Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem • Mini-course • 11–12 January ...

Marcel den Dikken — Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem — Mini-course 2013 — The syntax of adpositional phrases
8
the judgements for (25a) and (25c) are clear: the former is perfect, and the latter is good only with
focus on the FQ, as previously
my judgement for (25b) is not perfectly crisp, but it strikes me as acceptable
[(25d) sounds pretty horrid, but it is hard to say whether this is due to grammatical or extragrammatical
causes (so I leave the diacritic for this sentence undecided): (25d) really is pushing the limit;
it is virtually impossible to find a context that would justify the use of two FQs]
this suggests that there is a subject-of-predication inside the locative portion of a complex directional
PP
it is the directional xPP that is predicated of de vliegtuigen; the locative portion of the directional
xPP is not (directly) predicated of de vliegtuigen
so we have two subjects of predication, and we also need a structural subject position inside the
locative portion of the structure, in order to make it possible for the subject to raise and license a FQ
(26) [ er [C [ t [Dx [ allebei t [RELATOR [ [tien meter lang [Asp [ langs
[ t [C [ PRO [Dx [ allebei t [RELATOR [ [tien meter hoog [Asp [ boven
[DIR] [DIR] [DIR]
CP DxP SU RP SU AspP PP
[LOC] [LOC] [LOC]
CP er DxP RP PRO
AspP PP
NB
though a FQ cannot be locally associated to PRO, it can of course perfectly well be associated to the
trace of PRO: (10b,c) both have grammatical variants with all to the right of to
• the FQ facts have thus led us to the conclusion that a complex directional circumPP such as (24) is
internally a control structure — effectively just the same as what we have in, say, (27)
(27) the children both tried [PRO to both be successful]
this result, if it holds up to further scrutiny, solidifies the parallel between xPPs and xVPs, and justifies
Den Dikken’s (2010) decision to relabel Koopman’s functional projections as AspP and DxP
• at least two empirical questions remain
Q1 how to deal with word orders in which the FQ appears in front of the r-pronoun, as in (28)?
?
(28) [allemaal er pal boven op] lagen de boeken
all there right up on lie the books
er could potentially be in a lower position here, in particular, SpecAspP (cf. Koopman’s SpecPlaceP)
Q2 how to deal with the difference between definite er and indefinite ergens in (29)?
(29) a. [er allemaal pal boven op] liggen de boeken
there all right up on lie the books
b. [ergens allemaal pal boven op] liggen de boeken
somewhere all right up on lie the books
b. [allemaal ergens pal boven op] liggen de boeken
while (29b) is grammatical, it forces a [+specific] reading onto indefinite ergens; for a non-specific
reading, (29b) must be used
this is probably merely a matter of scope (relative to the universal FQ), but it may be indicative of
something more profound
the difference between er and ergens is relevant also in the context of the discussion of P-doubling
in Flemish