[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.One way of thinking of this is to suppose that AUX and Tare syncretised (i.e.collapsed into a single T head) in structures in which there is no constituentintervening between the two.By contrast, non-finite auxiliaries (e.g.like be in He may be lying or Heseems to be lying) always occupy the head AUX position of AUXP and never move into T.5.7 Another look at NegationIn §5.4 and §5.5 we assumed that the negative particle not is a VP-specifier which occupiesinitial position within VP.However, this assumption is problematic in a number of respects, as should beapparent if you look back at (38/40/42/44/46b) in §5.6.For example, in a sentence such as (37a) She maynot be enjoying syntax, it is clear that not does not occupy a VP-initial position immediately in front of theverb enjoying: on the contrary, not appears to occupy some position between the modal auxiliary may andthe aspectual auxiliary be as shown in (38a).Moreover, we shall argue in chapter 7 that only anargument of a verb can occupy the specifier position within VP and not in a negative sentence like Shemay not sell it is not an argument of the verb sell (because not isn t one of the participants in the act ofselling).It is clear, therefore, that we need to rethink our earlier analysis of negation.One alternativeanalysis which has been proposed in work dating back to Pollock (1989) is that not is contained within aseparate NEGP/Negation Phrase projection, and that not serves as the specifier of NEGP (and hence ispositioned in spec-NEGP): this has subsequently become a standard analysis of negation.(See Ingham2000 for evidence of a NEGP constituent in Late Middle English; and see Haegeman 1995 for a wide-ranging account of the syntax of negation.)Such an analysis is far from implausible from a historical perspective: in earlier varieties of English,sentences containing not also contained the negative particle ne (with ne arguably serving as the headNEG constituent of NEGP and not as its specifier).This can be illustrated by the following MiddleEnglish example taken from Chaucer s Wife of Bath s Tale:(49) A lord in his houshold ne hath nat every vessel al of gold (lines 99-100) A lord in his household does not have all his vessels made entirely of goldA plausible analysis of a sentence like (49) is to suppose that ne originates as the head NEG constituent of 121NEGP, with nat (= not ) as its specifier: the verb hath originates in the head V position of VP and fromthere moves to the head NEG position of NEGP, attaching to the negative prefix ne to form the complexhead ne+hath as shown in simplified form in (50) below:(50) [NEGP nat [NEG ne+hath] [VP [V hath] every vessel al of gold]]The resulting complex head ne+hath then attaches to a present-tense affix Tns in T, as shown in simplified(and abbreviated) form in (51) below:(51) [TP A lord.[T ne+hath+Tns] [NEGP nat [NEG ne+hath] [VP [V hath] every vessel al of gold]]]Merger of the TP in (51) with a null declarative complementiser will derive the CP structure associatedwith (49) A lord in his houshold ne hath nat every vessel al of gold.By Shakespeare s time, ne had dropped out of use, leaving the head NEG position of NEGP null (justas in ne.pas not&.at.all negatives in present-day French, ne has dropped out of use in colloquial styles).Positing that not in Elizabethan English is the specifier of a NEGP headed by a null NEG constituentopens up the possibility that V moves through NEG into T, so that (24a) I care not for her has thederivation shown (in simplified form) in (52) below:(52) CPC TPøPRN T 'IT NEGPcareADV NEG'notNEG VPcareV PPcare for herThis would mean that head movement applies in a successive-cyclic (two-step) fashion.Each of the twohead movement operations in (52) viz movement of care from V to NEG, and then from NEG to T islocal in the sense that it satisfies the Head Movement Constraint (31), since in each case movement isfrom one head position into the next highest head position in the structure
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]