows
Object Participle Agreement, taking the small clause complement (Kayne
1989b) of Vs of propositional attitude.
In Romanian, functional a avea is temporal (a past), lacking the roles of
Italian avere, and allows LHM but not VP-Preposing (Lema and Rivero
1989a,b), sharing the syntax/semantics of LHM perfects (=pasts) in
Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, and Slovene. As argued in section 3, OSp aver
is unlike Italian avere or Romanian a avea, resembling French avoir,
because (a) it does not seem to participate in VP-Preposing, (b) it encodes
an optional and already waning Aktionsart distinction shown by averlser, and
(c) it optionally allows a waning participle agreement with the object. Thus
OSp perfects do not undergo LHM, äs they are not merely functional, but
fall within a hybrid System of movement comparable to Stylistic Fronting in
Icelandic.
IV. As seen in subsection 1.4, and subsection 2.2, LHM applies in root
constructions, because an empty C must be available äs landing site for V,
so it patterns like Germanic V-second, and English Subject-AUX Inversion:
Will she visit me?. In contrast, OSp VP-Preposing is not so restricted; äs
phrasal movement, it applies in the type of embedded clause where LHM
is impossible, äs well äs in root constructions.
V. Triggering factors for LHM and VP-Preposing differ in OSp. VPPreposing may be a focalization strategy, while LHM provides the initial
constituent required by clitics, or a Wackernagel effect, äs in subsection 2.1,
and has no focalization force. As a result, LHM is characterized by a
mesoclitic, while VP-Preposing may apply in the absence of clitics.1
An anonymous reviewer suggests that an analysis of clitic placement along the lines of
Uriagereka's (1988) for Galician might be extended to Medieval Spanish. According to this
author, Galician clitics are attracted to T, but are proclitic only in governed IPs. The
governor may be an element in C—(ia,b)—, or Neg—(ic)—:
(i) a. quero que o oiades
want:I that it hear:2s
b. que"n o ten ouvido
who it has heard
c. non o ten ouvido
not it has hear
In ungoverned IPs, enclisis is the expected outcome:
242
L L Locality ofLHM vs. VP-Preposing
VP-Preposing must affect the VP with the main V, the one with
NP-argument structure. Thus, in a tree with several AUX, preposing may
bypass the intervening heads, äs in (7).
(7)
a. German: [Einen Kuchen backen] wird er doch wohl können
[a
cake
bake] will he presumably can
Tresumably, he can bake a cake'
(Webelhuth 1985)
b. Spanish: [Leer los libros] Maria ha debido poder
[read the books] Mary has must can
'Mary must have been able to read the books'
In (7a), V and NP-object prepose across wird and können. In (7b), ha, deber
and poder heading different AUXP are crossed by the VP. OSp offers
(ii)
a.
ouvimo-lo
heard:we-it
b. dixen que este concerto, ouvin-o
saidils that this concert, heard:ls-it
AJthough such analysis appears to account for the asymmetry in a principled manner, it fails
to explain certain Medieval Spanish facts. Moreover, the analysis is also problematic for
Galician because proclitics are often seen in (ungoverned) matrix affirmative IPs, äs in (iii)
(and see Alvarez et al. 1986 for more examples):
(iii) a. Os mesmos vecifios o contaban
ine same
ne'ighbors U relaieu
'The neighbors themselves related it'
b. Entrambos
o fixeren
the:two:together it did
'They did it between the two'
As shown below, proclitics are common in affirmative matrix IPs in Medieval Spanish:
(iv) El conde le rogo que-1
dixiese commo fuera aquello
(Lucanor, p.53)
the count him beg that-him teil
how
was that
'The count begged him to relate to him how that came about'
In light of the present discussion, the analysis of clitic placement proposed by Rouveret
(1989) for Modern European Portuguese also comes to mind, because this language has
properties similar to those of Medieval Spanish and Galician. This author proposes that the
Position of T—not that of V—determines the position of clitics. According to Rouveret,
because T may appear either in I or in C, the placement of clitics also alternates between
these two positions. While in affirmative matrix sentences T regularly surfaces in situ—ie.,
in I—, and proclisis is disallowed, in subordinate finite sentences T moves to C, and proclisis
ensues. Besides the existence of examples similar to (iii) in European Portuguese which
weaken Rouveret's proposal, example (iv) clearly shows that this theory, like Uriagereka's,
is not applicable to Medieval Spanish. By contrast, the (morphosyntactic) hypothesis we
maintain, that clitics cannot be CP-initial, is adequate to describe the data thus far dealt
with, including that in this note.
243
similar patterns, äs in (8)-(10), and later examples, for which we will
suggest an analysis along the lines of Germanic (5).
(8)
a. [Dados] deuen sser otrosi en todo tiempo los $inco
[given] must be so
in all time the five
Set 127
sacramentos
sacraments
The five sacraments must be given at all times'
b. [Vpdados] [AUXP deuen [AUXP ser [t]]]
(9)
a. [Despreciado] deve seer el castigamiento
[slighted]
must be the punishment
'The punishment must be slighted'
b. [Vpdespreciado] [AUXP deve [AUXP seer [t]]]
Luc 284
(10)
a. [Rendir] nos cuydo
fazer a las mäs de
[surrender] us he+thought make to the most of
Cor 137
nosotras
us
'He thought he made the majority of us surrender*
b. [Rendir] [ nos cuydo [ fazer t]]
In (8b)-(10b), dados, despreciado and rendir äs the most deeply embedded
VPs prepose across the two AUX: the finite deverlcuydar, and passive ser or
causative fazer in the Infinitive.
In contrast, in LHM only the V or AUX next to the finite AUX moves
to C, äs in (11)-(12), so only one head intervenes in the movement path,
äs in (lld)-(13) for (llc)-(12b), and examples in section 2. This
exceptionless property is clearly seen in European Portuguese and Bulgarian
äs well (Lema and Rivero 1989b). The diagrams (lld) and (13) do not
indicate where the clitic vos originales.
(11)
a. Hyr las hemos ver atierras de Carrion
Cid 2626
go them we+will see to+lands of Carrion
*We shall go to see them in the lands of Carrion'
b. Et al
otro que contra esto fuere...
Pic 25r79-80
and to+the other that against this would-f be...
fazer lä
errar en todos sus fechos
make him+will err in all
his actions
'And he will make the one who is against this err in all his
actions'
244
(11)
c. E mandarvos
he
dar todo
and order to+you I+will give all
'And I will order (them) to give everything to you'
d· [CP tc' mandar [ip vos h6 [vp t [yp dar todo]]]]
Zif 128
(12)
a. Ca en yermo o en poblado poder nos h n
since in field or in village can us they+will
Cid 300
alcangar
reach
'Since they will be able to reach us in the open fields or in an
urban setting'
b. E seer uos
an
perdonados
Pic 12v,14-16
and be to+you they+will forgiven
pecados u<uest>ros
sins
your
'And your sins will be forgiven'
(13)
[CP [c* seer [IP uos an [AUXP t [VP perdonados]]]]]
In brief, when three verbal items appear in the OSp analytic
future/conditional construction, word order is always s in (11) -(13), and
never s in (8) -(10). Under this view, patterns such s *£ dar vos he
mandar todo, constructed on the basis of (llc,d) along the lines of (8)-(10),
are unattested because they would have been s ungrammatical s, for
example, their (present) Bulgarian counterparts.
Also, VP-Preposing need not involve clitics (8) -(9), while LHM
constructions have endoclitics s essential items, which is not necessarily the
case in present Romanian and Southern and Western Slavic LHM (Lema
and Rivero 1989a,b); in Romanian LHM has different triggers, but similar
formal properties (Rivero 1988). As discussed in subsection 2.1,
VP-Preposing may serve s focalizing strategy unrelated to a non-tonic
pronominal, while LHM provides the old clitic with the required initial
constituent within CP, without focalizing effect per se.
In brief, LHM and VP-Preposing differ in locality effects. When X in
(14) is the future/conditional AUX, LHM moves Υ s head. The nature of
Υ is irrelevant, and the crucial aspect is its strict adjacency to X. Thus Υ
can be an AUX such s poder 'can', (12a), or a V of control such s mandar
Order', (llc). LHM cannot affect Z, which remains in situ: dar todo 'give
everything' in (llc), and alcangar 'reach' in (12a).
(14)
[χρΧ[ Υ ρΥ[ Ζ Ρ Ζ]]]
245
VP-Preposing operates differently on (14), affecting the VP with argument
structure. If X and are AUX, then the process moves a projection of Z,
bypassing both X and Y.
Consequently, patterns (8)-(9) and (13) constitute a minimal pair, since
both are passives with AUX ser 'be', and a participle heading the main VP.
VP-Preposing in (8)-(9) moves the main VP dados/despreciados over an
apparently unbounded domain. LHM in (13) affects the head ser
immediately dominated by the AUX an, leaving its VP-complement with the
main V in situ-, such a movement complies with the looser version of locality
allowed by the ECP, äs discussed in section 2, not with the stricter relation
required by the Head Movement Constraint, which has to be abandoned.
Similar comments apply to (10) and (llc), where the main VP moves over
the causative in the VP-Preposing example, while the causative is the
element that moves under LHM.
As a result, even though VP-Preposing and LHM coexist in the grammar
of OSp, differing locality effects set them apart.
1.2. NEGP and VP-Preposing vs. LHM
As noticed in traditional grammars, LHM constructions cannot be negated.
For OSp this has been observed by Menondez-Pidal (1964) and Rossi
(1975). In subsection 2.4, we argue that LHM cannot apply when NEG äs
head intervenes in the path, inducing a barrier; äs a result OSp negated
constructions show incorporated or synthetic futures and condilionals of
type (2) rather than analytic ones of type (3).
In contrast, VP-Preposing is not blocked by NEGP, and in current
Romance it often applies in its presence (and see Cinque 1989 for relevant
discussion). OSp VP-Preposing shares this characteristic, äs in (1) and (15):
(15)
a. [Peniten^iar] non deue ninguno a otro ssinon
[give+penance] not must no+one to other than
los clorigos de misa
the clerics of mass
'The only ones who must give penance are the
priests'
b. [Absuelto] non puede ser ninguno de sus pecados
[pardoned] not can
be no+one of his sins
'No one should have his sins pardoned'
Set 200
Set 220
246
(15)
c. Et sy... su tan
fermosa fuese que
and if ... her neighbor so beautiful was that
Cor 139
[desalabar su fermosura] non puede, ... comien^a a
[disdain her beauty]
not can, ... begins
to
menear el cuello
shake the neck
'And if her neighbor is so beautiful that her beauty cannot be
dismissed, she begins to shake her head'
Notice that (15b) combines the properties of VP-Preposing, not those of
LHM: (a) the movement crosses two AUX, and (b) NEGP, and (c) the
pattern lacks endoclitics.
In addition, the position of no is an important clue for the
characterization of OSp VP-Preposing, since it clearly shows that this type
of movement need not obligatorily transport V and its complements.
Preposing in (15a,b) affects a phrasal projection of V, leaving the
complements behind, in a much favored word order pattern in texts in prose
(or verse, äs in B Sig 38c,d)). In (15a), a otro 'to another one' is the
complement of penitenqiar 'to give penitence' unaffected by the preposing.
In (15b) de sus pecados Of his sins' is the similarly unaffected complement
of absuelto 'pardoned'. This Option exists in Dutch and German too, äs
noted in relation to (5) (and see Koster 1987, Van Riemsdijk 1989,
Webelhuth 1985, among others, for various treatments). Whether the moved
element is a non-maximal projection (contra Chomsky 1986) or a maximal
phrase, once certain complements are detached, raises important questions
concerning the nature of the movement. We will not discuss this interesting
Topic, other than noting that OSp is similar to Germanic, and unlike
present Spanish, where [Perdonar a Maria} no puedes 'You cannot pardon
Mary' is grammatical, but *[Perdonar] no puedes a Maria is not (and
compare with (15a)).
VP-Preposing of V with complements or modifiers is äs in (15c)-(16),
in verse and prose, and these patterns are comparable to Germanic (6) and
(17). The negation precludes an analysis with AUX-final and preceding
VP-complement order; basic OV Orders are available in OSp, if (Rivero
1986,1990) is correct, but in (16) the VP preposes to a position higher than
the negation, and is not attached to the AUX.
(16)
a. [D'aquend essir] non puedo
[from here exit] not I+can
cannot come out of here'
B SDom 712d
247
(16)
b. Por mi fecist
tanto
que [mäs fer] non
for me you+did so+much that [more do] not
B Loor 98b
devisti
you+must
'You did so much for me that you should not have done more'
c. Si [asi fazer] non lo quisieredes,
que
OLE 221, 1352
if [so do] not it you+would+want, that
le defiendan
him they+protect
'If you do not want to do it this way, they should protect him'
d. A quäl daran
regimiento que riga a
Cor 642
to whom they+will+give ruling
that rules to
othros, sy [a sy
regir] non sabe?
others, if [to himself rule] not he+knows
To which one would they give the power to rule others, if that
one cannot govern himself?'
(17)
German: [Zur
Post gebracht] hat er den Brief noch nicht
[to+the Post brought] has he the letter yet not
'He has not taken the letter to the post Office yet'
(Van Riemsdijk 1989)
To summarize, a V fronted äs a phrasal projection by VP-Preposing can be
separated from the finite AUX by NEGP, which is impossible in LHM. This
disünguishes the two processes in a crucial way. Second, OSp resembtes
German and Dutch, and not current Spanish, in terms of the projections
moved by VP-Preposing. Namely, complements may, but need not, be
preposed along with the V, the latter being a favored Option. Since OSp is
both VO and OV, VP-Preposing results not only in the V+O+AUX Orders
of present Romance, but in the O+V+AUX Orders of German and Dutch.
2.3. Awcilianes in VP-Preposing vs. LHM
When a language exhibits both VP-Preposing and LHM, the processes are
distinguished by the nature of the AUX involved in each. Lema and Rivero
(1989a,b) show that in Romanian, VP-Preposing is impossible with the
three AUX licensing LHM: the perfect äs past, the future, and the
conditional (this is also the Situation in Serbo-Croatian).
Both in Slavic and Romance, the AUX licensing LHM is temporal, and
limited in lexical content. It does not assign a -role to the VP-complement
248
it selects, since its semantics is like that of affixes found in synthetic tenses.
We label this first class of AUX functional, based on its properties for
LHM, and its semantics.
A second type of AUX is Romanian a putea 'can', or Spanish poder. It
licenses VP-Preposing, and has a semantic content close to that of verbs of
propositional attitude, so we label it Lexical, and assume that it -marks its
VP-complement. The fact that VP-Preposing escapes Weak Island effects
(Ross 1983) like -governed complements (Rizzi 1989), and unlike
adjuncts, motivates this assumption. We already saw that this fronting
Operation is immune to Negative Islands. The modern Spanish examples in
(18) show VP-Preposing out of a Factive Island (18a), an Extraposition
Island with poder extraposed over the Adv (18b), and a Wz-island (18c).
Because of its locality, LHM fails to show any of these properties.
(18)
a. [Leer el libro] siento no haber podido
regret that I have been unable to read the book'
b. [Leer el libro] no ha debido sin duda poder
'Undoubtedly, he must have been unable to read the book'
c. [Leer el libro] me pregunto si/cuändo podrä
wonder if/when he will be able to read the book'
In Romance languages with no LHM, VP-Preposing is licensed only by
Lexical auxiliaries (remember that Italian avere is lexical). Thus, Sp
poderIdeber and Frpouvoirldevoir allow VP-Preposing (Lire ce Uwe Marie ne
peut pas), while haberlavoir do not (*Leido ese libro Maria no ha, and *Lu
ce livre Mane n'a pas), parallel to Romatiiatx. In this tespect, cuttcut
Romance with the exception of Italian differs from Germanic, which allows
VP-Preposing with all of its auxiliaries.
The distinction between VP-Preposing AUX and LHM AUX exists in
OSp like in Romanian, but the members of each class are not identical,
with the difference being the perfect. In Romanian, this AUX belongs to
the LHM class, while in OSp it does not, äs argued in section 3.
In view of the formal criteria in the above discussion and in subsection
1.4, the major OSp VP-Preposing AUX are in fact very similar to the
modern class, but the list does not pretend to be exhaustive:
L
II.
III.
IV.
Passive ser 'be' äs in (8), (9), (15b), and (15c).
Dever 'must', äs in (15a), (16b), and (21d).
Poder 'can', äs in (1) and (16a).
Querer Svant', äs in (17c), and saber 'know' äs in (17d).
In addition, the OSp modal of Obligation aver (a/de) 'must' contrasts with
the modern one and allows Xmax-Preposing too, äs seen in subsection 2.5.
249
The functional AUX allowing LHM, but not VP-Preposing, are the OSp
conditional and future AUX exclusively, which have no modern counterparts. In this and the next section we separate LHM constructions from
VP-Preposing, and in III we further distinguish inverted perfects from these
two.
To recapitulate, AUX licensing LHM and VP-Preposing differ. LHM
applies with the functional type which is not a -role assigner, and not with
the type with richer lexical structure which assigns a -role.
1.4. VP-Preposing vs. LHM in root and non-root environments
LHM is restricted to root contexts where the non-finite V can land in a
vacant C such äs (3), äs argued in subsection 2.2, which makes OSp parallel
to Romance and Slavic languages with current LHM (Lema and Rivero
1989b).
As (8)-(10) vs. (1), (15c) and (16c,d) show OSp VP-Preposing applies
in root and non-root environments alike. As seen in section 3, Old perfects
invert in non-root contexts too.
In particular, OSp VP-Preposing applies in conditional clauses such äs
(16c,d), where si *if arguably occupies the C position. In such an
environment, LHM is unattested, and ungrammatical under our analysis. In
contrast with OSp, current Spanish VP-Preposing may apply in embedded
complement clauses, but not in conditionals: (19a,b).
(19)
a. Te digo que [leer ei Hbro] Maria no puede t
am telling you that Mary cannot read the book'
b. *Si [leer el libro] Maria no puede r, no te enfades
'If Mary cannot read the book, do not get angry'
The contrast between the two processes could follow from an analysis with
VP-Preposing äs adjunction to a CP1, complementing a higher CP2
embedded under V, äs in (20), using a structure first proposed for Spanish
in (Plann 1982), and interpreting CP1 not äs an argument. As conditionals
do not contain two CPs, VP-Preposing within these clauses would not be
impossible.
(20)
Te digo [CP2 que [CP1 leer el libro [CP1 e [IP Maria no puede t]]]].
In OSp, on the other hand, the VP appears to adjoin to IP (and see (Rivero
1990) for additional discussion).
250
2. LONG HEAD MOVEMENT VS. INCORPORATION
In section l, we established formal differences between VP-Preposing in (1)
and LHM in (3)-(21a). This section adopts the analysis in Lema and
Rivero (1989a,b), studying LHM OSp constructions in detail. It contrasts
them with (a) type (2)-(21b), resulting from "short" Head-Movement, or
the incorporation in the sense of Baker (1988) of the head of the VP into
the functionaly4t/Ar, forming a morphological complex; (b) type (21c) (äs
cited by Rossi 1975) involving V-to-AUX or incorporation, followed by
V+AUX to C; and (c) type (25), which is modal in syntax and semantics.
In brief, it is argued that (3)-(21a) are äs in (22), (2)-(21b) correspond to
(23), and (21c) is äs in (24), with all three having a functional AUX and
derived by means of X°-movement in the syntax. These are unrelated to the
modal constructions in (25) with a l&acalAUXwhich licenses Xmax-fronting
instead.
(21)
a. Senora-dixo el-dezir lo hedes
al
rey?
Zif 124
lady-said
he-tell it you+will to-i-the king?
'Lady, he said, will you teil it to the king?'
b. Senor, a quien nos dar-^des
por cabdiello?
Zif 163
sir,
to who us give-you+will äs leader?
'Sir, who will you give us äs leader?'
c. E si durmieren dos, escalentar-än-se uno a otro
Ecl.4:ll
and if slept
two, warm-will- SE one to other
'And if two slept together, they will warm each other'
(22)
LHM:
(23)
INC:
251
(24) V-to-AUX-to-C:
CP
C
AUXP
AUX
W
f l + /j
(25)
a. Fasta que sepan
que ha ende
nasger
until that they-i-learn that has from+there be+born
'Until they find out what should emerge from there'
b. Aquellos que le han de seguir
those
who him have to follow
'The ones who must follow him'
c. El pobre que ha a demandar al
rico
the poor who has to ask
to+the rieh
'The poor man who has to ask the rieh one'
Zif 307
Zif 61
Zif 72
First, we argue that the LHM patterns of (22) alternate productively with
those with incorporation in (23) from the 12th to the 15th Century roughly,
in almost syntactic complementary distribution (Lema 1989). As a result,
the OSp incorporation rule behind the synthetic future/conditional is move
α in syntax (pace Baker 1988, among others), not an inflectional process of
word formation in a morphology divorced from syntax and its constraints
(contia Di Sci\iUo aivd Williams 19&7, amotvg othets),
On the one hand, (21a)-(22) is the pattern favored overwhelmingly when
V is the only constituent in CP before the (pronominal) clitic, which we
show is attached to the intervening AUXP containing the finite element.
During this period, clitics cannot be initial in their minimal CP, but need
not be in second position (Rivero 1986). Thus, LHM is one of the means
available for clitics to comply with WackernagePs Law (pace Menondez
Pidal 1964, but not Company 1986).
On the other hand, (21b)-(23) is the quantitatively more frequent
pattern when a constituent in CP precedes the clitic, or the formal
conditions for LHM cannot be met. When WackernagePs effects fade away,
and clitics begin to surface CP-initially, (21a) disappears and (21b) survives.
Thus, OSp synthetic futures/conditionals involve syntax, rather than
morphology alone, in a way the extensive Romance philological literature
on the formation of futures originating with Thielmann (1885) has usually
failed to recognize, and never systematized.
252
Turning to the rather infrequent but systematically found (21c), or
V-to-AUX-to-C in (24), first notice that in OSp simple tenses the finite V
precedes a clitic, if no other constituent begins the CP, äs in the matrix
clause in (26):
(26)
Rogo-le el alcalld que ge-lo
departiesse
asked-him the judge that to+him-it teil
The judge asked him to teil it to him'
Zif 141
We assume that this Old Romance order results from V-raising to I (to pick
Agr and Tense), and Head-Movement of the V-complex to C (Benincä
1983,1984). If the clitic is left behind, only rogo äs head is in C°, much like
the non-finite V in LHM in (23). These two analyses imply that the syntax
of LHM should be very similar to that of Old Romance enclisis with finite
Vs, a correct prediction, äs we see.
Also, from the earliest documents, V-to-AUX or incorporation, and
subsequent raising of this complex to C is documented with the functional
AUX, äs in (21c)-(24). For us such an OSp AUX is generated in the
T(ense) P(hrase), so (21c) and (26) have similar derivations, but (26)
contains an affixal head and not an AUX äs stem in TP. Escalentar Svarm'
äs head of the VP incorporates into the future AUX an 'will', and the
complex moves up to C, counting äs the first constituent in CP in front of
the reciprocal clitic se adjoined to AUXP or AUX'; thus, this is a second
variety of V-fronting used to satisfy requirements of clitics. In this period,
clitics are Xmax adjoined to a phrasal projection (Rivero 1986,1990), rather
than heads adjoined to a head (Kayne 1989a), in contrast with Modern
Romance. Thus, the V-H AUX complex can move up to C with no conflict,
leaving the clitic behind. This analysis implies that patterns (21c)-(24)
should share the distribution of the more frequent LHM constructions in
(21a)-(22) too, a correct prediction, äs we will see.
Second, we argue that the OSp pattern with an AUX followed by an
infinitive, and no preposition separating the two, äs in (25a) (and see
Beardsley (1921), Strausbaugh (1933) and Yllera (1980) for inventories of
examples) is equivalent to (25b,c), with a modal or lexical AUX, rather than
a functional one, allowing Xmax preposing for its clausal complement, but
not LHM.
But if (25a) is unrelated to (21a-c), which are syntactic variants of each
other, then it must be concluded that V obligatorily raises in the presence
of a functional AUX in OSp, (a) incorporating to it, äs in (21b)-(23), with
infrequent subsequent movement of this complex to C, äs in (21c)-(24), or,
more often, (b) bypassing it to land in C, äs in (21a)-(22). In this sense too,
the OSp functional AUX contrasts with the lexical AUX permitting verbal
items to remain in situ, a difference already noticed by Hanssen (1913), and
253
is in part similar to Tense Affixes, which trigger incorporation only. Also,
äs shown in (Lema and Rivero 1989b), obligatory V-movement with a
functional AUX separates OSp (and perhaps Old Romance) from
Romanian and Bulgarian which lack incorporation, with the V in situ if
LHM fails to apply.
After this preview of OSp LHM vs. incorporation, we motivate the
outlined analysis, äs follows. In subsection 2.1 clitics äs trigger for LHM are
discussed. Subsection 2.2 establishes LHM äs a root process, and subsection
2.3 contrasts it with incorporation in root constructions. Subsection 2.4
discusses Negation, showing that it is a barrier for LHM, on the basis of
parallel properties of Serbo-Croatian and OSp. Subsection 2.5 contrasts the
modal constructions in (25) with the futures in (21), distinguishing them in
terms of semantics, syntax, and form. Subsection 2.6 locates functional AUX
in TP, triggering obligatory V-movement to AUX or C. Major theoretical
consequences of LHM are outlined in subsection 2.7
2.1. The role of Clitics in LHM
As Menondez Pidal notes (1964), analytic futures/conditionals are found in
contexts where a clitic would surface in sentence initial position if the in situ
synthetic version had been used. In essence, LHM applies äs a last recourse
rule to prevent a violation of the constraint against initial clitics. For this
logic to apply, the clitic in (3)-(21a) must be with the AUX äs Menondez
Pidal assumes without argument, that is, in initial position unless LHM
applies. If the clitic was with the Infinitive (Staaf 1906), there would be no
trigger for the verbal movement. So what is the evidence for clitics äs
triggers for LHM? Rivero (1990:3.3) argues that analytic patterns with more
than an AUX and one V show two exceptionless properties which receive
an explanation if the clitic is attached to the finite AUX.
First, LHM is local, affecting the AUX or V immediately adjacent to the
finite AUX, äs argued in subsection 1.1. For example, in (27a) the
underlying sequence is (a) edes, (b) venir, (c) dezir, or the order in English
You will come to teil me, so the second item moves to C. In (27b) the basic
order is (a) ha, (b) venir, (c) buscar, so venir must raise too.
Second, clitics always precede the finite AUX, even when they originale
in the lower V in situ. For instance, in (27a) me lo are complements oi dezir,
not of venir, and in (27b) te is the object of buscar, and not of venir.
(27)
a. Et venir-me-lo
edes
dezir
and come-to+me-it you+will say
'And you will come to say it to me'
Cal 282
254
(27)
b. Quando esto fizieres, venir- te ha el bien
when
this you+do, come-you will the good
Cal 218
buscar
look-for
Ή you do this, virtue will come to look for you'
These two aspects show that clitics climb to the finite AUX, precede it, and
are not within the initial Infinitive at S-structure, so they trigger LHM of
the second V/AUX. An anonymous reviewer suggests that V-fronting itself
forces proclisis in (27), but the point we are making is that "climbing" of
the clitic to the finite AUX is obligatory in the context of LHM, so that a
VP-Preposing analysis along the lines of present Spanish Leerlo si puedo
'Read it, I can' is not available in (27).
Initial clitics begin to appear in the second part of the 15th Century,
when LHM Starts its decline too.
2.2. Root patterns for LHM
As stated in subsection 1.4, LHM in (21a) is restricted to root contexts, like
Germanic V-second and English Subject-AUX Inversion, since V must
move to an empty C: Will{ she ti give it to you?. Incorporation in (21b) is
unrestricted in this respect, since V raises to a lower position, with no need
for an empty C; but, s expected, incorporation with subsequent movement
to C in (21c) is a root pattern again. This section establishes what counts
a?> a ioot coTiiexi in OSp. Tne aiiierences» οί 1ΜΜ vs. incorporaiion within
root patterns are discussed in subsection 2.3.
In Bulgarian and Romanian, a root context is a matrix or independent
clause, and LHM is ungrammatical in embedded clauses, where V must
remain in situ (Lema and Rivero 1989a,b).
OSp offers a more complex definition of a root environment, resembling
German in part. Here we refer the reader to the extensive literature on V2
in the main Germanic languages (Haider and Prinzhorn 1986 for
references), since embedded contexts for LHM in Old Spanish are similar.
Namely, a root sentence is either (a) an independent clause, (b) a matrix
one, or (c) a clause functioning s complement of a higher CP. In view of
(c), LHM is not only found in independent and matrix clauses, but in
embedded clauses with two CP layers, such s the complements of Vs of
propositional attitude. However, LHM is excluded from clauses unable to
display a two-level structure, such s the temporal type (which does not
disallow conditional/future tenses in the period). In addition, LHM applies
only to provide an initial CP-constituent in the presence of an otherwise
255
clause-initial clitic, thus it is not found in questions (direct or indirect), or
relatives, since the Wz-phrase in Spec-of-CP provides the necessary
constituent, or the complementizer in C prevents V from raising.
Since the infrequent V-to-AUX-to-C Option in the future (21c)-(24), or
the parallel conditional aver+ien in (28), is found in matrix or independent
clauses only, it will no longer be discussed:
(28)
Ca de fierro serie
muy grieve de fazer &
since of iron would-f be very hard to do and
Ast 25vl8
muy pessada & avrien
le
much a menudo de toller
very heavy and have+would to+it very to take
the rust
la orin della
from-i-i t
'Since it would be very heavy and hard to make it in iron, and they
would have to remove rust from it very often'
Therefore, the usual Option for a complement clause, (29a), and the only
one for an indirect question, (29b), or relative, (29c), is incorporation of V
to AUX, forming the synthetic complex, since V-raising must apply in the
presence of a functional AUX.
(29)
a. Dixieron ellos que lo far- ian de buena mente
said
they that it do-would of good will
They said that they would do it with good will'
h. Ver<§
sisemover-ä a sana o como me
I+will+see if SE move-will to rage or how me
Zif 93
Zif 130
responder-ä
answer-will
will see if he gets angry and how he will answer me'
c. Yo te dare
buen consejo con que los
Cor 70
I you give+will good advice with which them
sobrar-äs
surpass-will
will give you good advice to surpass them'
However, the frequent embedded (29a) alternates with the infrequent
embedded (30) throughout the relevant period. We hypothesize that (30)
has two CP-levels: the upper one contains C with que, followed by a Topic
Phrase, and the lower CP has LHM of the non-finite V to C, äs in (30c).
Thus, LHM in complement clauses is found with those Vs which allow the
256
frequent OSp embedded Left Dislocation, with a Topic with a C on each
side. V moves to the lower C because the clitic cannot be initial in its
minimal CP.
(30)
a. Et sabudo es q<ue> quando passaren .cvj.
and known is that
when pass
106
Alb 18vl4
annos adelantrar se ä la hora de revolucion
years advance SE will the hour of revolution
'And it is known that when 106 years pass, the hour of the
revolution will advance'
b. Et dixo Dios que quien se desviase del
bien,
Zif 27
and said God that who SE deviate from+the good
desviar-se ha el bien de 61
deviate-SE will the good from him
And God said: 'Whoever distances himself from virtue, virtue
will abandon'
c.
CP
TOPP
que
TOP
quando passaren C
.cvj. annos
V;
se a /j
la hora
de revolucion
In addition, consecutive clauses with a que 'that' equivalent to an et 'and'
may allow LHM, äs in (31a) which contrasts minimally with (31b). (Adams
1987 reports V2 phenomena in Old French consecutives too). These
patterns are infrequent but not isolated. We assume that consecutive que,
like et, is external to the CP, so that LHM proceeds to fill the vacant C
position, äs before. Under this view, consecutives are conjoined or
independent clauses, not embedded ones. In (31a) dar moves to the C right
of que, much like the Infinitive in (31b) moves to a C following et, an
extremely frequent pattern. Notice in passing that the scribe writes the
LHM complex äs a three word sequence in (a), or the two word sequences
venir ta and dartelo a, with the clitic with the AUX or the Infinitive, or the
one word yr-s- with all three items blended in (b), exhausting almost all
imaginable spelling conventions.
257
(31)
a. Et demandal lo que quisieres que dar telo
Pic33v32
and ask+him
what you+want that give to-i-you-it
ä
will
'And ask him what you wish that he will give it to you'
b. Et venir tä
luego su mensaiero sobre
Pic 32r23
and come to-t you-will after his inessanger on
un cavallo et därtelo
ä et yrsä
a horse and give-it-to+you will and go-SE-will
'And after his messenger will come to you on a horse'
Finally, the most modern text examined for this paper, the Corbacho written
in 1438, contains one isolated consecutive-like relative that could fit the
pattern in (31), äs non-restrictive, or, alternatively, be the first Symptom of
decline of the formal properties of LHM. Also, it could be that (32) shows
an early use of lexical modal hemos *we must', in Substitution of medieval
modal avemos, äs discussed in subsection 2.5, with phrasal preposing rather
than LHM.
(32)
Pero quion es 6ste que loarle
hemos
but who is this that praise-fhim we-fwill
'But who is this, that we must praise him?'
Cor 178
To summarize, LHM is a root pattern with the non-finite V moving to the
only empty C of matrix and independent clauses, or to the inferior empty
C of a two-layered CP complementing a V of propositional attitude.
2.3. LHM vs. Incorporation in root clauses
In root contexts, LHM äs in (21a)-(22) applies if (a) no CP-constituent
precedes the potentially initial clitic äs discussed in this section, and (b) no
barrier intervenes between the extraction site and the landing site C, äs
discussed in 2.4. The same conditions hold for the infrequent
V-to-AUX-to-C in (21c)-(24), and enclisis with simple tenses in (26) too,
since they share movement of a verbal-like head to the head of CP, the
relevant aspect for this purpose.
For LHM, a functional AUX does not project a barrier, and can be
bypassed, äs seen in the previous discussion. In 2.4 it is argued that NEGP
induces a barrier for LHM, V-to-AUX-to-C, and Inversion in simple tenses,
making these frontings impossible. Leaving negation to the next section, if
258
a CP-internal constituent precedes the clitic, incorporation or a synthetic
form along the lines of (21b)-(23)—the V-complex no higher than I—is the
only Option, äs V-raising must occur. In this environment, the V
complementing the functional AUX remains in situ in Serbo-Croatian (or
Bulgarian), which lacks incorporation. For instance, in a direct question, the
exceptionless options are a synthetic complex with the functional AUX,
(33), and the word order where the clitic precedes the finite V in a simple
tense, äs in (34). In the first case, poder or contradezir do not bypass the
AUX to reach C, and patterns like Como poder lo he catar? are unattested,
and predicted to be ungrammatical in our analysis. In the second case, the
complex V+T+Agr mato 'killed' does not raise to C, and patterns like
Quien mato lo? are never found, äs often noted in the Romance literature;
also, Quien matara lo? is not attested for the same reason, äs it would
involve incorporation ofmatar into future AUX, followed by movement of
this complex to C.
(33)
a. Como lo podr-e
catar?
how him be+able-will look?
'How will I be able to look at him?'
b. Quion le contradir-ä
a lo que bien o mal
who him contradict-will to what well or bad
Zif 74
Cor 103
fiziere?
does
'Who will contradict him in what he does well or badly?'
(34)
B quten lo maio?
and who him killed?
'And who killed him?'
Zif 85
Notice that the syntactic alternation between analytic, or LHM, and
synthetic, or incorporated, futures eliminates an analysis with future AUX
äs specifier of the VP with the Infinitive: [VP AUXP [v> V0]]. Rather, the
AUX must be the dominating head with VP äs complement, so that V can
incorporate into it by "short" Head-to-Head Movement, when LHM cannot
apply.
Non-embedded left-dislocations have the properties seen in embedded
contexts too. Their Topic phrase is above CP (äs in Chomsky 1977 for
English, and Rivero 1986 for OSp, among others), and are therefore too
high a constituent to license a clitic in AUX/I. Thus, LHM applies, äs in
(35a), moving the Inf menguar to the C following the initial Topic, or the
simple tense complex acomjendo raises to this same position, (35b), in
rather common patterns.
259
(35)
a. Lo que fuere dello menguar-lo s
Alb 3v67
that which were of+it diminish- it you+will
'Whatever comes out from it, you will make it smaller'
b. Mi cuerpo i mj alma acomjendo-lo a ti
SME 1325
my body and my sould entrust-it
to you
'My body and my soul, I entrust them to you'
Preverbal NPs relating to subjects have two different treatments. If
considered s Dislocated NPs external to CP, they appear with LHM, (36a)
with yo in TOP and dar in C, or enclisis in the simple tense, with metio in
(36b) in C. If internal to CP, perhaps in Spec-of-IP, they license the clitic
and can appear with a synthetic form in I, (37a), or proclisis with the simple
tense in situ, (37b). These variations are not restricted to pronouns. Also,
some examples of Left Dislocations patterning like (37a,b), presumably with
the initial phrase s Focus and not Topic, are found.
(36)
(37)
a. E yo dar-les
he bestias
and I give-them will animals
'And I will give them animals'
b. Et el metio- los en ello
and he placed-them in it
'And he placed them in it'
a. Yo vos guiar-έ
I you guide-will
Ί will guide you'
b. Yoloso
bien
I it know well
Ί know it well'
Zif 176
DLE 152
Zif 93
Zif 92
Since the similarity between finite V-movement to C and LHM is now clear,
we concentrate on LHM at this point. Fronted NPs or PPs with no
resumptive clitic, s opposed to Left Dislocations, usually appear with
incorporation, and not LHM. In our terms, these initial phrases are internal
to CP, or focalized, that is in Spec-of-CP or adjoined to IP, making LHM
unnecessary, so V remains in I. Less frequently, an initial PP occurs with
LHM.
(38)
a. Otra
razon te dir-έ
another reason you say-I+will
Ί will teil you another reason'
Cor 251
260
(38)
b. Enxemplos te dar-ia
mill
examples you give-I+would thousand
'Examples, I would give you a thousand'
c. De otros muchos falsos bygardos te dir-ia
of other many false hypocrites you tell-I+would
would teil you about many other false hypocrites'
Cor 238
Cor 242
The observation of the ambiguous effect of conjunctions like et 'and', o Or',
ca 'thus', mas, empero and pero 'but' on Old Romance clitic position dates
back to the Neogrammarians, and is due to their double syntactic analysis.
(a) If they connect CPs, they are external constituents which are not
computed to satisfy the requirement of clitics: [CP CP et CP]. (b) If they
conjoin constituents within CP, such äs two IPs, they are internal in the
relevant sense, counting äs the first constituent in the minimal CP of the
clitic. In the first case, OSp LHM applies to provide the initial constituent
in CP, äs in the second conjunct in (39a), the preferred Option if the
sentences are clearly matrix or independent clauses (äs noticed by Ramsden
(1963) for V+ CL Orders in simple tenses too). In the second case, V
incorporates to AUX/I, äs in the less frequent alternative in (39b).
(39)
a. Yo te dexar-e e dar- te he
de mano
I you leave-will and give-you I+will of hand
will leave you and set you free'
b. Que se faga de todo en todo, e se complir-ä
that SE do of all in all, and SE happen-will
Zif 236
Zif 108
\o que 6\ qxn&icic
what he wants
'Let it be done completely, and what he wants will happen'
Finally, Adverbs and phrases in initial position establishing a connection
with the previous discourse, among others, may be analyzed äs external to
CP, and require LHM. Some of the OSp phrases used for this purpose are
desi 'thus', äs in (40a), and depues 'afterwards', äs in (40b), or entonces
'then', and por ende 'in consequence':
(40)
a. Pues, guarda tu el asno; desi venir-me he
but, keep you the donkey; thus come-me I+will
para ti
for you
'You keep the donkey, and I will come to you'
Cal 261
261
(40)
b. Depuos tornar -äs
assu logar
after
return it-you+will to+its place
'Afterwards, you will put it back in its place*
Pic32r21-3
To summarize, the root process of LHM applies to provide a first
constituent in CP. Elements external to CP are not computed to license
clitics, so LHM applies in their context. Items internal to CP are computed,
so LHM does not apply, and incorporation is found instead, äs V must raise
if there is a functional AUX. NP Subjects, and conjunctions are open to two
analyses; they can be CP-external items, correlating with LHM, or internal,
with incorporation. As a result, the distribution of LHM and of simple
tenses with the clitic following the verbal complex is parallel.
2.4. Negation in Incorporation vs. LHM
Traditional grammarians note that LHM is not possible in negated contexts.
As discussed in subsection 1.2, this aspect separates LHM from
VP-Preposing radically.
In languages with no incorporation such äs Romanian and Bulgarian
(Lema and Rivero 1989b) or Serbo-Croatian, V remains in situ in the
presence of Neg. In OSp, such an Option is not avaiiable, so V incorporates
into AUX, äs in podrwould be able' in (41). Patterns such äs Non
poder vos los dezir and its variants are unattested, and we will argue that
they had to be äs ungrammatical äs their Romanian and Bulgarian
counterparts are today.
(41)
Et non vos lo podr- ia
entramos dezir en
and not you it be+able-I+would together say in
Cor 164
uno
one
'And I could not teil both to you at once'
Adopting analyses for NEG in Chomsky (1988), Kayne (1989a), Kitagawa
(1986), Lema and Rivero (1989a,b), Pollock (1989), and Zanuttini (1989),
we see non äs a barrier in LHM constructions because it is the intervening
head of NEGP between TP/AUXP and CP, which prevents V from reaching
C in the structure in (42). Also No mato lo 'He did not kill him' and No
matara lo are unattested because they would involve movement to C of a
finite V or a V+AUX incorporation across Neg too.
262
(42)
CP
C
NEOP
/\
NEG AUXP
/\
AUX W
If non does not intervene in the movement path, äs in (43), LHM applies.
We consider the relevant portion of (43) a consecutive clause with non mas
*no more' äs adverbial in Topic position, so that atrever raises to C, äs
shown in (44).
(43)
E digo-te,
sefior, verdaderamente, que en lugares
and I+say-you, sir, truly,
that in places
Zif 166
nos fizo entrar con 61 su esfuer^o que si do dos mill
us made enter with the his effort
that if two
thousand
cavalleros toviese, non mäs atrever-me ia
a entrar
knights I+had, no more dare-me I+would to enter
'And I truly say to you, sir, that he made us go into such places with
his courage, that even if I had two thousand knights I would not
dare enter any more'
(44)
TOPP
atreverj
me ia ti a entrar
But it could be argued that non counts äs the first constituent in CP in (41)
and similar patterns, so LHM does not apply, whether NEGP is a barrier
to Head-Movement or not. However, LHM combined with Interpolation,
which OSp shares with Serbo-Croatian, shows that this (traditional)
explanation is insufficient.
First, notice that Romanian LHM provides a first argument for Neg äs
head blocking the process. As noted in Rivero (1988), Romanian LHM does
not apply to satisfy WackernagePs effects for clitics, which can be initial, äs
in (45a). Instead, LHM applies for an illocutionary effect like English
263
Subject-AUX Inversion, s in (45b), which is either a question or an
exclamation. Still, LHM is impossible in the presence of Neg, s the
contrast in (46a,b) shows.
(45)
a. Romanian: Mi-va spune
me-will teil
'He will teil me'
b.
Spune-mi-va?/!
tell-me-will
4
Will he teil me?/!'
(Lombard 1974:130)
(46)
a. Nu mi va spune
not me will teil
'He will not teil me'
b. *Spune nu mi va
Second, consider Interpolation, with clitics separated from V or AUX by
intervening material. It existed in OSp (Chenery 1905, Ramsden 1963,
Rivero 1986, 1990), and is a hallmark of Serbo-Croatian, a language
combining LHM with all the relevant properties, and clitics in second
position in the clause. In this respect, contrast the direct questions in (47);
in OSp (47a), the clitics me lo are next to the ννΛ-phrase and before non. In
Serbo-Croatian (47b), the clitic im follows the first ννΛ-phrase, s discussed
by Rudin (1988:462), source of this particular example:
(47)
a. Senor, por quo me lo non dices?
Sir,
why
me it not say?
'Sir, why don't you say it to me?'
b. Koliko
im
ko daje?
how-much to+them who gives?
'Who gives them how much?'
Cal 284
Rivero (1986, 1990) argues that clitics in (47a) adjoin to the maximal
projection complementing CP, that is NEGP given our analysis of Neg.
Likewise, Rudin (1988) suggests that the clitic in (47b) adjoins to IP, with
the first Wz-phrase in the Spec-of-CP, and the second within IP.
If clitics can appear higher than Neg in both languages, s in (47a) or
(48), is LHM an Option to provide a first constituent in CP in such a Situation? The answer is negative, proving that Neg cannot be crossed by V, even
when it is not the first constituent in the clause. To this effect, consider the
Serbo-Croatian perfect in (48), with (48b) showing LHM ofpredstavio over
the clitic sequence sam mu se, since the functional AUX is a clitic too.
264
(48)
a. Ja sam mu
se
predstavio
I have to+him myself introduced
have introduced myself to him'
b. Predstavio sam mu se
The negated version of (48a) has the pronominal clitics before Neg, and the
AUX follows it, äs in (49a). If the null subject Option was chosen, parallel
to (48b), the pronominal clitics would remain initial, which is impossible.
Still, äs shown in (49b), LHM gives ungrammatical results in this
environment, so it is not an Option because NEGP induces a barrier for
Head-Movement, äs argued.
(49)
a. Ja mu
se
ni-sam predstavio
I to+him myself not-have introduced
have not introduced myself to him'
b. *Predstavio mu se ni-sam
The same formal Situation could also arise in OSp, since clitic Interpolation
occurred most frequently with non. As expected, OSp analytic futures and
conditionals formed on the model of (49b) are not attested, and, in our
account, they are ungrammatical because of the barrier effect of NEGP.
However, they can be easily constructed: *Presentar vos le non hedes 'You
will not introduce yourself to him'. Interpolation locates vos le higher than
non, äs in (47a), and LHM places the Infinitive in C to provide support for
these clitics, äs in (49b), crossing a barrier. Also, since functional AUX
disallow VP-Preposing, it is not possible to analyze this constructed pattern
with \presentar vos le] äs fronted VP, even though old clitics are Xmax and
can be treated äs complements of V (Rivero 1986).
In brief, NEGP is a barrier for LHM, irrespective of whether Neg can
count äs the first item in CP.
2.5. Future AUX vs. modal aver
We contend that the patterns in (25) or (50) are modal, with the lexical
AUX of Obligation, and that they are unrelated to the futures in (22), with
a functional AUX instead. If (50) is not the counterpart with V in situ of
analytic and synthetic futures with raised V, it follows that V-raising must
apply with a functional AUX, äs already stated. Under this view, it is crucial
to motivate the distinctness of (25) and (50) vs. (22).
265
(50)
El Campeador a los que han
lidiar tan
the Cid
to those who have to/must fight also
Cid 3523
bien los castigo
them
admonished
'The Cid also punished those who had to fight'
Three arguments motivate our hypothesis. The first is semantic, and
borrowed from Rossi (1975), the second is morphophonological, and the
third is syntactic.
First, Rossi (1975:401-402) notes that patterns like (50) have an
obligative character absent in futures of type (22) for the medieval translator
of the OSp biblical text she examines. Thus, Latin active periphrastic
constructions like those in (51a), are regularly translated into OSp by aver
+ infinitive äs in (51b). Mso,fiiturus-a-um + esse always translates äs aver
de seer 'to have to be' in the pair (51c,d).
(51)
a. Audite quoniam de rebus magnis locufura sum
b. Ascuchat, ca vos e
a fablar grandes cosas
listen,
since you I+have to teil big
things
'Listen, since I have to teil you important things'
c. Quid est quod fuit? Ipsum quod futurum est
d. Quäl es lo que fue? Aquello que a de seer
what is what was? that
which has to be
Prov 8:6
Ecl 1:9
By contrast, Rossi finds no semantic distinction between the syntactic
variants of the futures of type (22). She ieels m'mor aspeciual and modal
differences between some analytic and synthetic patterns, and äs native
Speakers of MSp we feel them too. However, she is careful not to transfer
these intuitions to the medieval system, since they do not correlate with the
use of the forms in the text itself. In our view, her conclusion receives
support from our demonstration that syntactic factors account for the
variations in (22).
The second aspect distinguishing the functional future AUX and the
modal of Obligation is their different phonological form in the first and
second person plural persons (äs noted in Rivero 1989).
On the one hand, the short emos/edes 'we/you will' Signal the functional
future AUX, with no exception until LHM dies. This is known, and
sometimes interpreted äs indication that such forms are affixes (Valesio
1968), which is not the view of Menondez Pidal (1964). Notice that it is
difficult to understand how the "affix" survives äs the MSp modal/perfect
hemos (hemos cantado and hemos de cantaf), especially in view of our next
comments.
266
On the other hand, the OSp long avemoslavedes 'we/you have to' signal
unexceptionally the modal of Obligation, or lexical AUX, up to the 15th
Century (and these are the perfect forms too). The tradition is that emos vs.
avemos and edes/eis vs. avedes/aveis may alternate äs medieval modals,
because Menondez Pidal (1964:88.2) cites the post-medieval eis de dar 'you
have to give' and heis de estar *you have to be', without noting the absence
of such patterns before the 16th Century. The fact that such distinctions are
foreign to the modern Castilian Speaker, who retains short hemos for first
person, and long habeis for second person for all situations, has no doubt
contributed to the philological confusion. As a result, it has remained
unnoticed that OSp up to the 15th Century never departs from formulas of
the type avemoslavedes ({a/de}) cantar in modal constructions, äs in (52),
even with no P, äs in (52c).
(52)
a. No la avedes
a meter vos
OLE 31 (1236)
not it you+have to put you
'You do not have to put it in*
b. Allf en la cabeza avemos a ferir primeramente Zif 93
there in the head we+have to wound first
'We have to hit the head first'
c. Atanto mäs le avedes
aver reverengia
Zif 249
so+much more him you+have have respect
have to respect him so much more'
d. Avedes a morir
Luc 193
you+have to die
*You have to die*
In brief, OSp distinguished functional and lexical AUX not only in meaning,
but in shape.
Third, modal aver licenses Xmax-Preposing, and not LHM. Remember
that other modals allow VP-Preposing, äs discussed in subsection 1.3. Under
the assumption that modal aver takes a CP-complement with the P a/de in
C, (53) shows fronting of this clause, within a non-root context, a second
difference with LHM (and notice the long form avemos). Naturally,
Preposing need not apply, äs in (52).
(53)
a. Pues que [a- dexar] auemos fijas
del
since that [to-leave] we+have daughters of
Campeador
Cid
'Since we have to abandon the Cid's daughters'
Cid 2661
267
(53)
b. Pues que [a fazer] lo auemos
given that [to do] it we+have
'Since we have to do it'
Cid 2220
Finally, unlike future AUX, modal AUX appears inflected for Tense,
allowing Xmax-Preposing in such contexts too:
(54)
a. Si [guiar] se
oviesen
por este
if [guide] themselves they+would+have by this
Zif 90
cavallero
knight
'If they would have to let themselves be guided by this knight'
b. Pues que [a yrse]
avian
Luc 59
given that [to go+themselves] they+had
'Since they had to leave'
In conclusion, semantics, syntax, and morphophonology separate (25) from
(22) in OSp, so futures are unrelated to modal obligative constructions.
2.6. The location of OSp fimctional AUX
We have established not only that a) V (or another AUX) must raise in the
presence of a functional AUX in OSp, while lexical AUX do not trigger
obligatory movement, but also that (b) functional AUX are not inflected for
Tcnsc and Mood, uivlike lexical AUX. Essentially, functional AUX are
independent forms whose intrinsic content is future (elemos) or conditional
(ία/iamos), semantically similar to Affixes for simple tenses.
In consequence, Lema and Rivero (1989b) propose that OSp functional
AUX head TP, s in (55). They also adopt Pollock's idea (1989) that Tense
is an operator which must bind a variable at LF. As a result, when a
functional AUX occupies TP, V-movement must apply obligatorily to create
this variable, but the landing site for V varies: it is C when Wackernagel's
effects need to be satisfied and when LHM is possible. In all other cases V
incorporates to T=AUX. If this proposal is correct, Agreement has no
independent effect on V-movement, irrespective of its relative position in
relation to TP, so it is not represented in (55) (and see latridou 1989 for a
criticism of the role of AGRP in Pollock's proposal, and the Suggestion that
TP and AGRP are not split).
268
(55)
CP
/\
C
TP
/\
AUX VP
V
Other AUX head an AUXP distinct from TP, and raise to T.
2.7. Theoretical consequences ofLHM
LHM violates the Head Movement Constraint (HMC) proposed by Travis
(1984) and adopted by Baker (1985,1988) and Chomsky (1986), which must
be abandoned in favor of the ECP exclusively (Chomsky 1988, Ouhalla
1988, Lema and Rivero 1989a,b). This Situation raises two related issues
requiring future research into the cross-linguistic properties of LHM: (a)
how LHM constructions satisfy the ECP, and (b) the role of Relativized
Minimality in Head Movement, an area where Rizzi thought (1989) the
HMC was sufficient.
The HMC requires that an X° raise to the head directly above it,
forbidding movement over an intervening head. Although a lexical AUX
cannot be bypassed in LHM, a functional AUX can be, showing that the
HMC is too restrictive in the core area of V-movement for which it was
originally designed.
For Travis, üie HMC is inuependem, bul since Head-Movement must
satisfy proper government, Baker and Chomsky derive it from the ECP.
Chomsky (1988:11) assumes that in John has not read the book, has raises
over not, contravening the HMC, a descriptive artifact in his view, but in
compliance with the ECP at LF. Likewise, LHM constructions comply with
the ECP, the essential condition.
Lema and Rivero (1989b) propose two ways in which LHM satisfies the
ECP. On the one hand, the functional AUX Tense-marks the X° below it,
establishing a coindexation relation between the two immediate heads.
When the X° moves to C, an extended chain of coindexation is created
providing proper (antecedent) government for its trace. This extended chain
is interrupted by elements not sharing the Tense-index, such äs the
intervening NEG, or a more deeply embedded AUX or V.
On the other hand, the non-finite X° may move to C bypassing the finite
AUX in syntax, followed by incorporation of the AUX to C in LF, creating
a complex which antecedent-governs the non-finite trace, given Baker's
269
Government Transparency Corollary. The NEG above the AUX or a more
deeply V or AUX Interrupt this government chain too.
In many cases, V-movement seems to comply with the (redundant) HMC
because (a) affixes require morphological support, so they cannot be
bypassed, and (b) intervening heads with -structure such äs the modals
cannot be crossed. Since the functional AUX for future and conditional do
not require morphological support, äs they are not affixes, and are heads
with no -structure unlike lexical AUX, they allow LHM with no conflict.
Since only functional heads can be bypassed in LHM, the proposals in
(Lema and Rivero 1989a,b) have points of contact with those in (Baker and
Haie 1990), who argue that incorporation is possible across functionai heads
only, with X°-movement subject to Relativized Minimality under the
functionalllexical distinction. Both proposals differ from those of Oualla
(1988), who argues for long movement of clitics äs heads over any type of
intervening head, dispensing with the HMC too (but see Trevino 1990 for
a combination of Xmax and X°-movement for clitics in Spanish causatives,
which avoids LHM of the clitic across a lexical head).
However, making X°-movement sensitive to Relativized Minimality
within thefunctional/lexical dichotomy may be sufficient for OSp, which has
only two functional AUX, that never cooccur. However, this Option is
insufficient for LHM in general, for it predicts that several functional AUX
could be bypassed at once, which is not the case. As shown for Bulgarian
in (Lema and Rivero 1989b:2.3), when functional AUX appear in sequence,
only the one which follows the finite AUX undergoes LHM, along the lines
discussed in 1.1; thus, in addition, the finite nature of the functional AUX
äs "Tense-marker" ensures the locality of LHM.
Adopting our LHM analysis, Roberts (1990) proposes that
Head-Movement is sensitive to Relativized Minimality and the A head vs.
-bar head distinction. Oversimpliiying his account, LHM is A-bar
Head-Movement or raising to C, and may cross the A-head complex or
sequence defined by the (dominating) Agr node to which T and AUX raise;
Neg is an -bar head, so LHM cannot cross it. Again, this could be
sufficient for OSp LHM where the item moving to C is an infinitive.
However, äs shown in (Lema and Rivero 1989b:3.1), Bulgarian Agr is
present in each of a series of functional AUX in the shape of Subject
Participle Agr. If this Agr is treated äs a higher head into which an AUX
raises to form the agreeing Participle by A-movement to an A-head, finite
and nonfinite functional AUX could be bypassed in LHM, äs there would
be only A-heads in the path of the long -bar movement to C. But, again,
LHM affects the item below the finite AUX exclusively, suggesting that Agr
with finiteness differs from Agr in non-finite AUX, or that Agr does not
play a crucial role in LHM, äs we concluded. To further classify different
heads äs A and non-A is of course possible, but looks stipulative.
270
In our view, the answer to these theoretical questions cannot be provided
by examining a dead language, and must await the study of different variants
of current LHM, until recently considered an impossible process for UG.
Numerous languages clustered in the Balkans and surrounding areas have
LHM parallel to Old Romance: Albanian, Bulgarian, Czech, Serbo-Croatian,
Slovene, Slovak, Polish, and Romanian.
3. OLD SPANISH PEREFCT CONSTRUCTIONS
Recall that the Romanian perfect (or its Bulgarian counterpart) is a LHM
functional AUX, äs in (56a), disallowing VP-Preposing, äs in (56b).
(56)
a. SpusUj mi-a tj?
told me-has ?
'Has he told me?'
b. *[Citit cartea]
Maria nu a t
[read book+the] Mary not has
'Mary has not read the book'
MSp has no LHM, but its perfect disallows VP-Preposing too, and is not a
Lexical AUX (and this applies to French also), in contrast with Italian
avere, äs noted in subsection 1.3. Therefore, perfects display Variation in
their lexical structure and concomitant syntax in current Romance.
Within the model ofBarriers, with movement limited to X° and Xmax, the
OSp fronted perfects in (4) and (57) could be seen äs instances of
VP-Preposing (Rivero 1989), since they violate the LHM conditions of
section 2. However, the properties of this construction are not those of
VP-Preposing either, so we tentatively propose that they arise from a third
type of V-movement, which does not appear to be language particular. It
affects perhaps neither maximal projections nor heads (Van Riemsdijk
1989), and is similar to fronting in Old French perfects (Dupuis 1989) and
Icelandic Stylistic Fronting (Maling 1980, Platzack 1987, Sigurösson 1989).
Consider the prose root inversions in (57), and other tenses of the
perfect, (58), also found in verse (Cid 1075, 261).
(57)
a. [Confondido] me has
la vida
[confused]
me you+have the life
'You have confused my life'
b. Esto [oido] lo he
this [heard] it I+have
have heard this'
Cal 297
Cal 122
271
(57)
c. Et aquel
que te lo fizo saber [echado] lo
Cal 182
and that+one that you it made know [thrown] it
ha
sobre tu alma
he+has over your soul
'And the one who informed you of it has thrown it on your
shoulders'
(58)
Ca [conbidados] los avia
que fuesen sus
since [invited]
them he+had that they+be his
huospedes ese dia
guests
that day
'Because he had invited them to be his guests that day'
Zif 229
In view of the discussion in section l and section 2, the above constructions
could be open to two different analyses. On the one hand, the Participle äs
head could move to C, äs initial constituent, (57a), or after a TOP in a
dislocation, (57b,c), with the clitic attached to the AUX. On the other hand,
VP-Preposing could apply, with complements scrambled to the right, (57a)
and (57c). However, neither analysis is satisfactory because perfect fronting
lacks the crucial Symptoms of both LHM and VP-Preposing, and yet shares
their less crucial characteristics.
It is implicit in the philological tradition that the inversions in (57)-(58)
are unrelated to analytic futures, äs they do not alternate with synthetic or
incorporated variants. As a result, when discussing the synthetic future äs
emerging from an old OV basic order, a position we do not advocate,
Romanist* *uch. äs Fleischmann (1982) do not consider significant the fact
that inverted perfects are prevalent in Old Romance too, so that synthetic
perfects should be expected.
In our view, the traditional sentiment, which is not a priori self-evident
in view of Romanian, is correct, but has not been motivated. In our terms,
fronting in futures is Head-Movement, providing the basis for incorporation
(=synthesis), while fronting in Old Romance perfects is not, so it does not
lead to the formation of a complex word. We will not provide a detailed
analysis of inverted perfects, but will contrast them with VP-Preposing and
LHM to justify this limited point.
In section l we gave five VP-Preposing properties opposing it to LHM:
(a) the unbounded effect with several AUX in the movement path, (b) the
intervening NEGP, (c) the Lexical AUX, (d)>root and non-root application,
and (e) no essential connection to clitics äs triggers. Inverted perfects show
properties (d) and (e), so this establishes that they do not involve LHM.
However, fronting in perfects is not documented across Neg, it is local, and
the Participle always preposes alone, not with its complement, which is
unlike VP-Preposing. In brief, it seems easier to show what inverted perfects
272
are not rather than what they are, and our data base seems to confirm this
difficulty.
First, in the usual inverted perfect, the locality property is inapplicable,
since Romance perfect AUX is the first in the sequence of auxiliaries. Thus,
in English it can be concluded that have licenses "unbounded"
VP-Preposing in [Read the book] Mary could have t, since modal could
precedes. However, the same test with Romance perfect establishes the
modal, not the perfect, äs the licensing AUX: Sp [Leer el libro Maria] (si)
hapodido t. As a consequence, the apparent locality of LHM obtains, when
the old participle preposes with the Aspectual. In MSp examples such äs
Maria pudo haber leido el libro 4It is possible that Mary had read the book',
the modal precedes the Aspectual, and VP-Preposing is excluded äs
expected: *Leido el libro Maria pudo haber. Perhaps, this pattern would
indicate that OSp perfects invert by means of VP-Preposing, with their
complements scrambled, but we have only found examples of local
movement.
Our data base lacks inverted perfects with NEGP (the type Cantado no
'He had not sung'), and they appear not to have been documented. As
pointed out in section l, VP-Preposing across NEGP is grammatical in
current Italian perfects, leading to the conclusion that avere is lexical, and
suggesting a lack of parallelism between Italian avere and OSp aver. So
fronting in OSp perfects is parallel to LHM in this respect, while Neg is
common in modal VP-Preposing äs we saw.
In Icelandic, Stylistic Fronting may similarly raise a participle across the
perfect AUX. However, in negative sentences, Neg is the element fronted
instead of the participle (Maling 1980); a* a tesuit, Styii&ticfrotvUtvg,uever
applies over Neg. The reason for this may be that the landing site of the
fronted participle is ultimately a specifier (Maling 1980, Platzack 1987 and
later work), and that Neg is an adverb that blocks the movement because
it occupies itself an intervening specifier. For OSp we have assumed, in
contrast, that Neg is a head taking IP äs complement; in principle, if
participle preposing is a phrasal movement it should not be blocked.
On the other hand, inverted perfects may, (58), but need not involve
clitics, (59), so they differ from LHM and are similar to VP-Preposing in
this respect.
(59)
a. [Dicho] auemos las obras delas ymägenes
Pic 18v21
[said] we+have the works of+ the images
'We have spoken about the works of the images'
b. E amigos, yo [dicho] he lo que vos avia a dezir Zif 299
and friends, I [said] have what you I+had to teil
Triends, I have told you what I had to teil you'
273
(59)
c. Ca Ciertamente, si 6stas son vacas, [perdido]
since really,
if these are cows, [lost]
he yo el entendimiento
have I the mind
'Really, if these are cows, I must have lost my mind'
d. Que [oydo] has
como contecio
a
that [heard] you-f have how it+happened to
Luc 176
Cor 148
muchos pasados
many passed
'Because you heard how it happened to many who are dead'
Also, inverted perfects appear in root, (57)-(58), and non-root
environments, (60), including relatives, like VP-Preposing but unlike LHM.
(60)
a. Onde, pues que [dicho] auemos de los veniales,
Set 186
where, given that [told] we-f have of the venial,
conviene
que se diga de los criminales
it+is+convenient that SE speak of the criminal
'Given that we have talked of venial sins,
one must speak of non-venial ones'
b. Alograte que [fecho] me äs
grand bien
Cal 219
rejoice that [made] me you-f have big good
'Rejoice that you have done me a lot of good'
c. Pues 61 confesso que [pagado] lo avia
FA 220, 2
and he confessed that [paid] it he-i-had
'Because he confessed that he had paid if
d. Los que [provado] lo an
Cor 81
the who [proven] it they+have
'The ones who have proven it'
In this respect, Inversion in OSp perfects is similar to Icelandic Stylistic
Fronting (Platzack 1987; Sigurösson 1989), found in embedded and non
embedded clauses alike, äs in (61) provided by C Platzack. Old French has
similar patterns too (Dupuis 1989).
(61)
a. Eg helt
ad kysst hefdu hana margir studentur
I thought that kissed had her many students
thought that many students had kissed her'
b. Keypt hafa bessa bok margir studentur
bought have this book many students
'Many sludents have bought this book'
274
Icelandic Stylistic Fronting is only possible if the subject is not in Spec of
IP (Maling 1980), leading to the proposal that this is the landing site of the
moved item. It is unclear whether this applies to OSp, äs much depends on
the analysis for subject position, a topic beyond the scope of this paper.
Thus, the NPs preceding the inverted perfect in (57d) and (4)=(59b), äs
opposed to yo T in (59c), could be in Spec-of-IP, or in a higher position
such äs the topic. In subsection 2.3 we showed that preverbal subjects have
a double analysis for LHM and finite V-raising to C (=enclisis with simple
tenses), so the issue is complex.
The root/non-root distinction, and the absence of clitics clearly
distinguish the syntax of analytic future/conditionals from inverted perfects,
which cannot be LHM-constructions, but are akin to Stylistic Fronting
constructions in Icelandic.
In conclusion, the OSp perfect is not a functional AUX. However, it
does not display the syntax of a lexical AUX either, even though its form
is the long avemoslavedes exclusively (Rivero 1989), äs in (60a), parallel to
the modal of Obligation seen in subsection 2.5, and never the short
emos/edes of the Functional AUX of the period.
What is it that prevents the perfect AUX from being a functional item
in OSp, and from behaving unlike its modern Romanian counterpart? What
is it that also prevents it from eintering into Head-Movement and
incorporation (=synthesis)? In perspective, this is due to the lexical
structure OSp aver, which still had some of the properties of Italian avere
during the period under examination.
First, up to the 16th Century, ser 'to be' may be used äs the perfect AUX
for intransitives and, especially, Vs of motiotu (62).
(62)
Non me dexistes que por vuestro talante erades
en Zif 338
not me you+told that by your will
you+were in
esta tierras venido?
this lands come?
'Didn't yqu teil me that you had come to this land freely?'
Although perfect aver is the unrestricted AUX for all Vs from the earliest
documents, the waning Aktionsart distinction averlser prevents it from
falling into the functional class while LHM exists.
Second, OSp perfects with aver may show agreement between participle
and object, äs in (58), until after the 15th Century. If, following Kayne's
ideas for French and Italian (1985, 1989b), agreement shows that the
participle is within a small clause, the complements of the OSp perfect
AUX resemble those of Vs of propositional attitude and the obligative
modal while LHM exists.
275
4. CONCLUSION
In this paper we have distinguished three kinds of verbal movement licensed
by different auxiliaries in OSp.
First, VP-Preposing affects an Xmax, is licensed by modals, or lexical
AUX, and shares properties of movement by argument NPs.
Second, Head-Movement is licensed by future and conditional, the
functional AUX, under two syntactic situations. The AUX can be bypassed
in LHM, in contravention of the (redundant) Head Movement Constraint,
but complying with the ECP and Relativized Minimality. Alternatively, V
incorporates into AUX in "short" movement, giving rise to the synthetic
future or conditional. LHM exists in many Southern Slavic and Balkan
languages. However, the alternation between LHM and incorporation is an
(old) Romance characteristic.
Third, perfect fronting has hybrid properties but it is not VP-Preposing,
and crucially, it cannot be short or long Head-Movement, so it does not
give rise to incorporated or synthetic forms, and resembles Icelandic Stylistic
Fronting.
REFERENCES
Alvarez, R., X.L. Regueira, and H. Monteagudo. 1986. Gramatica Galega. Galaxia, Vigo.
Baker, M.C. 1985. Incorporation. A Theoiy of Grammatical Function Changing. PhD
Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Baker, M.C. 1988. Incorporation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Baker, M.C. and K. Haie. 1990. "Relativized Minimality and Pronoun Incorporation".
Linguistic Inquiry 21, 289-97.
Beardsley, W.A. 1921. Infinitive Constructions in Old Spanish. Columbia University Press, New
York.
Benincä, P. 1983-4. "Un'ipotesi sulla sintassi delle lingue romanze medievali". Quademi
Patavini di Linguistica 4, 3-19.
Chenery, W. 1905. "Object Pronouns in Dependent Clauses: a Study of Old Spanish Word
Order". PMLA 20, 1-151.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Bamers. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Chomsky, N. 1988. "Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation". Ms,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Cinque, G. 1989. Types ofA-bar Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Company, C. 1986. "Los futuros en el espanol medieval, sus origenes y su evolucion". Nueva
Revista de Filologta Hispanica 34, 48-107.
Di Sciullo, A-M. and E. Williams. 1987. On the Definition of Word. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Dupuis, F. 1989. L'expression du sujet dans les subordonnees en ancien franqais. PhD.
Dissertation, University of Montreal.
Fleischmann, S. 1982. The Future in Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
276
Haider, H. and M. Prinzhorn. 1986. V-second Phenomena in Germanic Languages. Reidel,
Dordrecht.
Haie, K. and S.-J. Keyser. 1986. "Some Transitivity Alternations in English". Lexicon Project
Working Papers 7. Centre for Cognitive Science. Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge.
Hanssen, F. 1913, [1966]. Gramatica historica de la lengua castellana. Paris,
latridou, S. 1990. "About AgrP". Linguistic Inquiry 21, 551-76.
Kayne, R. 1985. "L'accord du participe passo en fran9ais et en Italien". Modales Linguistiques
VII, 73-90.
Kayne, R. 1989a. "Null Subjects and Clitic Climbing". In O. Jaeggli and K. Safir (ed.) The Null
Subject Parameter, 239-61. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Kayne, R. 1989b. "Facets of Past Participle Agreement". In P. Benincä (ed.) Dialect Variation
and the Theory ofGrammar, 85-103. Foris, Dordrecht.
Kitagawa, Y. 1986. Subjects in Japanese and English. PhD. Dissertation, University of
Massachusetts, Amtierst.
Koster, J. 1987. Domains and Dynasties. Foris, Dordrecht.
Lema, J. 1989. "Morphologization of the Spanish Future and Conditional: Synchrony and
Diachrony". Ms, University of Ottawa.
Lema, J. and M.-L. Rivero. 1989a. "Inverted Conjugations and Verb-second Effects in
Romance", to appear in C. Laeufer and T. Morgan (eds.) Theoretical Analyses in
Contemporary Romance Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Lema, J. and M.-L. Rivero. 1989b. "Long Head Movement: ECP vs HMC". Proceedings of the
twentieth NELS. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Lombard, A 1974. La langue roumaine. Klincksieck, Paris.
Maling, J. 1980. "Inversion in Embedded Clauses in Modern Icelandic". Islensktmalogalmenn
malfraedi 2, 176-93.
Menondez-Pidal, R. 1964. Cantar de Mio Cid: texto, gramatica y vocabulario. 3 vols. 4th ed.
Espasa-Calpe, Madrid.
Ouhalla, J. 1988. The Syntax ofVerb Movement, a Study of Berber. PhD. Dissertation, School of
Oriental and African Studies. London.
Plann, S. 1982. "Indirect Questions in Spanish". Linguistic Inquiry 13, 297-312.
Platzack, C. 1987. "The Scandinavian languages and the Null-Subject Parameter". Natural
Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 377-401.
Pollock, J.-Y. 1989. "Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP". Linguistic
Inquiry 20, 365-424.
Ramsden, H. 1963. Weak-pronoun Position in fhe Earfy Romance Languages. University Press,
Manchester.
Rivero, M.-L. 1986. "Parameters in the Tfypology of Clitics in Romance and Old Spanish".
Language 64, 774-807.
Rivero, M.-L. 1988. "The Structure of IP and V-movement in the Languages of the Balkans."
Ms, University of Ottawa.
Rivero, M.-L. 1989. "Estructura flexional y movimiento(s) de verbo: Futuros, condicionales y
perfectos en rumano y espanol medieval". To appear in the Proceedings of the 19th
International Congressof Romance Linguistics and Philology, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Rivero, M.-L. 1990. "Clitic and NP Climbing in Old Spanish". To appear in H. Campos and
F. Martinez Gil (eds.) Current Studies in Spanish Linguistics. Georgetown University Press,
Washington.
Rizzi, L. Relativized Minimality. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massschusetts.
Roberts, 1.1990. Verbs and Diachronie Syntax. In preparation.
ROSS, J.R. 1986. "Inner Islands". BLS 10, 258-65.
277
Rossi, T. M. 1975. "Formas de futuro en un romanceamiento biblico del siglo XIII". Zeitschrift
für Romanische Philologie 91, 386-402.
Rouveret, A. " Cliticiza^ao e Tempo no PortuguSs Europeu". Cademos de Estudos Linguisticos
17, 9-37.
Rudin, C. 1988. "On Multiple Questions and Multiple Wh-fronting". Natural Language and
Linguistic Theory 6, 445-501.
Salvi, G. 1980. "Gli Ausiliari 'Essere' e 'Avere' in Italiano". Acta Linguistica Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae 30, 137-162.
Salvi, G. 1982. "Sulla storia sintattica della costruzione romanza habeo+participio". Revue
Romane 17, 118-33.
Salvi, G. 1987. "Syntactic Restructuring in the Evolution of Romance Auxiliaries". In M.
Harris and P. Ramat (eds.) Historical Development of Awaliaries. Mouton de Gruyter,
Berlin.
Sigurösson, H. A. 1989. Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic, PhD. Dissertation, University of
Lund, Lund.
Staaf, E. 1906. Etüde sur les pronoms abreges en ancien espagnol. Uppsala, Lundstrom.
Strausbaugh, J.A. 1933. The Use ofAver a andAver de äs Awdliary Verbs in Old Spanishfrom
the Earliest Texts to the End of the Thirteenth Century. PhD. Dissertation, University of
Chicago, Chicago 111.
Thielmann, P. 1885. "Habere mit dem Infinitiv und die Enstehung des romanischen Futurums".
Archiv für lateinische Lexicographie und Grammatik 2, 48-69 and 157-202.
Travis, L. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD. Dissertation,
Massachusets Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Trevino, E. 1990. "Noncanonical Subjects in Causative and Psych-Verb Constructions". Paper
read at the 20 Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Ottawa.
Uriagereka, J. 1988. On Government. PhD. Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Riemsdijk, H. Van 1989. "Movement and Regeneration". In P. Benincä (ed.) Dialect Variation
and the Theory ofGrammar. Foris, Dordrecht.
Valesio, P. 1968. "The Romance Synthetic Future Pattern and its First Attestations". Lingua
20, 113-61 and 279-307.
Webelhuth, G. 1985. "German is Configurational". The Lin&tistic Review 4, 203-46.
Yllera, A. 1980. Sintaxis historica del verbo espanol: las perifrasis medievales. Departamento de
Filologia Francesa, Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza.
Zagona, K. 1988. Verb Phrase Syntax. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Zanuttini, R. 1989. "Two Types of Negative Markers". North Eastem Linguistic Society 20.
Proceedings of the twentieth NELS. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
ABBREVIATIONS AND OLD SPANISH TEXTS.
Alb,
B Loor,
B S Dom,
B S Or,
Cal,
Canones de Albateni. In Concordances.
Gonzalo de Berceo. Los loores de Nuestra Senora. In B. Dutton (ed.) Los himnos.
Los loores de Nuestra Senora. Los signos del juicio final. London: Tamesis,
1975.
Gonzalo de Berceo. In B. Dutton (ed.) La vida de Santo Domingo de Silos.
London: Tamesis, 1978.
Gonzalo de Berceo, Vida de Santa Oria. In C. Marden (ed.) Cuatro poemas de
Berceo. Madrid: RFE, 1928.
Calila e Dimna. J. Manuel (ed.) Cacho Blecua and Maria Jesus Lacarra. Madrid:
Castalia, 1984.
278
Cid,
Cantar de Mio Cid. Ramon Menondez Pidal (ed.) 4th ed. Madrid: Espasa
Calpe, 1964.
Concordances and Texts ofthe Royal Scriptorium Manuscnpts ofAlfonso X, el Sabio. Lloyd A.
Kasten and John Nitti (eds.) Madison, Wisconsin: Hispanic Seminary of
Medieval Studies 1978.
Cor,
Alfonso Martinez de Toledo, Arcipreste de Talaver a o Corbacho. Jos6
Gonzalez Muela (ed.). Madrid: Castalia, 1970.
FA,
Los fueros de Aragon. Gunnar Tilander (ed.). Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1937.
/MI,
Aly Aben Ragel, El libro conplido en los iudizios de las estrellas. Gerold Hilty
(ed.). Madrid: Real Academia Espanola, 1954.
Luc,
Juan Manuel. El conde Lucanor. Jose" Manuel Blecua (ed.). Madrid: Castalia,
1984.
Pic,
Picatrix. In Concordances.
Por,
Pondat de las pondades. Lloyd A. Kasten (ed.). Madrid: CSIC, 1957.
Set,
Alfonso el Sabio, Setenario. Kenneth Vanderford (ed.). Buenos Aires: Institute
de Filologia, 1945. 1984 reprint. Barcelona: Editorial Crftica.
SME,
La vida de Santa Maria Egipdaca. Maria Angeles Andr£s Castellanos (ed.).
Madrid: Real Academia Espanola, 1964.
Zif,
Libro del caballero Zifar. Jose" Gonzalez Muela (ed.). Madrid: Castalia, 1982.