SlideShare a Scribd company logo

The Structure Of Cp And Ip The Cartography Of Syntactic Structures Volume 2 Luigi Rizzi

K
kujiraregnis

The Structure Of Cp And Ip The Cartography Of Syntactic Structures Volume 2 Luigi Rizzi The Structure Of Cp And Ip The Cartography Of Syntactic Structures Volume 2 Luigi Rizzi The Structure Of Cp And Ip The Cartography Of Syntactic Structures Volume 2 Luigi Rizzi

Education
1 of 91
Download to read offline
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
The Structure Of Cp And Ip The Cartography Of Syntactic Structures Volume 2 Luigi Rizzi download https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-cp-and-ip-the- cartography-of-syntactic-structures-volume-2-luigi-rizzi-4687644 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. The Structure Of Atonal Music Allen Forte https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-atonal-music-allen- forte-50353844 The Structure Of Creole Words Segmental Syllabic And Morphological Aspects Reprint 2012 Parth Bhatt Editor Ingo Plag Editor https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-creole-words-segmental- syllabic-and-morphological-aspects-reprint-2012-parth-bhatt-editor- ingo-plag-editor-50367558 The Structure Of Compact Groups A Primer For The Student A Handbook For The Expert 4th Revised And Expanded Edition Karl H Hofmann https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-compact-groups-a- primer-for-the-student-a-handbook-for-the-expert-4th-revised-and- expanded-edition-karl-h-hofmann-50378610 The Structure Of Compact Groups A Primer For The Student A Handbook For The Expert 3rd Revised And Augmented Edition Karl H Hofmann https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-compact-groups-a- primer-for-the-student-a-handbook-for-the-expert-3rd-revised-and- augmented-edition-karl-h-hofmann-50378670
The Structure Of Compact Groups A Primer For Students A Handbook For The Expert 2nd Rev And Augmented Ed Karl H Hofmann Sidney A Morris https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-compact-groups-a- primer-for-students-a-handbook-for-the-expert-2nd-rev-and-augmented- ed-karl-h-hofmann-sidney-a-morris-50378810 The Structure Of Policy Evolution Painting An Integrated Picture Of Change In Policy And Institutional Systems 1st Edition Oldrich Bubak https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-policy-evolution- painting-an-integrated-picture-of-change-in-policy-and-institutional- systems-1st-edition-oldrich-bubak-50431080 The Structure Of Game Design Wallace Wang https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-game-design-wallace- wang-50546698 The Structure Of Scientific Inference Mary Hesse https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-scientific-inference- mary-hesse-50849622 The Structure Of Learner Varieties Henritte Hendriks Editor https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-learner-varieties- henritte-hendriks-editor-50959072
The Structure Of Cp And Ip The Cartography Of Syntactic Structures Volume 2 Luigi Rizzi
The Structure Of Cp And Ip The Cartography Of Syntactic Structures Volume 2 Luigi Rizzi
The Structure of CP and IP
OXFORD STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE SYNTAX Richard Kayne, General Editor The Higher Functional Field: Evidence from North Italian Dialects Cecilia Poletto The Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages Edited by Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle Parameters and Universals Richard Kayne Portugese Syntax: New Comparative Studies Edited by Joao Costa XP-Adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and Binding in Hindi-Urdu Ayesha Kidwai Infinitive Constructions: A Syntactic Analysis of the Romance Languages Guido Mensching Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar Edited by Aafke Hulk and Jean-Yves Pollock Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP Edited by Peter Svenonius A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections Yoshiki Ogawa Functional Structures in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 1 Edited by Guglielmo Cinque Syntactic Heads and Word Formation Marit Julien The Syntax of Italian Dialects Christina Tortora The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word Order Patterns in Kwa Enoch Olade Aboh The Structure ofCP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 2 Edited by Luigi Rizzi
The Structure of CP and IP The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 2 Edited by LUIGI RIZZI OXPORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 2004
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Oxford New York Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Sao Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto Copyright © 2004 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 www.oup.com Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The structure of CP and IP / edited by Luigi Rizzi. p. cm.—(Oxford studies in comparative syntax) (The cartography of syntactic structures ; v. 2) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-19-515948-9; ISBN 0-19-515949-7 (pbk.) 1. Grammar, Comparative and general—Clauses. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general—Inflection. 3. Generative grammar. I. Rizzi, Luigi. II. Series. III. Series: The cartography of syntactic structures ; v. 2 P297 .s77 2003 415—dc21 2002038159 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
Contents Contributors vii 1 On the Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Luigi Rizzi 3 2 Aspects of the Low IP Area, Adriana Belletti 16 3 Topic, Focus, and V2: Defining the CP Sublayers, Paola Beninca' and Cecilia Poletto 52 4 Resumptive Relatives and LF Chains, Valentino Bianchi 76 5 Toward a Cartography of Subject Positions, Anna Cardinaletti 115 6 Remnant Movement in the Theory of Phases, Carlo Cecchetto 166 7 Complementizer Deletion in Italian, Alessandra Giorgi and Fabio Pianesi 190 8 Clitics: Cooccurrence and Mutual Exclusion Patterns, M. Rita Manzini and Leonardo M. Savoia 211 9 On the Left Periphery of Some Romance Wh-Questions, Cecilia Poletto and Jean-Yves Pollock 251 10 The C-System in Brythonic Celtic Languages, V2, and the EPP, Ian Roberts 297 11 Enclisis and Proclisis, Ur Shlonsky 329 Subject Index 355 Language Index 361 Name Index 364
This page intentionally left blank
Contributors Adriana Belletti University of Siena Paola Beninca' University of Padua Valentina Bianchi University of Siena Anna Cardinaletti University of Bologna and University of Venice Carlo Cecchetto University of Milano-Bicocca Alessandra Giorgi University of Venice M. Rita Manzini University of Florence Fabio Pianesi ITC-IRST, Trento Cecilia Poletto University of Padua, CNR Jean-Yves Pollock University of Picardie, Amiens Luigi Rizzi University of Siena Ian Roberts Downing College, University of Cambridge Leonardo Savoia University of Florence Ur Shlonsky University of Geneva VII
This page intentionally left blank
The Structure of CP and IP
This page intentionally left blank
On the Cartography of Syntactic Structures LUIGI RIZZI •Syntactic structures are complex objects. Much theory-guided descriptive work on syntactic constituents over the 1980s and 1990s has shown that phrases and clauses have a richly articulated internal structure.As the empirical evidence of such complexity had been steadily accumulating, some researchers came to the conclusion that it was a worthwhile endeavor to studythis rich domain on its own, and they set the goal of arriv- ing at structural maps that could do justice to the complexity of syntactic structures. This was the initial motivation of the cartographic projects that have come to the fore in the last few years. If the impulse that prompted these efforts has to do with the complexity and richness of the domain, an equally influential driving factor is the intui- tion of the fundamental uniformity and underlyingsimplicity of the basic constituents— the syntacticatoms. The tension between these two drivingforces offers a useful vantage point to understand certain directions taken by the cartographic analyses and to place these studies within the broader context of current syntactic theory. Here I illustrate some of the discoveries that are at the origins of the cartographic projects and provide certain guidelines that have directed these efforts. I will then discuss some of the results achieved and their possible influence on the general theory of syntax, with special reference to minimalism. An overview of the content of the different chapters will conclude this introduction. 1. Background One of the backbones of cartographic research is the view that inflectional morphol- ogy is distributed in the syntax. This view originates from the analysis of the English 3 1
4 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP inflectional system in Syntactic Structures. Chomsky (1957) showed that it was ad- vantageous to analyze inflectional affixes as elements of the syntactic computation: assuming them to be subjected to certain syntactic processes (local movement) permitted a simple analysis of complex distributional dependencies in the English auxiliary system. This analysis suggested a fairly abstract view of syntactic repre- sentations: the atoms of syntactic computations can be elements that are not mor- phologically autonomous words; morphological well-formedness can be obtained by submitting such atoms to movement processes; an inflectional affix may occupy the same structural position that is expressed by an autonomous function word if differ- ent featural choices are made. These ideas had already been very influential in the early days of generative grammar, but their effect was multiplied when they were combined with two basic insights of X-bar theory: all syntactic atoms project auni- form subtree (Chomsky 1970), and functional elements are full-fledged syntactic at- oms, capable of projecting their own phrasal categories (Chomsky 1986a). These considerations supported the conclusion that clauses should be formed by the articu- lation of lexical and functional elements, each projecting uniform subtrees accord- ing to the general laws of structurebuilding. The question then arose of the number and label of functional heads and projec- tions constitutingthe structure of the clauses. Richly inflected languages provide direct morphological evidence illustrating the morphosyntactic components of the clause. If overt morphological richness is a superficial trait of variation and a fundamental assumption of uniformity is followed, as much work in Case theory suggests ever since Vergnaud (1982), then it is reasonable to expect that clauses should be formed by a constant system of functional heads in all languages, each projecting a subtree occurring in a fixed syntactic hierarchy, irrespective of the actual morphological manifestation of the head (as an affix, as an autonomous function word, or as noth- ing at all). If this is correct, it should be possible to detect the extra syntactic space determined by this richly articulated clausal structure even in languages in which the morphology does not provide direct evidence for the postulation of independent layers: layer detection may be provided by more indirect kinds of evidence, having to do with the need of syntactic positions to accommodate certain phrasal constitu- ents (adverbials, etc.), to account for word order alternations through head move- ment and so on. This is the line of reasoning that led from Chomsky's "affix hopping" to Emonds's (1978) comparative analysis of the position of the verb in French and English to Pollock's (1989) postulation of distinct affixal heads in the inflectional system. The latter reference, in particular, provided clear evidence that complex word order pat- terns could be reduced to uniform syntactic structures plus simple parameters hav- ing to do with the way in which affixation takes place. This provided a very appealing model for the cross-linguistic study of the clause, which gave rise to a phase of in- tense comparative research. Among other things, the detailed study of the ordering of adverbial positions started to bear very directly on the analysis of the basic clausal structure, a trend that culminated in Cinque's (1999) book, which fully integrated morphological, syntactic, and interpretive evidence in the exploration of the fine details of the clausal structure across languages. So the view that inflectional mor- phology is distributed in the syntax, combined with a host of uniformity assump-
ON THE CARTOGRAPHY OF SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES 5 tions (phrases are structured and ordered uniformly for lexical and functional heads across languages), paved the way to the articulated conception of syntactic structures that is assumed and validated by cartographic studies. This view of the morphology-syntax interface bears primarily on the identifica- tion of head positions in the clausal and phrasal structure. Another important ele- ment of the background has to do directly with the positions occupied by phrases and the computations involved in phrasal movement. Traditional transformational analyses of movement processes divide phrasal movement into two types: substitu- tion to a specifier (which, in turn, can be A or A') and phrasal adjunction.Earmarks of the latter were considered the apparent optionality and the correlated apparent lack of an explicit trigger: typical cases of phrasal adjunctions were considered various movements to the left periphery, argument and adverb preposing to a position in between the overt complementizer and the subject position (e.g., to derive / think that yesterday, John went home from / think that John went home yesterday), often analyzed as involving adjunction to IP. As of the late 1980s, economy principles started to acquire a central role in syntactic theory, leading to a conception of move- ment as a "last resort" operation, applicable only when necessary to warrant well- formedness (Chomsky 1986b); this and other related developments cast doubts on the possibility of truly optional movement. The growing role of economy considerations within the minimalist program led researchers to pay more attention to the interpretive difference associated to preposing in terms of discourse-informational properties. Such more refined interpretive con- siderations invariably supported the view that no movement is really optional. So left peripheral movement is not free in that it goes with whatever additional interpre- tive properties are associated to left-peripheral positions (topicality, focus, etc.); but how is it formally triggered? As the triggering of phrasal movement is normally governed by heads, which attract phrases to local Spec positions, this naturally led to the postulation of special heads (often null, but sometimes morphologically overt; see, e.g., Aboh 1998) acting as attractors. These ideas crystallized in parallel with the proposal of restrictive frameworks of phrase structure, such as Kayne's (1994), which banned the possibility of phrasal adjunction (as an option formally distinct from specifier creation). The ban on phrasal adjunction as the result of movement was then extended to base-generated structures, with the major consequence of rul- ing out an adjunction analysis of adverbial positions in general (but see Chomsky 2004 for an analysis of relative clauses that assumes the possibility of base-generated phrasal adjunction). So these developments also offered formal support to the theory of adverbial positions in Cinque (1999), assuming adverbs to be licensed in specifier positions of dedicated heads of the inflectional system. 2. Cartography and minimalism Cartographic projects have been developed in parallel with the development of minimalism, following partially independent trails. There are clear points of connec- tion, such as the central role of economy considerations and the emphasis on the interfaces. There are also points of theoretical tension, at least at first sight. The car-
6 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP tographic projects underscore the richness and complexity of syntactic structuresand try to provide realistic descriptions of this complexity. Minimalism tries to capture the fundamental empirical results of syntactic theory through a set of descriptive tools which is substantially impoverished with respect to previous versions of the Prin- ciples and Parameters framework. The apparent tension manifests itself very directly in the fact that syntactic representations in much minimalist literature (starting from Chomsky 1995, chap. 4, and much subsequent work) look somewhat simpler than the representations normally assumed some ten years ago, while cartographic repre- sentations (e.g., in Cinque 1999, 2002; Belletti 2004, and chapter 2 in this volume) look substantially enriched. The tension is only apparent, though. The focus of much minimalist analysis on the "core categories" C, T, v, and V seems to be a matter of expository convenience, rather than a substantive hypothesis, and the possibility that each "core category" may, in fact, be shorthand for referring to a more articulated structural zone is ex- plicitly acknowledged (e.g., in Chomsky 2001: n. 8; 2002). In fact, the onlysubstan- tive reduction in the inventory of functional heads proposed in recent years in the minimalist literature is the ban on independent Agreement heads, on grounds that agreement features in the inflectional system are redundant, hence presumably uninterpretable; a syntactic head consisting uniquely of uninterpretable features could not subsist if uninterpretable features must disappear by LF. The view that agreement features in the inflectional system are uninterpretable is not uncontroversial, and the theoretical arguments against the postulation of an inde- pendent Agr node leave room for a certain leeway (see Chomsky 2001, particularly n. 3, 12, 16). Nevertheless, the possibility that syntax may specify no independent Agr- type heads is per se not inconsistent with the cartographic work. Much of the work on the inflectional system is focused on the uncovering and identification of functional heads of mood, tense, aspect, voice, and heads with a clear interpretive content, which therefore uncontroversially pass the muster of minimalist analysis. Analyses based on the positional difference of an Agr head with respect to, say, T, or Asp (Pollock 1989; Belletti 1990, 2000; Guasti and Rizzi 2002) can be reanalyzed as showing that agree- ment of subjects and objects is checked in positions distinct from and higher than T or Asp; this state of affairs is naturally expressible in a richer system of heads such as Cinque (1999) without necessarily appealing to Agr. So the question of the indepen- dent existence of Agr as a syntactic atom is basically an empirical question having to do with the label of the categories carrying 4>-features involved in agreement processes; this is a difficult question as questions involving choice of labels often are. Essentially the same considerations apply to the core cartographic work on the structure of the DP and the set of functional categories assumed there. Consider now the system of functional heads proposed for the CP domain in Rizzi (1997, 2000) and subsequent work, including various chapters of the present vol- ume. The two heads delimiting the C system have a clear interpretive import: Force expresses the illucutionary force (at least in main clauses), or the clausal type; Fi- niteness expresses a property related to Tense and Mood (in fact, it is identified with a mood-type head in some analyses; see chapter 7 in this volume). Both Topic and Focus are assumed to create a substructurethat explicitly signals to the external sys- tems certain interpretively relevant properties, along the following lines:
ON THE CARTOGRAPHY OF SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES 7 (1) XP = Topic XP = Focus YP = Comment YP = Presupposition The specifier of the Top head is interpreted as the Topic, a kind of higher subject of predication assumed to be contextually familiar; its complement is interpreted as the Comment, a complex predicate predicated of the Topic. The specifier of the Foe head is interpreted as the Focus, and its complement as the Presupposition. In this view, the syntactic computation hands over to the interpretive compo- nent representationstransparently indicating dedicated positions for certain discourse functions (or other interpretively relevant properties, such as scope). Historically, this was the view underlying the assumption of special Criteria in the A-bar system (such as the Wh, or Q Criterion), formal principles triggering A-bar movement to ensure that an element with the appropriate featural specification will fill the posi- tions dedicated to a particular interpretive property (the scope position of interroga- tive operators in the case at issue; Rizzi 1996). The system of A-bar Criteria is akin to the system of inherent Case for argumental semantics in certain respects: the two systems transparently signal interpretive proper- ties of the two basic kinds. Given the distinction in Chomsky (2004) between semantic properties associated with "external merge" (argumental and thematic structure) and semantic properties associated with "internal merge" (scope-discourse semantics)— the current variety of the classical divide between deep and surface semantics—inher- ent Case is to argumental semantics what the criterial features Top, Foe, Q, and so on are to scope-discourse semantics: they both signal syntactically (and sometimes also morphologically) certain positions dedicated to interpretiveproperties of the two kinds. From this viewpoint, Top, Foe and other left-peripheral heads don't seem to be less legitimate elements of minimalist syntacticcomputationthan is inherent Case.Attempts to replace such labels with intepretively more neutral and opaque labels may not be more desirable than abandoning such labels as Instrumental, Benefactive, and Loca- tive in favor of interpretively neutral labels in the system of inherent Case. 3. Local simplicity One driving factor of the cartographic endeavor is a fundamental intuition of sim- plicity, which is clearly akin to core ideas of minimalism. Complex structures arise from the proliferation of extremely simple structural units: ideally, one structural unit (a head and the phrase it projects) is defined by a single syntactically relevant fea- ture (again, we abstract away here from what the ultimate fate of Agr heads and pro- jections may be; we also abstract away from the question of whetherthis fundamental biuniqueness extends to Spec Head relations—that is, if there is a single specifier per head or if multiple Spec's are allowed). Complex heads obviously exist, but they
8 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP are not syntactic primitives: they can be assembled by the operation of head to head movement, the only device available to create conglomerates of syntactically relevant properties. Local simplicity is preserved by natural languages at the price of accept- ing a higher global complexity, through the proliferation of structural units. The same intuition seems to underlie the Ideological motivation of movement in the MinimalistProgram. Movement exists, it is assumed, to allow elements to carry two types of interpretive properties: argumental and scope-discourse. Through move- ment, an element can occur in distinct positions specialized for the two kindsof inter- pretive properties (see, in particular, Chomsky 2000, 2002, 2004). But why couldn't languages attribute both kinds of interpretive properties to the same position, thus avoiding multiple occurrences of elements? Again, preservation of local simplicity seems to be the key factor: natural language design favors local attribution of single properties and is prepared to pay the price of multiplying the occurrences: recursion is cheap; local computation is expensive and to be reduced to the bareminimum. What particular kind of simplicity natural language design chooses to favor is an empirical question. To quote Chomsky: '"Good design' conditions are in part a matter of empirical discovery, though within general guidelines of an aprioristic character, a familiar feature of rational inquiry. ... Even the most extreme propo- nents of deductive reasoning from first principles, Descartes for example, held that experiment is critically necessary to discover which of the reasonable options was instantiated in the actual world" (Chomsky 2001: 1-2). In different domains, the empirical evidence seems to suggest that natural languages favor local simplicity, and accept paying the price of ending up with global representations involving such complex properties as multiple occurrences of elements (movement), along with a very rich articulation of functional structures. 4. Contributions In this section I highlight certain central ideas and analyses proposed in the different chapters by grouping them around three basic themes. 4.1. The CP zone The cartography of the CP zone is addressed directly in the chapters by Roberts (10), Beninca' and Poletto (3), and Poletto and Pollock (9); the chapters by Bianchi (4), Cecchetto (6), and Giorgi and Pianesi (7) address certain specific properties and computations relating to the CP zone. Ian Roberts (chapter 9) deals with properties ofthe C-system in Celtic languages, in comparison with Germanic. Celtic languages tend to express the Fin head of the complementizer system, in that the element translated as that typically occurs after left peripheral elements, as the following Irish example shows, with the particle go occurring after the proposed adverbial: (3) Is dofche [faoi cheann cupla Id [go bhfeadfai imeacht] ] is probable at-the-end-of couple day that could leave
ON THE CARTOGRAPHY OF SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES 9 This is a natural reinterpretation, within a richer theory of the left periphery, of the pattern analyzed by McCloskey (1996) in terms of PF cliticization of C to I across the left peripheral material. Straightforward evidence for the richer approach to C is provided by Welsh, Roberts argues, with the left peripheral field sandwiched in be- tween the two C particles mai and a, arguably expressing Force and Fin: (4) dywedais i [mai 'r dynion fel arfer a [werthith y ci ] ] said I C the men as usual C will-sell the dog The chapter then focuses on properties of the C system in Breton, in comparison with V-2 in Germanic. Long Verb Movement in Breton, with proposing of a lower verbal element to the left periphery across the higher zone of the inflectional system, is analyzed as involving a genuine violation of the Head Movement Constraint (rather than being a case of remnant VP movement), permitted by a suitable adaptation of the Relativized Minimality / Minimal Link Condition (Rizzi 1990; Chomsky 1995). An analysis of V-2, based on the idea that (unselected) Fin must be lexicalized in Celtic and Germanic, is outlined. This lexicalization may be achieved by special lexicalizing particles, as in Welsh, or by movement of the inflected verb, as in Ger- manic; in turn, the latter option involves the filling of Fin's specifier position. Paola Beninca' and Cecilia Poletto's chapter (3) is a contribution to the carto- graphic study of the left periphery through a more fine-grained analysis of the form- function mapping concerning the left peripheral positions, with special reference to Italian and other Romance varieties. First, the authors suggest that the system of heads licensing discourse-related specifier positions disallows recursion (and multiple specifiers) of a single head. If this is correct, the proliferation of topics observed in Romance Clitic Left Dislocation constructions should, in fact, manifestdifferent topic- like positions, each with certain specialized interpretive properties. Second, the au- thors argue that the different topic-like and focus-like positions postulated by their analysis are organized in distinct subfields, with the topic-like subfield higher than the focus-like subfield (this being a particular subcase of more general ordering re- strictions between positions conveying old and new information). This hypothesis has the advantage of bringing Italian into line with the frequently observed pattern according to which topic strictly precedes left-peripheral focus (i.e., in systems like Hungarian: Brody 1995; Kiss 1987; Puskas 2000; and much related work). In con- trast, as sentences with a left dislocated element following contrastive focus are ac- ceptable in Italian (e.g., Credo che domani, QUESTO, a Gianni, gli dovremmo dire 'I believe that tomorrow, THIS, to Gianni we should say to him'; see Rizzi 1997: 295), the proposed reanalysis leads to the attempt to reanalyze such examples as not involving genuine Foe-Top configurations. Cecilia Poletto and Jean-Yves Pollock (chapter 9) provide a comprehensive analysis of Wh constructions in French, Italian, and some Northern Italian dialects. Backbones of this analysis are the assumption of a structured left periphery, which, among other things, includes distinct positions that may be targeted by distinct Wh elements, and an extensive use of remnant movement, which subsumes effects more traditionally ascribed to covert movement and head movement. Particularly striking evidence in favor of distinct operator positions is provided by Northern Italian dia-
10 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP lects like Bellunese, which allows multiple occurrences of (components of) certain Wh phrases in distinct positions: (5) Cossa ha-lo fat che? 'What has he done what?' Building on previous work on this dialect, the authors motivate an analysis in which che and cossa occupy two distinct left-peripheral operator positions, with the rest of the IP remnant moved to a left peripheral position sandwiched in between. This analysis is extended to cover different cases of inversion in Romance (e.g., subject- clitic inversion, stylistic inversion) through the postulation of at least two topic-like positions in the intermediate Comp zone: the familiar Top position, which in this ap- proach hosts the subject DP in stylistic inversion configurations, and a Ground posi- tion, which may attract remnant IPs that do not contain nonpronominal DPs. Valentina Bianchi (chapter 4) addresses aspects of a major left peripheral con- struction, the relative clause. The main focus of the chapter is the typology of re- sumptive pronouns. Three kinds of resumptive pronouns are identified. First, optional resumptive pronouns, generally corresponding to argument DPs, as in the following example from Brazilian Portuguese: (6) O livro che eu deixei (ele) aqui na mesa desapareceu. 'The book that I left (it) here on the table disappeared.' Second, obligatory resumptive pronouns, occurring within PPs or in other inherently Case-marked positions, as in the following example from Venetian, a Northern Italian dialect: (7) Questo ze un argoment che no voio parlarghe *(ne). 'This is a topic that I don't want to talk to him (about it).' Third, resumptive pronouns rescuing island violations (e.g., in English: The guy who I hate almost everything he does). Bianchi shows that the three types of resumptive pronouns give rise to distinct cross-linguistic generalizations as to their possible occurrence. The most interesting case is offered by optional resumptive pronouns, whose occurrence depends on cer- tain interpretive properties of the relative clause: in some languages (e.g., certain Northern Italian dialects) they only occur in nonrestrictive relatives; in other languages (e.g., Brazilian Portuguese) they occur in nonrestrictive and specific restrictive rela- tives, but not in nonspecific restrictive relatives. Certain a priori imaginable distri- butions don't seem to be attested across languages: no language seems to allow optional resumptive pronouns in restrictive but not in nonrestrictive relatives, or in nonspecific restrictive relatives but not in specific restrictive relatives. This peculiar cross-linguistic distribution is explained by Bianchi by sharpening the theory of the LF representations of the different kinds of relatives, along lines that interact in im- portant ways with the different properties of the three types of relatives with respect to the theory of reconstruction. Carlo Cecchetto (chapter 6) addresses the question of the selective possibility of remnant movement. It is well known that a constituent from which a subconstituent has been extracted can undergo further movement in some cases (for instance, a VP
ON THE CARTOGRAPHY OF SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES 1 1 from which the subject has been extracted can undergo topicalization: ... and [given t to Bill] it was t'), but not in other cases; for instance, a constituent from whichC1LD took place cannot undergo C1LD in Romance: (8) *[Diparlarle t], credo che, [a Maria] non lo abbiano ancora deciso t'. To speak to her, I believe that, to Maria, they haven't decided it yet.' Cecchetto's proposal is that what characterizes the second class of cases is that the relevant examples violate Chomsky's (2001) Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC): the remnant constituent remains too deeply embedded to be successfully extracted at the relevant phase. Certain apparent cases of violation of PIC, such as the extrac- tion of Wh arguments from weak islands, are explained by assuming a structured CP edge, in line with cartographic proposals. Alessandra Giorgi and Fabio Pianesi (chapter 7) address the phenomenon of complementizer deletion in finite clauses in Italian, an option that differs from the much analyzed English equivalent, among other things, in that it is restricted to sub- junctive environments. Rather then assuming an actual process of licensing of a zero complementizer (through deletion, base-generation of a null element or cliticization to the main verb, as in classical analyses of the English equivalent, from Kayne 1981 and Stowell 1981 to Pesetsky 1995), the authors propose that the CP system is not projected in the relevant structures, an option that can be expressed in the approach to the mapping from features to positions advocated in Giorgi and Pianesi (1997): in this system, distinct features can, in fact, coalesce to form single syntactic heads (see section 3), but this option is limited to the case in which specifiers are not activated. The authors then show that various formal and interpretive properties of the con- struction can be made to follow from the proposed analysis. 4.2. Clitics within the IP system The remaining four chapters deal with different properties of the IP system. Manzini and Savoia (8) and Shlonsky (11) address the issues raised by cliticization within the cartographic study of the IP space. Maria Rita Manzini and Leonardo Savoia (chapter 8) provide a comprehensive theory of clitic positions in Romance, based on comparative evidence originating mainly from the Italian dialects. This analysis is connected to an extensive survey that these authors have been conducting in recent years on the syntax of the Italian dialects. Clitic positions are assumed to be inherent components of the inflectional structure of the sentence and ordered according to a cross-linguistically stable hier- archy. Another guiding intuition that the authors borrow from Abney (1986) and Szabolcsi (1994) is that the sentence has a functional structure analogous to the one of the noun phrase, with the different clitic heads mirroring the order of elements in the functional nominal structure. This syntactic approach to cliticization is then com- pared with the morphological approaches involving templates and postsyntactic reorderings in the morphological component (Bonet 1995), as well as with the optimality theoretic approach advocated by Grimshaw (1997). The approach is then confronted with the empirical issues of cross-linguistic variation in clitic order (mainly Dat-Obj versus Obj-Dat). The various mutual exclusion patterns that several Romance
12 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP varieties manifest and the appropriate way to express the relevant parametrization are discussed. Ur Shlonsky (chapter 11) addresses another major aspect of the Romance clitic systems, the enclisis-proclisis alternation. The alternation manifests itself in differ- ent forms in Western Romance, where it gives rise to a complex pattern sensitive to the clause-initial element, and in other Romance varieties, where it is sensitive to finiteness. The author endorses the view that there are fundamental asymmetries between enclisis and proclisis. Enclisis arises when the verb adjoins to the functional head hosting the clitic; proclisis arises when the verb, in its movement in the inflec- tional space, does not cross over the clitic position, either because it stops at a lower functional head, or because the clitic itself adjoins to the complex created by verb movement: proclisis thus is a cover term for rather different structuralconfigurations having in common the linear order clitic-verb. The proposed analysis assumes that the two configurations are normally mutually exclusive in that enclisis takes place whenever possible, and proclisis is the last resort case. The parametrisation required to express the observed patterns is then related to the position of the cliticization site with respect to the other components of the functional structure of the sentence. 4.3. Subjects Finally, the chapters by Belletti (2) and Cardinaletti (5) deal with the cartography of subject positions within the IP space. Adriana Belletti's chapter (2) is, in fact, linked to both the IP and the CP do- main. It proposes that the clausal structure contains a lower area peripheral to the argumental nucleus endowed with focus and topic positions, and thus analogous to the higher left peripheral domain. So-called free subject inversion in Italian and other Null Subject Languages involves movement of the subject to the low-focus position, whence the systematic focal character of postverbal subjects in Italian, shown by Weak-crossover effects and other diagnostics. That the inverted focal subject is not in the high left peripheral position is shown, among other things, by the fact that the position must be c-commanded by the IP internal negation, as shown by examples like the following: (9) Non me lo ha detto nessuno. 'not said it to me anyone' Here the negative quantifier nessuno requires c-command by non. Evidence of this kind argues against the possibility of movement of the subject to the left-peripheral focus position plus remnant movement of the IP. Other cases in which the subject (or any other constituent) is right-dislocated can be analyzed as involvingmovement to the Top position in the lower peripheral zone. If the lower part of the clause, the verb phrase, is endowed with a full-fledged periphery of discourse-related structural positions, it is tempting to capture the parallel with the higher left periphery by as- suming that analogous discourse-related zones mark the edge of phases in Chomsky's (2001) sense. Anna Cardinaletti's chapter (5) investigates the subject positions in the higher part of the IP space. Distributional evidence strongly suggests that referential sub-
ON THE CARTOGRAPHY OF SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES 1 3 jects can occur in positions that are precluded to nonreferential subjects. For instance, in English, a referential subject can be separated from the inflected verb by a paren- thetical expression, but a nonreferential subject cannot: (10) a. John, in my opinion, is a nice guy. b.*There, in my opinion, is hope. Cardinaletti thus distinguishes a lower subject position, demanded by a purely struc- tural need such as the satisfaction of the Case-agreement properties, which may be filled by an expletive, from a higher subject position, expressing the substantive subject-predicate relation, hence requiring a referential subject of which the predi- cate is predicated. Cardinaletti then argues that this higher subject position is to be kept distinct from the Topic position in the left periphery of the clause, which can host different types of topicalized arguments. Cardinaletti gives arguments that this positional difference also holds in Null Subject Languages, for which a total assimi- lation of preverbal subjects and topics has often been proposed. If the "subject of predication" position is more restricted than the Top position, it is not strictly lim- ited to canonical DP subjects agreeing with the verbal inflection. It also is the posi- tion occupied by quirky subjects, predicative DPs in inverted copular constructions (Moro 1997) and inverted locatives, Cardinaletti argues. Belletti's and Cardinaletti's chapters complement each other in drawing a par- tial map of the subject positions in the clause, with the identification of at least four positions, from lowest to highest: the thematic position in the VP, the VP-peripheral lower focus position, the EPP position, and the Subject of Predication position. Various types of comparative evidence considered in these chapters clearly hint at the con- clusion that a more refined map would involve more positions—for instance, an IP medial position filled in VSO structures in the Romance languages allowing this word order, and possibly distinct positions for the checking of different ^-features. To conclude, a word on the events that are at the source of the present volume. Two cartographic projects were funded by the Ministery of University and Research in Italy in 1997 and 1999, involvingthe Universities of Ferrara, Florence, Milan, Siena, and Venice; a third project connected to cartography is now being pursued. These projects generated a body of research that was presented in various formal and infor- mal workshops and seminars. Some of the results are published in independent vol- umes of the Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntaxof Oxford University Press, under the common heading The Cartography of Syntactic Structures', see Cinque 2002 and Belletti 2004. This volume represents the proceedings of the "Workshop on the Car- tography of Syntactic Positions and Semantic Types" that took place at the Certosa di Pontignano (Siena), on November 25-26, 1999. References Abney, S. (1986) "The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspects," Ph.D. diss., MIT, Cambridge. Aboh, E. (1998) "From the Syntax of Gungbe to the Grammar of Gbe," Ph.D. diss., Univer- sity of Geneva.
14 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP Belletti, A. (1990) Generalized Verb Movement. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier. Belletti, A. (2000) "(Past) Participle Agreement," in H. van Riemsdijk and M. Everaert (eds.), SynCom: The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. (ed.). (2004) Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press. Bonet, E. (1995) "Feature Structure of Romance Clitics." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 607-647. Brody, M. (1995) "Focus and Checking Theory," in I. Kenesei (ed.) Levels and Structures. Approaches to Hungarian, no. 5. Szeged: JATE, 30^-3. Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. (1970) "Remarks on Nominalization," in R. A. Jacobs and Rosenbaum P. S. (eds). Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Mass: Ginn, 184-221. (1986a) Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (1986b) Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (2000) "Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework," in R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 89-155. (2001) "Derivation by Phase," in M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1-52. — (2002) On Language and Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • (2004) "Beyond ExplanatoryAdequacy," in A. Belletti (ed.) (2004). Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads. New York: Oxford University Press. (2002) The Structure of DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. Emonds, J. (1978) "The verbal complex V'-V in French". Linguistic Inquiry 9, 151-175. Giorgio, A., and Pianesi, F. (1997) Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Grimshaw, J. (1997) "The Best Clitic: Constraint Conflictin Morphosyntax," in L. Haegeman, (ed.) Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 169-196. Guasti, M. T., and L. Rizzi (2002) "Agreement and Tense as Distinct Syntactic Positions: Evidence from Acquisition," in G. Cinque, (ed.) Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press, 167-194. Kayne, R. (1981) "ECP Extensions." Linguistic Inquiry 12, 93-133. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kiss, K. E.(1987) Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel. McCloskey, J. (1996) "On the Scope of Verb Movement in Irish." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 47-104. Moro, A. (1997) The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pesetsky, D. (1995) Zero Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Pollock, J.-Y. (1989) "Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP." Lin- guistic Inquiry 20, 365-424. Puskas, G. (2000) Word Order in Hungarian. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. Rizzi, L. (1990) Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (1996) "Residual Verb Second and the Wh Criterion," in A. Belletti and L. Rizzi, (eds.) Parameters and Functional Heads. New York: Oxford University Press, 63-90. (1997) "The Fine Structureof the Left Periphery," in L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht, Kluwer, 281-337.
ON THE CARTOGRAPHY OF SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES 1 5 (2000) Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition. London: Routledge. Stowell, T. (1981) "Origins of Phrase Structure," Ph.D. diss., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Szabolcsi, A. (1994) "The Noun Phrase," in K. Kiss and F. Kiefer (eds.) The Syntactic Struc- ture of Hungarian (Syntax and Semantics no. 27). New York, Academic Press, 179- 274. Vergnaud, J.-R. (1982) "Dependences et niveaux de representation en syntaxe," These de doctoral d'etat, Universite de Paris VII.
Aspects of the Low IP Area ADRIANA BELLETTI I his chapter reconsiders and develops a proposal presented in Belletti (2001). The discussion that follows leaves the core insight of the original proposal essentially unchanged, although some aspects of the implementation are revised in a way that leads to changes in some areas; the overall empirical coverage of the proposal itself is also widened. Recent studies on the cartography of the left periphery of the clause, started with Rizzi (1997) and subsequent work (Poletto 2000; Beninca' 2001; Beninca' and Poletto [chapter 3 in this volume], and Poletto and Pollock [chapter 9 in this volume] and references cited therein), have come to the conclusion that the clause (IP, henceforth for simplicity) external area, traditionally labeled CP, is indeed a much richer and articulated space than traditionally assumed. Several dedicated positions split the single head C, including positions indicating the Force of the following clause and its Fin(itness). As extensively discussed in Rizzi (1997) and related work, between Force and Fin various other CP internal positions are identified: crucially a Focus position surrounded by (possibly iterated) Topic positions. Processes of Focaliza- tion and Topicalization are thus analyzed as involving movement of a phrase to the dedicated position in the left periphery.1 In this view, the different interpretations of the peripheral constituent, either as a topic or as a focus with respect to the following sentence, are automatic reflexes of the derived configuration.Under the general idea that a relation which closely recalls an agreement relation, and which is often as- similated to it, is established between the head of a phrase and the constituent filling its Spec,2 a focus head and the phrase in its specifier will share the focus feature; an identical relation will account for the topic interpretation of a phrase in the specifier of the topic projection. 16 2
ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 1 7 These by now fairly standard assumptions provide a very simple and straight- forward way of expressing the mechanisms granting the possible different interpre- tations related to different configurations. The interpretation as focus or topic of an element in the left periphery is an automatic consequence of the element's filling the specifier of different heads. A simple conclusion of the sort could not be as easily drawn in a CP projection not internally analyzed and split in the different positions discussed in the references quoted. The relation between syntax and the interpreta- tive interface (LF) is expressed in an optimally simple way: the interpretation is read off the syntactic configuration. The same analysis should also lead to an equally simple way to express the relation of the syntactic configuration with the phonetic/phono- logical interface. In particular, as far as the stress contour of a clause and its overall intonation are concerned, they should be directly determined from the syntactic con- figuration. Typically, a focused constituent in the left periphery is contrastively stressed; a topicalized phrase in the peripheral position is associated with a special downgrading intonation: (1) a. A GIANNI ho dato il libro (non a Piero). to Gianni I have given the book (not to Piero) b. A Gianni, (gli) ho dato il libro. to Gianni (I) to him (cl) have given the book Both intonations should be directly read off the different syntactic positions the phrases occupy in the CP area. The proposal developed here analyses the fine-grained structural cartography of the clause's (IP) internal low area. It will be suggested that the area immediately above VP displays a significant resemblance to the left periphery of the clause, the so-called CP area just discussed. In particular, a clause-internal Focus position, sur- rounded by Topic positions, is identified in the low part of the clause.3 Partly differ- ent intonations are associated with these positions, as opposed to the parallel positions in the left periphery. Different interpretations are also associated with the positions of what we may call the "clause-internal periphery" as opposed to those in the clause- external one. Both the interpretations and the related intonations are thus linked to properties of the configuration. Without attempting a systematic investigation of the various detectable differences between the left peripheral positions and the clause- internal parallel periphery but just pointing out some of the crucial ones, in what follows I concentrate on the properties of the clause-internal focus, with some refer- ence to the clause-internal topic.4 Before entering the close empirical investigation, one further general question should be raised. If the conclusion of the proposal to be presented here is on the right track, a significantly parallel configurationintroduces the verb phrase and the IP. As- suming that this sort of duplication isjustified on empirical grounds, the question as to why such a parallelism should exist arises. Although a definite answerto this atpresent relatively complex question cannot be produced, it is worth pointing out that similar conclusions, differently phrased and in different perspectives, have already been reached. Most recently, Chomsky (2001) has precisely singled out CP and complete verb phrases (vP in his terminology) as "(strong) phases" in the sense of the recent version of the MP—that is, syntactic units that share a certain amount of independence
18 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP (and which are transmitted to the interface systems). According to our proposal, CP and the verb phrase (vP or VP) would be parallel in that vP/VP has a CP-like periph- ery. Furthermore, various proposals have appeared ultimately attributing to vP/VP a periphery resembling that of the clause. The idea has led to the assimilation of the vP/ VP of the clause to the general format of small clauses, some of them VP small clauses. In this type of approach, small clauses are analyzed as full clauses (Starke 1995; Sportiche 1995), including a peripheral C projection. The proposal presented here can be seen as a contribution within this same line of approach to clause structure, provid- ing a more finely grained design of the assumed vP/VP periphery. 1. Position of postverbal subjects Let us briefly review the fundamental data arguing for the plausibility of the pro- posal that a clause-internal focus position is present in the VP area.5 Subject inversion is a widespread phenomenon in Romance. The topic has been extensively addressed, with the general conclusion that so-called Free Subject Inver- sion is a fundamentalproperty of Null Subject languages somehow linked to the pos- sibility of leaving the preverbal subject position phonetically unrealized.6 Among the Romance languages, French has a special status in that it does not display the phenom- enon of free subject inversion, a consequence of its non-Null Subject nature. Indeed, the kind of inversion structures allowed in French—the so-called Stylistic Inversion (SI) structures (Kayne and Pollock 1978, 2001)—have very different properties from those found in Null Subject Romance languages: descriptively, they require a "trigger" for inversion (wh, subjunctive),while no overt trigger is required in the case of Free Inversion (whence, the characterization as "free," FI). Basing my discussion mainly on Italian as far as Fl is concerned,7 the following contrasts arise with French: (2) a. Ha parlato Gianni, has spoken Gianni b. E' partite Gianni. is left Gianni c. *A parle Jean. has spokenJean d.*Est parti Jean. is left Jean e. Le jour ou a parle/est parti Jean, the day when has spoken/is left Jean f. II faut que parle/parte Jean. it is necessary that speak/leave (subj.) Jean g. II giorno in cui ha parlato/e partito Gianni, the day in which has spoken/is left Gianni h. E' necessario che parli/parta Gianni. it is necessary that speak/leave (subj.) Gianni The fact that examples (2)g and h are possible in French as well, as in examples (2)e and f, whereas examples (2) a and b are also perfectly well formed in Italian but are excluded in French, as shown in examples (2)c and d, strongly indicates the differ-
ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 19 ent nature of the two inversion processes, SI and FI. The word by word parallelism of (2)e and f and (2)g and h must be considered epiphenomenal: the Italian struc- tures in (2)g and h plausibly involve the same "inversion"8 process that is at work in (2)a and b, which is different from the one at work in (2)e and f. In their recent analysis of SI, Kayne and Pollock (2001) have crucially characterized the phenom- enon as involving the high, clause-external periphery of the clause. Briefly put: the subject is moved out of the clause9 to a position within the left periphery; the remnant IP is subsequently moved past the subject into a higher position of the left periphery. One crucial feature of this analysis is that the subject is very high in the clause structure. A natural way to characterize the difference between SI and FI would then consist in assuming that the postverbal subject is not high in FI. As in traditional accounts, we could reach the conclusion that FI is indeed a clause-in- ternal phenomenon. According to this (rather traditional) hypothesis, the same order VS canbe thought of as being obtained in two very different ways in the two processes: either through IP- remnant movement as for SI or through movement of the verb over the subject as for FI.10 I assume that this characterization is fundamentally on the right track. As a gen- eral guideline, I adopt the restrictive working hypothesis that remnant-type movements be limited to those cases in which interpretive (or intonational) factors seem to call for them. I assume that, although not always explicitly discussed in these terms in Kayne and Pollock (2001), this shouldbe takento be the case for SIin the frame of their analysis. However, a remnant-type analysis is not justified for FI in the general case. The next step is then to determine how internal to IP the postverbal subject is. 1.1. Postverbal S is low in the clause structure The distributional evidence concerning the respective location of the subject and adverbs which are located in a very low position in the clause structure, according to Cinque's (1999) hierarchy, as discussed in Belletti (2001) and also pointed out in Cardinaletti (2001), points to the conclusion that the postverbal subject is very low in the clause as it follows low adverbs. Consider the contrasts in (3) in this perspective: (3) a. ?Capira completamente Maria. will understand completely Maria b. ?Spieghera completamente Maria al direttore. will explain completely Maria to the director c. ?Capira/spieghera bene Maria (al direttore). will understand/explain well Maria (to the director) d. Capira/spieghera tutto Maria (al direttore). will understand/explaineverything Maria (to the director) (4) a.*Capira/spieghera Maria completamente (al direttore). will understand/explain Maria completely (to the director) b.*Capira/spieghera Maria bene (al direttore). will understand/explain Maria well (to the director) c.*Capira/spieghera Maria tutto (al direttore). will understand Maria everything
20 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP Notice incidentally that similar data have been discussed also for Icelandic in Bobaljik and Jonas (1996), example (21),giving opposite results: (5) ba3 luku sennilega einhverjir studentar alveg verkefninu there finished probably some students completely the assignment (6) *ba3 luku sennilega alveg einhverjir studentar verkefninu there finished probably completely some students the assignment The contrast between (3)-(4) and (5)-(6) suggests that a further, higher position is available for subjects in Icelandic, but not in Italian. Note that no special intonation is associated with the sentences in (3).This will always be the case in the examples to be discussed here, unless explicitly indicated. The examples in (3)b,c, and d, where the postverbal subject is followed by a PP complement (seesection 3.1 on this possibility) are particularly significant in that they indicate that even lower portions of the clausecan be present followingthe subject (i.e., a PP complement).11 Given the guidelines indicated here, as there do not seem to be reasons to admit a complex derivation including remnant movement steps, I assume that these steps are not implemented in the derivation of these sentences. Whence the significance of these cases.12 A closer discussion of the lack of the "?" in example (3)d is also relevant in this connection. Suppose that the "?" in (3)a, b, and c is due to some interference effect between the adverb and the postverbal subject, which should ideally immediately follow the verb. The perfect status of (3)d is an indication that no interference oper- ates here. The relevant notion characterizing the disturbing proximity between the adverb and the postverbal subject must be hierarchical, as all the examples are alike from the linear point of view (seeRizzi 1996 for a proposal). As tutto is supposed to move in the clause leaving its original location,13 contrary to adverbs, it can be assumed that precisely this movement is responsible for the establishment ofthe rele- vant necessary distance between tutto and the postverbal subject. Notice now that, were the Vadv/tuttoS order to be obtained through remnant movement of the rele- vant portion of the IP,14 leaving the subject behind, there would be no way to capture the relevant hierarchical distinction between the adverbs and tutto, which are both equally included in the remnant moved portion.15 From the preceding considerations, we can conclude that paradigms (3) and (4) indicate that the subject is low in the clause structure. 1.2. Postverbal S and extraction If we abstract away from the case of postverbal subjects of unaccusatives,16 it ap- pears that the postverbal subject is not a felicitous extraction domain. Both ne clitici- zation and wh-extraction are less than perfect, as illustrated in(7): (7) a. Ha telefonato il direttore del giornale al presidente. has phoned the director of the newspaper to the president b. ?? II giornale di cui ha telefonato il direttore al presidente. the newspaper of which phoned the director to the president c. ?? Ne ha telefonato il direttore al presidente. of it has phoned the director to the president
ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 21 d. ?? Ne hanno telefonato molti al presidente. of them have phoned many to the president If we put together the observations of the preceding section and the shape of para- digm (7), we can conclude that the low position of the subject is not an extraction domain, as extraction gives rise to CED-type effects.17 Kayne and Pollock (2001) point out a distinction as for extractability from the postverbal subject in French SI. While extraction of en appears to be impossible, combien extraction gives better results: (8) a.*Le jour ou en ont t61ephone trois. (K&P (19a)) the day when of them (cl) have called three b. ?*Le jour ou en sont partis trois. (K&P(19c)) the day when of them (cl) are left three c.*Le criminel qu'en ont comdamne' trois. (K&P(21)) the criminal that of (them) have condemned three d. Combien ont telephone de linguistes? (K&P (29a)) how many have called of linguists e. Combien sont partis de linguistes? (K&P(29b)) how many are left of linguists Their interpretation of the contrast is in terms of c-command. The IP preceding the subject is moved past it through remnant movement. In the resulting configura- tion, en does not c-command its trace within the subject from which it has been ex- tracted; hence, a violation of proper binding is created. No equivalent violation is created in the case of combien extraction via wh-movement as the wh-quantifier is further raised to the appropriate high position in the CP where wh-phrases normally end up. From there, it c-commands its trace as required. As no contrast is displayed in the Italian examples between en extraction and wh-extraction, this is an indica- tion that a similar analysis should not be extended to the FI structures.18 The conclu- sion must be that the position occupied by the postverbal subject in FI is not a felicitous extraction domain altogether. If the proposal that follows is on the right track, anatural reason can be provided for that, as such a position is identified with the Specifier of a Focus phrase,19 not an argument position in the sense relevant for CED.20 I now turn to the core of this proposal. 2. The interpretation of the postverbal subject in FI Here I briefly review the fundamental paradigm leading to the proposal. Question- answer pairs like the following indicate that the postverbal subject can be interpreted as new information focus: (9) a. Chi e partito / ha parlato? who has left / has spoken b. E' partito / ha parlato Gianni, has left / has spoken Gianni c. #Gianni e partito / ha parlato. Gianni has left / has spoken
22 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP However, with the appropriate intonation and in the appropriate pragmatic conditions, a postverbal subject can also receive the topic (given information) interpretation: (10) a. Che cosa ha poi fatto Gianni? What has Gianni finally done? b. Ha parlato, Gianni. He has spoken, Gianni. In what follows I will mainly concentrate my attention on the new information focus interpretation, keeping the possibility of exchanges like the one in (10) in mind, as they can provide a direct indication of the fine configuration of the low IP internal area under discussion (see section 5 for more on that). It is very clear from the contrast between (9)b and c that the postverbal and the preverbal positions21 have a very different informational content: only the former can carry new information. The postverbal subject is also informationally new when the whole clause is new information. Example (9)b is also an appropriate answer to a general question like (11), while (9)c would not be, unless some presupposition is held by the speaker concerning the subject: (11) Che cosa e successo? What happened? Let us concentrate our attention on the case of the so-called narrow new infor- mation focus reading of sentences like (9)b.22 According to the general guidelines assumed in this work, the focus interpreta- tion of the postverbal subject should optimally come out of the syntactic configura- tion in which the subject DP is inserted. As I have shown that the subject is low in the clause structure, this naturally leads to the proposal that it should fill a low Focus position (or Topic; see following section 5).23 This, in turn, argues in favor of the existence of such a position clause internally. To make the point stronger, a possible alternative should be considered, in line with the following assumed guidelines: the postverbal subject fills a Focus position indeed, but this position is not clause internal; rather, this position should be identi- fied with the left peripheral one already proposed and independently justified in the literature. According to this alternative, the subject is actually very high in the clause structure, and the portion of the clause preceding it is even higher. Within this analy- sis, FI would look much more akin to SI than we have hypothesized so far. The fol- lowing section closely discusses, and dismisses on empirical grounds, this alternative, which the data discussed in section 1 already put into question. 2.1. The subject is not high in FI We saw in section 1 that the distribution of low adverbs leads to the conclusion that S is low in FI. We also noticed some properties (extraction) that differentiate SI and FI. We now look at other differentiating behaviors of SI and FI that appear to be naturally derived if the postverbal subject is thought of as being high in the former case but low in the latter. Consider the following contrasts:
ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 23 (12) a. Non ho ho incontrato che (i/dei) linguist!. I have 'not' seen 'that' (the/some) linguists b. Non hanno parlato che (i/dei) linguisti. have 'not' spoken 'that' (the/some) linguists c.*(Che) (i/dei) linguisti non hanno parlato24 ('that') (the/some) linguists 'not' have spoken (13) a. Non conosco alcun linguista.25 I do not know any linguist. b. Non parlera alcun linguista. will not speak any linguist c.*Alcun linguista non parlera. Any linguist will not speak. (14) a. Non ho visto nessuno. (I) have not seen nobody, b. Non ha parlato nessuno. has not spoken nobody c.*Nessuno non ha parlato. nobody has not spoken In all these examples, the postverbal noun phrase is an NPI element that needs to be licensed by the negative marker non. Suppose that licensing is obtainedthrough c-command: in all of the b examples, the postverbal subject behaves like the direct object of the a examples and differently from the corresponding preverbal subject of the c examples. This strongly suggests that the necessary c-command relation is es- tablished in the b examples as it is in the a examples. In turn, this suggests that the b sentences should not be analyzed as involving a high subject and a higher remnant IP. If that were the case, the relevant c-command relation could not be established, and the resulting sentences shouldbe as ungrammatical as those involvingapreverbal subject are.26 Indeed, precisely paradigms withthistypeof distributionofjudgements are discussed by Kayne and Pollock and are used as an argument in favor of their analysis of SI in terms of remnant movement of IP past the high subject. The rele- vant examples that they discuss in this connection are reproduced in (15): (15) a. Jean a peu vu de linguistes. Jean few saw of linguists b.*De linguistes ont peu vu Jean. of linguists have few seen Jean c.*Le jour ou ont peu telephone de linguistes. the day where have few phoned of linguists d. II n'a pas vu de linguistes. he has not seen of linguists e.*De linguistes ne sont pas venus. Of linguists are not come f. *Le jour oil ne sont pas venus de linguistes. the day where are not come of linguists If peu and pas are taken to be the licensor of the polarity nounphrase introduced by de, lack of c-command can be held as the responsible factor ruling out the de-
24 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP phrase from the preverbal subject position. Similarly, lack of c-command could ac- count for the same impossibility in (15)c and f, which involve SI. This sort of para- digm is then used by Kayne and Pollock as a substantial argument in favor of their analysis of SI. The shape of the Italian paradigm remains unchanged if the relevant examples are made equally complex, as in the SI cases: (16) a. II giorno in cui non hanno parlato che (i/dei) linguist!, the day when have not spoken that (the/some) linguists b. II fatto di cui non parlera alcun linguista. the fact of which will not speak any linguist c. II momento in cui non ha parlato nessuno. the moment in which has not spoken nobody The postverbal subject of FI is then not a high subject. If it is correct to as- sume that it fills a Focus position, this position cannot be the high, left peripheral one.27 2.2. The postverbal subject does not fill the left peripheral focus Furthermore, the identification of the focus position of postverbal subjects with the left peripheral one does not seem justified on empirical grounds if the kind of focal interpretation is considered in more detail. In Italian, the peripheral focus position is systematically associated with a contrastive/corrective interpretation and carries a special stress, as mentioned in connection with (1). No equivalent interpretation or intonation is necessarily associated with a postverbal subject. Although, as noted earlier, the postverbal subject is the carrier of new information, the peripheral focus position cannot be associated with simple new information: (17) a. Chi e partito / ha parlato? Who has left / has spoken? b. (*) GIANNI e partito / ha parlato. GIANNI has left / has spoken. (18) a. Che cosa hai letto? What have you read? b. (*) II LIBRO ho letto (non il giornale). THE BOOK I have read, not the newspaper. Examples (17)b and (18)b are not appropriate answers to genuine questions of information. Contrast or correction is necessarily implied. It would be difficult to understand why the opposite should hold for postverbal subjects.28 From this it is legitimate to conclude that the focus position hosting the postverbal subject can- not be the same as the one located in the left periphery. Rather, it must be a clause- internal position, and the VS order is not obtained through a remnant topicalization process that moves a portion of IP over a left peripheral high subject. I maintain that an analysis along these lines could hold for SI, as in Kayne and Pollock, but not for FI.29
ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 25 The most direct way to phrase the proposal is in term of a diagram like (19)a, which postulates the presence of the clause-internal focus position right above the VP. This is too simple a version of the proposal, though, and it must be enriched to allow for topic-like positions to also be present in the low, clause-internal domain. In this way the possible topic interpretation of postverbal subjects illustrated by sen- tences like (10)b will be directly captured. This leads to the version in (19)b, which assumes a strict parallelism between the clause-internal vP/VP periphery and the clause-external one in the CP left periphery, mentioned at the outset: 2.3. Why is S focus (or topic) in FI? We have established that S typically is new information focus in FI, and we have made the hypothesis that this is a consequence of S filling a clause-internal focus position where it is interpreted. The question then is, what forces S to be in focus? Or, put differently, why is S necessarily focalized in FI? In Belletti (2001) I related that to Case: if Case is only assigned locally, there is no available Case assigner for S in the lower portion of the clause. S moves to Focus in order to be licensed by a feature different from Case—namely, Focus. But, the hypothesis of allowing Focus to play a role comparable to Case can look as aweaken- ing of the general approach, as it is not obvious what Case and Focus should have in common to allow them to play an essentially equivalent role.30 Moreover, in recent versions of MP, Chomsky has made the proposal that Case assignment can be a nonlocal process and that Case can also be available at a distance, with the (agree- ing) Case assigning head looking for its Case assignee target also in a nonlocal domain. If some process of the sort has to be admitted, we should look for a different reason to account for the focalized nature of the postverbal subject. I would like to speculate that this effect may be ultimately related to economy considerations. Let us ask, what would fill the preverbal subject position in FI struc- tures; namely, what would satisfy EPP? I will assume that, as in traditional accounts, the preverbal subject position is filled by a nonovert expletive pro, the associate of the postverbal subject: pro ha parlato Gianni has spoken Gianni No expletive is present in structures that contain a preverbal subject, as the EPP is satisfied by the lexical subject in those structures. Hence, FI structures contain one
26 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP element more than do the structures that contain a preverbal subject. Suppose that a kind of economy principle drives the selection of the initial Lexical Array (LA; Chomsky 2000) to the effect that an LA bigger in size is to be chosen only for some "purpose," or, to put it in Chomsky's terms, only if this choice has a reflex on the outcome. Focalization could precisely be one such reflex. It can be assumed that exactly the same ultimate reason is responsible for the topic interpretation of the postverbal subject as well.31 If this line of interpretation is on the right track, locali- zation (or topic interpretation) of the postverbal subject could be derived without having to admit any special licensing property for the focus (or topic) feature, com- parable to Case.32 1 tentatively make this assumption here. 3. On VSXP 3.1. VSOandVSPP A fairly clear contrast can be detected with VSXP word order according to whether what follows S is a direct object or a PP. The following examples (discussed in part in the references quoted) illustrate the contrast: (20) a. (?)Ha telefonato Maria al giornale. has phoned Maria to the newspaper b. *Ha comprato Maria il giornale. has bought Maria the newspaper c. (?)Ha parlato uno studente col direttore. has spoken a student to the director d. *Ha corrotto uno studente il direttore. has bribed a student the director e. (?)Ha sparato il bandito al carabiniere. has shot the gangster at the policeman f. *Ha colpito il bandito il carabiniere. has hit the gangster the policeman g. (?)Ha telefonato il direttore del giornale al presidente. has phoned the director of the newspaper to the president h.*Ha incontrato il direttore del giornale il presidente. has met the director of the newspaper the president The sentences in (20) should be pronounced with continuous intonation, with no special break between S and the following complement. When a break intervenes, the picture changes in a way discussed in section 3.2. The crucial difference between a direct object and a prepositional object is that the former is a DP while the latter is a PP. DPs need Case, while PPs do not.33 Rather, it is the DP embedded within the PP which needs Case and such Case is provided or checked within the PP, due to the presence of P. A Case-related account thus sug- gests itself, which I will phrase in the following terms. Assume that the direct object must be associated with a relevant Case assigning/checking head. Assumethis Case- related head34 is located outside vP/VP in a position higher than the Focus projection hosting the postverbal subject. This is the crucial factor ruling out VSO: the relation
ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 27 of O with the Case-assigning/checking head cannot be established due to the inter- vention of S, ultimately, due to RM.35 Consider the simplified representation in (21) illustrating this point: (21) As no relation external to vP is required for PPs, no RM violation is brought about by the presence of a PP following the postverbal S. Two further considerations have to be made, before moving to the discussionof VS#O (# is an intonational break). The VSPP sequences in (20) appear to be opti- mally appropriate in situations where the whole VP is taken to be new information focus. The most direct way to characterize this interpretation within the guidelines assumed so far would be to assume that it is actually the whole verb phrase, rather than just the subject, that moves to the specifier of the Focus phrase. We leave this as an open possibility. If this hypothesis is adopted, nothing changes in the proposed ac- count for the different status of VSPP versus VSO, as all the relevant hierarchical rela- tions involved remain unchanged.36 Note that PP can also be topic in sentences displaying the VSPP order. This would be the case in a sentence like (22)b as an an- swer to (22)a, which is normally associated with a downgrading intonation on the PP: (22) a. Chi ha sparato al carabiniere? b. Ha sparato il bandito al carabiniere. In these sentences only the subject should fill the Focus position. As a last remark, something should also be said on the mild (the question mark in parentheses) degradation attributed to the VSPP examples in (20). The less than perfect status of these examples could be related to a tendency to have a narrow focus interpretation of the postverbal subject; hence, a preference to have it in the last po- sition.37 The tendency is not respected in the relevant examples in (20), whence their less than perfect status.Still, no grammatical principleis violated, so these sentences are acceptable. 3.2. VS#O Judgments change according to whether a pause intervenes between S and O, when O is a direct object. Consider the following two possible sentences:
28 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP (23) a. L'ha comprato Maria, il giornale. it(cl) bought Maria the newspaper b. Ha comprato Maria, il giornale. has bought Maria the newspaper Example (23)a is a case of clitic right dislocation; (23)b is a case of so-called emarginazione—"marginalization"—in the sense of Antinucci and Cinque (1977). After the pause, indicated in both cases by the comma, a downgrading intona- tion characterizes the pronunciationof the following direct object. Although appar- ently very similar, the two structures can be considered to differ significantly. The distinction, which only manifests itself in few special contexts, has been brought to light in Cardinaletti (2001) and Frascarelli (2000). Consider the following question- answer pairs: (24) A. Chi ha comprato il giornale? Who bought the newspaper? B. a. L'ha comprato Maria, il giornale. it(cl) bought Maria the newspaper b.*Ha comprato MARIA, il giornale. has bought MARIA the newspaper The postverbal subject is necessarily contrastively focused in the case of emargina- zione ((24)Bb), while it is not necessarily so in the case of right dislocation ((24)Ba). This explains why a sentence like (24)Ba can be a felicitous answer to the question of information in (24)A, while (24)Bb cannot. Example (24)Bb essentially repro- duces the judgment reported in (17)-(18). The following account can be provided for the distinction. Consider the analysis of (24)Ba first. Following Cecchetto (1999), I assume that the right dislocated phrase fills a clause-internal low topic position; the clitic is raised to the appropriate clitic position in the higher portion of the clause, leav- ing behind the topicalized object, with a stranding type of derivation that assimi- lates these structures to clitic-doubling structuresin most important respects.38 Given the shape of the vP/VP periphery assumed here, this amounts to claiming that the right dislocated phrase fills the low topic position below the clause-internal focus. We can assume that the necessary Case requirements are fulfilled by the clitic in these structures.39 Hence, there is no need to directly associate the topicalized di- rect object with the Case head located above the Focus projection. The postverbal subject fills the low focus position, accounting for its possible interpretation as new information focus. Let us elaborate more on how the clitic fulfills Case requirements in (24)Ba. As the clitic moves to the (Specifier of the) Case projection, it ends upin aposition higher than the position filled by S. In this position no interference by S occurs; hence, accu- sative can be correctly assigned, or checked.40 Lack of a clitic would leave the direct object as the only element to fulfill Case requirements, with O in VP and lower than S; there is no way to avoid the interference by S. The structure is consequently im- possible, as we saw VSO structures are in general. The following schema summa- rizes the two different situations:
ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 29 Given the very different status of (24)Ba and (24)Bb, an analysis along the lines just proposed is not to be extended to (24)Bb. In fact, an analysis along these lines could not be extended to (24)Bb, given the analysisjust developed. Lack of the clitic in (24)Bb indicates that the object has to be related to its Case-assigning head di- rectly, without the mediation of the clitic. Hence, the structure is impossible as VSO usually is, as discussed. The presence of a pause in VS#O should not make any dif- ference. The fact that the same word order is in fact (only) acceptable with an inter- pretation of the subject as contrastive focus rather than new informationfocus indicates that a different structure and derivation should be associated with this interpretation/ intonation. Let us make the restrictive hypothesis that the contrastive focus interpretation is available in the left peripheral focus position and, in fact, this interpretation is avail- able only in that position. If this is the case, the contrastive focus interpretation indi- cates that the element carrying it is located in the high left peripheral focus position. This means that the postverbal subject should fill the peripheral focus position in (24)Bb, and this has a direct consequence for the object. We can think that move- ment of the subject to the clause-external focus position frees the object to establish the appropriate relation with the VP external Case-assigning head. Schematically, if in (24)Ba the order of the relevant projections is the one indicated in (25), with S intervening between the object Case-assigning head and O itself, in (24)Bb the order is the one indicated in (26), where S does not create any intervention effect, it being much higher in the structure: (25) (26) If this is the correct hypothesis, the naturalanalysis of sentences like (24)Bb must imply that other topicalization processes are at work to reach the final word order: topicalization of the direct object into the peripheral topic position located below the focus projection (Rizzi 1997), and remnant topicalization of the remaining portion of the IP past the peripheral focalized subject and topicalized direct object: (27)
30 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP 3.2.1. A follow-up on VS#O Given the described analysis of the "emarginazione" cases of VS#O, a natural ques- tion to ask is what would happen if the IP remnant movement part of the derivation did not take place.43 It appears that sentences resulting from this kind of derivation are relatively acceptable:44 (28) a. 7MARIA, quel giornale, ha comprato. Maria that newspaper has bought b. 7QUEI RAGAZZI, Maria, hanno criticato. those boys Maria have criticized c. ?IL RESPONSABILE, le soluzioni, trovera. the responsible the solutions will find We can assume that the same procedures involved in the derivation of the "emargi- nazione" "VS#O" cases would extend to (28), modulo absence of the IP remnant movement step. Direct objects are not normally allowed to be topic, without a clitic being present in the following clause. Well-known contrasts like the one in (29) are easily detect- able, however: (29) a. II discorso, (Gianni) lo leggera (Gianni) (a tutti). the discourse, (G.)it-cl will read (G.) (to everybody) b.*Il discorso, (Gianni) leggera (Gianni) (a tutti). the discourse, (G.)will read (G.) (to everybody) As the constituents in parentheses indicate, their presence and location appear to be irrelevant: the source of the contrast in (29)—in particular, the ungrammatically of (29)b—is solely to be identified in the absence of the clitic. Suppose that neces- sity of the clitic here is due to the fact that the empty position to which the topicalized phrase should be linked would not otherwise have a precise status (an assumption often made).45 The fact that the clitic can be missing in (28) is further indication that the possibility comes as a by-product of the clause external focalization of the sub- ject. Indeed, the phenomenon appears to be more general, as the possibility is also manifested if another constituent,different from the subject, is focalized, as indicated in (30)a, which contrasts with (30)b: (30) a. A GIANNI, il libra, ho dato. to Gianni the book I have given b.*I1 libro ho dato a Gianni.46 The book I have given to Gianni. We can conclude that O can be topicalized without presence of the clitic only if another constituent is simultaneously focalized in the left periphery. We leave open for the time being a precise analysis as to exactly what kind of parasitic use of focali- zation the topicalized object is allowed to make, this crucially depending on what the exact explanation for the impossibility of (29)b turns out to be, one option being the one alluded to above (and note 45). We just note here that the equivalent of the emarginazione VS#O type sentences not involving the remnant step seems indeed
ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 31 to be possible, as one would expect. Also, in all the possible cases, O is adequately Case-licensed IP internally due to lack of intervention of S. Lack of intervention is brought about by focalization of S in (28) and by movement of (null subject pro) S to the preverbal subject position in cases like (30). The kind of parasitic use of focalization that a topicalized direct object seems to be able to make, which we just discussed and which allows it to appear without a clitic in the following sentence, seems to be constrained in a precise manner: it is available only in the respective order illustrated in (28) and (30) with the focused phrase preceding the topic phrase. The opposite order gives impossible results. Com- pare (28) and (30) with (31): (31) a.*Quel giornale, MARIA, ha comprato. that newspaperMaria has bought b.*Maria, QUEI RAGAZZI, hannocriticato. Maria those boys have criticized c.*Le soluzioni,IL RESPONSABILE,trovera. the solutionsthe responsiblewill find d.*Il libro, a GIANNI, ho dato. the book to Gianni I have given We can describe the different status by observing that only a topic in a complement- like relation with focus can take advantage of the presence of focus in the structure. If topic has focus as a complement, the same advantage cannot be taken. I leave open further elaborations on this point.47 3.2.2. VSO, S pronoun A systematic class of "exceptions" to the general ban against VSO in Italian is pro- vided by cases in which S corresponds to a personal pronoun. Consider in this re- spect the contrast in (32): (32) a. Di quel cassette ho io le chiavi. of that drawer have I the keys b.*?Di quel cassette ha Maria le chiavi.48 of that drawerhas Maria the keys While the sentence in (32)b can only be rescued with a special contrastive or correc- tive intonation/interpretation on the postverbal subject "Maria," no similar special intonation/interpretation needs to be associated with the pronoun in (32)a. The con- trast between the personal pronoun and the lexical noun phrase suggests that pro- nouns should avail themselves of a further position in the postverbal domain, which is excluded for lexical noun phrases. This further subject position should be higher than the one filled by the lexical noun phrase and such that it would not interfere in the Case assignment of the direct object. Converging evidence is provided by the contrasts in (33). While a lexical post- verbal subject noun phrase must follow low adverbs, a postverbal pronominal sub- ject must precede them: (33) a. Di questo mi informero io bene. of this will inform myself I well
32 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP b. *?Di questo si informer^ Maria bene. of this will inform herself Maria well c. Spiegherii lei completamente al direttore. will explain she completely to the director d.*?Spieghera Maria completamente al direttore. (cf. (3)). will explain M. completely to the director Notice that if a low adverb precedes the postverbal pronomial subject, the latter necessarily receives a special contrastive or corrective interpretation ((34)a). This suggests that, in this case, the postverbal subject fills the higher focus position, and the sentence is associated with a very different representation involving remnant movement of the clause above the postverbal subject, as in the preceding analysis of (24)Bb. The contrast in interpretation in (34) indicates that, contrary to the postverbal pronominal subject, the postverbal lexical subject can remain clause-internal, thus not requiring any contrastive/corrective interpretation, as assumed so far: (34) a. Di questo mi informero bene io (non tu /... non importa che lo facciano altri). of this will inform myself well I (not you/... it doesn't matter that other people do it) b. Di questo si informera bene Maria, of this will inform herself well Maria 3.3. VSO, VSPP: FI versus SI In concluding this discussion, it is worth pointing out that a contrast in acceptability in VSXP structures seems to be detectable in French SI as well, with VSPP judged more acceptable than the excluded VSO. For instance, Kayne and Pollock (2001) quote pairs like the following: (35) a. Qu'a dit Jean a Marie? (K&P (133)) what said Jean to Marie b. *A qui a dit Jean tout cela? to whom has said Jean all that Although similar at first sight to the contrasts presented in (20), it is fairly clear from Kayne and Pollock's discussion that the similarity of the two paradigms in the two languages should not be taken as an indication that the processes involved in the derivation of SI and FI should ultimately be the same. The most significant indica- tion that this would not be the right approach is provided by the fact that the VSPP order of Italian does not appear to be subject to the numerous constraints the equiva- lent order appears to be subject to in French. An illustration of that is provided by the fact that no so-called counterdefiniteness requirement constrains the nature of the PP in the VSPP order of Italian, as it does in French (36a-f in Kayne and Pollock 2001: (140)a,b, quoted from Cornulier 1974): (36) a. (?) Sta parlando Maria a qualcuno. is talking Maria to somebody b. (?) Sta parlando Maria a Jean-Jacques, is talking Maria to Jean-Jacques
ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 33 c.*Sta salutando Maria qualcuno. is greeting Maria somebody d.*Sta salutando Maria Jean-Jacques. is greeting Maria Jean-Jacques e. ?*Qu'a avoue Pierre a quelqu'un? what has confessed Pierre to somebody f. Qu'a avoue Pierre a Jean-Jacques? what has confessed Pierre to Jean-Jacques Furthermore, Kayne and Pollock remind the observation in Kampers-Mahne (1998) that VSPP is actually impossible in the structures where SI is induced by the pres- ence of the subjunctive mood: (37) *I1 faut que le dise Jean a Marie it is necessary that it(cl) say (subj.) Jean to Marie VSPP in Italian FI does not make any such distinction: (38) a. E' necessario che lo dica Gianni a Maria. (it) is necessary the it(cl) say(subj.) G. to M. b. Mi sembrava che lo stesse dicendo Gianni a qualcuno. (it) seemed to me that was(subjunctive)saying it(cl) G. to somebody The order VSPP is equally possible in both cases.49 3.4. On VSO in other Romance languages As has been described in the literature(Zubizarreta 1998; Ordonez 1997; Motapanyane 1995), VSO (where O is a direct object) is a possible word order in various Romance languages, not requiring any special stress or intonation associated to the sequence. I repeat below some examples from the reference quoted: (39) a. Todos los dias compra Juan el diario. (Zubizarreta 1998) every day buys Juan the newspaper b. Espero que te devuelva Juan el libro. (Ordonez 1997) I hope that cl-you return Juan the book 'I hope that Juan returns the book to you.' c. O invita cam des Ion pe fata acesta. (Motapanyane 1995) her invites quite often Ion 'pe' girl the-that 'Ion invites that girl quite often.' But why should it be so? Why should there be such a difference between Italian (and Catalan; see Picallo 1998) on the one side and Spanish and Romanian on the other, limiting the domain of investigation to (some of) Romance? There are two possible approaches to this problem: (a) the languages allowing VSO avail themselves of a further subject position, higher in the structure than the Focus (or Topic) position hosting the postverbal subject in Italian and such that it would not interfere with Case assignment of the object; (b) the languages allowing VSO avail themselves of a further way to Case mark the direct object, allowing it to remain VP internal, with no need to be associated to the VP external Case position, thus reducing VSO to the same status as VSPP in Italian.
34 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP In favor of the first approach, which is the one adopted, with differences, in the references quoted and in Belletti (2001) among others, is the observation that a similar higher subject position seems available in other languages anyway—for example, Icelandic (see (5) and (6) above), and, possibly, in Italian as well, but there limited to hosting subject pronouns only, as in the discussion in section 3.2.2. In favor of the second alternative, the following consideration is given: There ap- pears to be a correlation between availability of VSO and existence of a special Case marking of direct objects in the same set of languages involving a preposi- tion under certain conditions (e.g., animacy of the object in Spanish; see Torrego 1998, from which I draw the examples in (40)). The preposition is also visible in object Clitic doubling constructions also possible in both Spanish and Romanian, in Romance: (40) a. Ana saludo a uno amigo. Ana greeted to a friend b. Juan lo visito al chico. Juan visited to the boy50 The hypothesis could then be that, at least in VSO, there can be recourse to an "ab- stract" version of the preposition for Case marking the direct object. Of course, the next step should be athorough investigation of the conditions under which the abstract preposition should be licensed. I leave the two alternatives open here at this rather speculative stage, noticing that the correlation between possibility of VSO and existence of a preposition available to Case mark the direct object ap- pears to hold beyond the Romance domain as it is also found in other languages as well, such as modern Greek.51 4. On VOS To the extent that VOS sequences are possible in Italian, they are only marginally so and appear to allow for only a special interpretation. To be able to have sentences like the following (41), the VO sequence must be given in the immediate context: that is, it must be topic: (41) a. ??Capira il problema Gianni. will understand the problem Gianni b. ??Ha chiamato Maria Gianni, has called Maria Gianni c. ??Ha letto il romanzo Gianni, has read the novel Gianni For instance, a sentence like (41)a could constitute a possible answer to (42): (42) Chi capira il problema? Who will understand the problem? In (41)a, the given part of the VP, VO, is repeated word by word. Of course, there are other more natural ways to answer (42). In the by far most natural answer to (42), the direct object is not fully repeated but is rather pronominalized, as in (43)a;
ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 35 (43)b and c are the respective more natural answers than (41)b and c to the relevant parallel questions: (43) a. Lo capira Gianni. it will understand Gianni b. L'ha chiamata Gianni, her has called Gianni c. L'ha letto Gianni, it has read Gianni We can account for the difference between the relatively strong marginality of (41) and the full acceptability of (43) in the following terms. Suppose that O is not allowed to remain in the position where it checks its Case. O can transit through (the Spec of) the Case position, but must void it.52 This leads us to conclude that VOS is impossible in Italian. I assume that this is the right idealization of the data. If O can empty the Case position, the structure is rescued, though: this is precisely what cliticization does. Whence, the full acceptability of (43). But why is it that VOS, although highly marginal, is not fully ungrammatical, then? It is clear, for instance, that VOS is felt as more acceptable than VSO by Ital- ian speakers. Suppose that, as suggested by the interpretation, VOS can be given an analysis such that no violation of grammatical principles is involved. According to this analysis, the constituent containing the VO sequence is interpreted as topic. Assume for concreteness that it fills the low topic position right above the clause- internal focus. S fills the low new information focus position. To the extent that they are considered acceptable, these sentences wouldthen illustratean instance of clause- internal remnant topicalization.53 We can speculate that this analysis is felt as some- how more costly than the more straightforward one whereby O is pronominalized and then cliticized. Whence, the nonperfect status of the sentences in (41).54 As an independent indication that this might be the correct approach to the prob- lem, the more "prototypical" the situationillustrated by the VO sequence is, the better the status of VOS becomes. For instance, sentences like the following (44) can often be heard in live radio broadcasting of soccer games, where VO expresses a typical situation in the games and counts as if it were taken from a given list of possibilities: (44) Protegge 1'uscita del portiere il terzino sinistro. protects the coming out of the goal keeper the left back Another case where VOS is fully acceptable, and which does not involve pro- nominalization of O, is the one given in sentences like (3)d, repeated in (45), where O is the quantifier tutto: (45) Capira tutto Maria. will understand everything Maria As noted in connection with the discussion of paradigm (3), the quantifier tutto moves in syntax to a position high enough to enable it not to give rise to the same interfer- ence effect that low adverbs give rise to, whichleads to the marginal flavor ofVAdvS. The perfect status of (45) as opposed to the usually impossible VOS indicates that tutto should be located in a different position than the position a normal direct object would fill in VOS. As a possible way of characterizing the difference, we can
36 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP assume that tutto is not in the object Case position. Possibly, tutto never ends up in this position altogether, as its quantifier status does not impose Case requirements on it. If the problem posed by VOS is linked to the impossibility of filling the object Case position, as we are assuming, we understand why tutto should not cause any similar problem. Moreover, the perfect status of "V tutto S" as opposed to the im- possibility of VOS is further indication that the relevant ordering constraints do not involve any linear requirement. Furthermore, no topic-like interpretation is neces- sarily attributed to VO, O = tutto, as expected under the adopted analysis. 4.1. More on [VO] remnant topicalization The postverbal subject in VOS is not c-commanded by the material contained within the remnant phrase. This leads us to expect that if some c-command relation is re- quired to hold between 0 and S, this should not be possible. Indeed, it appears that binding relations cannot hold between O and S in VOS. Consider the following question-answer pair, necessary to provide a somewhat natural context for (the lim- ited availability of) VOS in (46)b: (46) a. Chi ha salutato Gianni? Who greeted Gianni? b.*Hanno salutato Gianni; i proprii genitori.55 greeted(pl) Gianni his own parents The opposite direction of binding significantly improves thejudgment: (47) a. Chi ha salutato i propri genitori? Who greeted his own parents? b. Ha salutato i proprij genitori Gianni;, greeted (sing) his own parents Gianni. c. Chi ha baciato la propria moglie? Who kissed his own wife? d. Hanno baciato la propriaj moglie tutti i candidati,. have kissed (pi) their own wife all the candidates The acceptability of binding in (47)b and d, can be assumed to be obtained through reconstruction of the remnant VO, with O interpreted in its base position where it is c-commanded by S. The relative acceptability of the various answers to the questionsin (48) follow- ing (granted the usual marginality of VOS) may appear as problematic, at least at first glance: (48) a. Chi ha detto la verita? Who has said the truth? a. Che cosa/chi ha espresso la verita? What/who has expressed the truth? (49) a. Non hanno detto la verita che due studenti. have "not" said the truth "that" two students b. Non ha detto la verita nessuno. has not said the truth nobody
ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 37 c. Non ha espresso la verita alcunche/alcun ministro. has not expressed the truth anything/any minister If non, the licensor of the polarity expression in the postverbal subject position, is contained within the remnant-moved VO sequence, the sentences in (49) should be impossible. But they are perfectly acceptable. How can this be? Suppose that, in fact, non is not contained within the remnant-moved [VO] constituent, but that it is outside the topicalized constituent, in a position from where it does c-command the postverbal subject. Indeed, this is directly suggested by the fact that the negation is attached to the auxiliary and not to the lexical verb. In the assumed analysis of VOS as involving remnant topicalization of the [VO] constituent, the verb involved in the process is the lexical verb; the auxiliary must be higher in the clause. The negation should then be at least as high as the auxiliary to which it is attached. This is sche- matically indicated in the simplified representation (50): (50) . . . [IP non+hanno [TOP [Vp 6j detto la verita]j Top [FOc [che due studenti]j Foe Top [VPj] ]]]... Hence, the (marginal, as always for VOS) acceptability of (49) is not problematic for our general assumed account of the (marginal) VOS word order. It is interesting that a contrastive focus interpretation/intonation on the postverbal subject in sentences like (49) leads to an even stronger marginality than the one nor- mally associated with VOS. This is coherent with the restrictive assumption that contrastive focus is only established in the left peripheral focus position and not in the clause-internal one, which is reserved for new information focus only. If the postverbal subject fills the left peripheral focus position when it is contrastively focused or stressed, then the remnant portion of the clause to be topicalized must contain the whole clause itself (with the subject trace); this, in turn, implies that the negation should be contained within the remnant topicalized portion, whence, c-command would not hold between non and the polarity phrase in the postverbal subject. Indeed, it appears that it is not possible to associate the relevant interpreta- tion/intonation to the following sentences in (51)B and D:56 (51) A. Hanno detto la verita tutti i partecipanti. have said the truth all the participants B. 1.*? No, non hanno detto la verita CHE GLI STUDENTI. no have "not" said the truth "that" the students 2.*? No, non ha detto la verita NESSUNO. no has not said the truth nobody C. Ha espresso la verita quel comportamento/quel ministro. has expressed the truth that behavior/that minister D.*?No, non ha espresso la verita ALCUNCHE'/ALCUN MINISTRO no, has not said the truth anything/any minister Sentences word by word identical to (51)B and D—for example, (49)—can be (marginally, as always with VOS) acceptable in the context of (51)A and C, but the intonation involved is not the contrastive one suggested by use of the capital letters on the postverbal subject in (51)B and D. In those cases, the whole sentence might count as a correction, and the postverbal subject is not contrastively stressed or
38 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP focused.57 It is only in the latter interpretation/intonation that the sentences in (51)B and D are judged as very strange—indeed, impossible. This is further illustrated by pairs like the following, which explicitly indicate the strong marginality arising if contrast/correction is exclusively put on the postverbal S: (52) a. Ha detto la verita GIANNI (non Mario). has said the truth Gianni (not Mario) b.*?Non hanno detto la verita CHE GLI STUDENTI (non i professor!). have "not" said the truth "that" the students (not the professors) c.*?Non ha detto la verita NESSUNO (non Gianni). has not said the truth nobody (not Gianni) As a final remark on this point, we note that if we take the negative quantifier nessuno in the preverbal subject position where non licensing is not required in Ital- ian as non does not show up altogether, and we associate it with contrastive focus intonation/interpretation, the resulting sentence is perfectly acceptable, as (53)b il- lustrates in the following: (53) a. Tutti hanno detto la verita. Everybody has said the truth, b. No, NESSUNO ha detto la verita (non tutti). No, nobody has said the truth (not everybody). This indicates that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this particular intona- tion/interpretation, but that the problem in (52)c is indeed structural in nature. 5. Postverbal S can also be Topic As we have assumed that a low topic position is available below the clause-internal focus one, nothing in principle should prevent a postverbal subject to fill the topic position in some cases. This possibility is available, as already illustrated in (10), and it is the only available one in some contexts. These contexts are the wh-interrogatives, which will be discussed in section 5.1. Let us first consider some further examples of simple declaratives in which postverbal S appears to be a low topic, a possibility left open by the proposed ac- count. As also suggested by the downgrading intonation on postverbal S, the most suitable analysis of the examples b and d of the exchange in (54), has the subject as a topic. This would precisely be the low topic in question: (54) a. Che cosa ha poi fatto Gianni per quella questione? what has then done Gianni for that matter b. Si, si ha poi parlato, Gianni, al direttore. yes yes has then spoken Gianni to the director c. Che cosa fara Gianni? what will do Gianni d. Partira, Gianni, will leave Gianni
ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 39 The PP "al direttore" in (54)b is a further topic. It is known from the left periphery that topics can be iterated. There wouldn't be any reason for this not to happen for clause-internal topics as well. 5.1. Postverbal subjects in wh-interrogatives We start by noting that wh-interrogatives allow—and, in fact, require—that the sub- ject be postverbal. Contrasts like the following are well known and widely discussed in the literature: (55) a. Che cosa ha detto Gianni? what has said Gianni b.*Che cosa Gianni ha detto? what Gianni has said Without trying to provide an account for the reason(s) why the subject could not be preverbal in these interrogatives,58 let us try to determine where it is found when it is in the postverbal position. We start by noting that wh-interrogatives are systematically incompatible with left peripheral focalization. The ill-formedness of the sentences in (56), shaped on similar ones discussed in Rizzi (1997), illustrate this point: (56) a.*Che cosa A GIANNI hai detto? what TO GIANNI have you said b.*A GIANNI che cosa hai detto? TO GIANNI what have you said? This kind of ill-formedness is interpreted by Rizzi to be due to the fact that wh-words end up into the specifier of the peripheral focus position. This position being unique, it cannot contain both a contrastively focused phrase and the wh-word. Assuming this to be the right approach, we could suppose that since in the approach developed here the postverbal subject is located in a different clause-internal focus position, no incompatibility should be expected between wh-interrogatives and clause- internal focalization. It could then be assumed that there is no particular issue raised by wh-interrogatives and that the postverbal subject of interrogatives like (55)a could be a postverbal focalized subject. The situation does not appear to be that simple, however. The next observation to make is that focalization appears to be a process nor- mally affecting one single constituent per clause.59 For instance, no more than one constituent can undergo focalization in the left periphery: (57) *A GIANNI MARIA ho presentato. to Gianni Maria (I) have introduced This impossibility could be traced back once again to the fact that there is only one focus position in the left periphery. The problem seems to be more general, though. It appears that left peripheral focalization is also not compatible with clause-internal focalization. It does not seem to be possible to associate the right interpretation/into- nation to sentences like the following, with the left peripheral phrase contrastively
40 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP focused and the direct object in (58)a and the postverbal subject in (58)b interpreted as new information focus (underscored, for clarity); the sentences are excluded under this interpretation: (58) a.*A GIANNI ho regalato unjibro to Gianni (I) have given a book b.*UN LIBRO ha letto Gianni a book has read Gianni The shape of paradigms (56), (57), and (58) suggests that a constraint is opera- tive to the effect that a sentence can contain only one focused element, but this con- straint does not seem to make a distinction as to the kind of focus in question, as (58) reveals.60 If this is the case, wh-interrogatives containing a postverbal subject are unlikely to be analyzed as involving a focalized postverbal subject and a wh-word in the left peripheral focus position; they would constitute an isolated exception to the set of the paradigms in (56), (57), and (58). I conclude that, in fact, the postverbal subject of wh-interrogatives fills the low topic, not the low focus, position. This possibility is made available by the analysis proposed and is used in other cases as well as those illustrated in (54) and (10). Further independent indication that this hypothesis is on the right track is pro- vided by data from some northern Italian dialects. In these dialects (Fiorentino and Trentino) a particular subject clitic (F) or no clitic at all (T) appear in inversion struc- tures in declarative clauses. The data are taken from Brandi and Cordin (1981): (59) a. Gl'e venuto le su' sorelle. (F) it+has come his sisters b. E' vegnii le so" sorele. (T) has come his sisters In wh-interrogatives the subject must be in a postverbal position, much as in standard Italian, but a different clitic from the one that shows up signaling inver- sion in declarative clauses appears in these cases. The subject clitic appearing in wh-interrogatives is the one found in right dislocation. Consider (60) and (61) in this respect (from Brandi and Cordin 1981: 15a,b, 74, 75): (60) a. Quando 1'e venuta la Maria? (F) when she+has come the Maria b. Icche 1'ha portato la Maria? what she+has brought the Maria c.*Icche gl'ha portato la Maria? what it+has brought the Maria (61) a. Quando e la vegnuda la Maria? (T) when has-she come the Maria b. Cosa ha la porta la Maria? what has-she brought the Maria c.*Cosa ha porta la Maria? what has brought the Maria These data are perfectly coherent with the analysis proposed above: the right dislocated subject of (60) and (61) fills the low topic position, as in the analysis
ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 41 developed for standard Italian both for subject inversion in wh-interrogatives and for right dislocation more generally. The interesting aspect of these data from the dialects is that the nature of the position occupied by the postverbal subject is revealed and made visible by the nature of the subject clitic (F) or by its very presence (T). A last piece of evidence that the postverbal subject is not a focalized subject but rather a topic in wh-interrogatives comes from contrasts like the one in (62) involv- ing weak crossover configurations: (62) a.*?Attualmente, in un suo; appartamento vive Gianni;. at present in one his apartment lives Gianni b. Attualmente, in quale suo; appartamento vive Giannij? at present in which his apartment lives Gianni? Example (62)a shows that a WCO violation is induced by a postverbal subject in declarative clauses, while no such violation is induced by a postverbal subject in a wh-interrogative. For reasons that I will not develop here, focus is known to give rise to WCO violations. Thus, the impossibility of (62)a can be seen as a typical WCO violation induced by focus, as the postverbal subject fills the clause-internal focus position according to our analysis.61 The fact that no comparable violation is at work in the wh-interrogative (62)b is a further indication that the postverbal subjectin these interrogatives is not focalized. The status of sentences like (62)b is perfectly com- patible with the proposed analysis that the postverbal S is in topic position in wh- interrogatives and the contrast between (62)a and (62)b indirectly supports the over- all approach.62 6. Concluding remarks The main purpose of this essay has been the identification of different positions in the low IP area surrounding the VP. These positions appear to be related to different types of interpretations and their associated intonations. The aim has been internal to the cartographic perspective presented at the outset. The main empirical domain analyzed has been the one concerning the distribution of postverbal subjects; how- ever, the aim of this work has not been that of providing a systematic and compre- hensive analysis of subjectinversion structures.Several issues related to VSstructures have not been touched upon, and they are central for a detailed account of this com- plex phenomenology. Two of them are dealt with in some detail in Belletti (2001): the integration within the proposed clause structure and the assumed processes of clause internal focalization/topicalization of structures containingunaccusativeverbs; the availability of nominative Case for postverbal subjects. For a discussion of these issues, see the reference quoted.63 The evidence presented here strongly indicates that the low IP vP/VP-periphery is plausibly rich in the positions made available. These positions appear to be tightly connected with discourse-related interpretations of Focus and Topic in a way that is significantly parallel to the positions available in the clause-external (left) periphery.
Another Random Document on Scribd Without Any Related Topics
Are moch better, the lesse whyl they abyde; They make you thinke, and bring you in a traunce; But that seknesse wil sone be remedyed. Respite your thought, and put al this asyde; 410 Ful good disportes werieth men al-day; To help nor hurt, my wil is not aplyed; Who troweth me not, I lete it passe away.' Lam. 'Who hath a brid, a faucon, or a hound, That foloweth him, for love, in every place, 415 He cherissheth him, and kepeth him ful sound; Out of his sight he wil not him enchace. And I, that set my wittes, in this cace, On you alone, withouten any chaunge, Am put under, moch ferther out of grace, 420 And lesse set by, than other that be straunge.' La D. 'Though I make chere to every man aboute For my worship, and of myn own fraunchyse, To you I nil do so, withouten doute, In eschewing al maner prejudyse. 425 For wit ye wel, love is so litel wyse, And in beleve so lightly wil be brought, That he taketh al at his own devyse, Of thing, god wot, that serveth him of nought.' Lam. 'If I, by love and by my trew servyse, 430 Lese the good chere that straungers have alway, Wherof shuld serve my trouth in any wise Lesse than to hem that come and go al-day, Which holde of you nothing, that is no nay?
Also in you is lost, to my seming, 435 Al curtesy, which of resoun wold say That love for love were lawful deserving.' La D. 'Curtesy is alyed wonder nere To Worship, which him loveth tenderly; And he wil nat be bounde, for no prayere, 440 Nor for no gift, I say you verily, But his good chere depart ful largely Where him lyketh, as his conceit wil fal; Guerdon constrayned, a gift don thankfully, These twayn may not accord, ne never shal.' 445 Lam. 'As for guerdon, I seke non in this cace; For that desert, to me it is to hy; Wherfore I ask your pardon and your grace, Sith me behoveth deeth, or your mercy. To give the good where it wanteth, trewly, 450 That were resoun and a curteys maner; And to your own moch better were worthy Than to straungers, to shewe hem lovely chere.' La D. 'What cal ye good? Fayn wolde I that I wist! That pleseth oon, another smerteth sore; 455 But of his own to large is he that list Give moche, and lese al his good fame therfore. Oon shulde nat make a graunt, litel ne more, But the request were right wel according; If worship be not kept and set before, 460 Al that is left is but a litel thing.'
Lam. 'In-to this world was never formed non, Nor under heven crëature y-bore, Nor never shal, save only your persone, To whom your worship toucheth half so sore, 465 But me, which have no seson, lesse ne more, Of youth ne age, but still in your service; I have non eyen, no wit, nor mouth in store, But al be given to the same office.' La D. 'A ful gret charge hath he, withouten fayle, 470 That his worship kepeth in sikernesse; But in daunger he setteth his travayle That feffeth it with others businesse. To him that longeth honour and noblesse, Upon non other shulde nat he awayte; 475 For of his own so moche hath he the lesse That of other moch folweth the conceyt.' Lam. 'Your eyen hath set the print which that I fele Within my hert, that, where-so-ever I go, If I do thing that sowneth unto wele, 480 Nedes must it come from you, and fro no mo. Fortune wil thus, that I, for wele or wo, My lyf endure, your mercy abyding; And very right wil that I thinke also Of your worship, above al other thing.' 485 La D. 'To your worship see wel, for that is nede, That ye spend nat your seson al in vayne; As touching myn, I rede you take no hede, By your foly to put your-self in payne.
To overcome is good, and to restrayne 490 An hert which is disceyved folily. For worse it is to breke than bowe, certayn, And better bowe than fal to sodaynly!' Lam. 'Now, fair lady, think, sith it first began That love hath set myn hert under his cure, 495 I never might, ne truly I ne can Non other serve, whyle I shal here endure; In most free wyse therof I make you sure, Which may not be withdrawe; this is no nay. I must abyde al maner aventure; 500 For I may not put to, nor take away.' La D. 'I holde it for no gift, in sothfastnesse, That oon offreth, where that it is forsake; For suche gift is abandoning expresse That with worship ayein may not be take. 505 He hath an hert ful fel that list to make A gift lightly, that put is in refuse; But he is wyse that such conceyt wil slake, So that him nede never to study ne muse.' Lam. 'He shuld nat muse, that hath his service spent 510 On her which is a lady honourable; And if I spende my tyme to that entent, Yet at the leest I am not reprevable Of feyled hert; to thinke I am unable, Or me mistook whan I made this request, 515 By which love hath, of entreprise notable,
So many hertes gotten by conquest.' La D. 'If that ye list do after my counsayl, Secheth fairer, and of more higher fame, Whiche in servyce of love wil you prevayl 520 After your thought, according to the same. He hurteth both his worship and his name That folily for twayne him-self wil trouble; And he also leseth his after-game That surely can not sette his poyntes double.' 525 Lam. 'This your counsayl, by ought that I can see, Is better sayd than don, to myn advyse; Though I beleve it not, forgive it me, Myn herte is suche, so hool without feyntyse, That it ne may give credence, in no wyse, 530 To thing which is not sowning unto trouthe; Other counsayl, it ar but fantasyes, Save of your grace to shewe pitè and routhe.' La D. 'I holde him wyse that worketh folily And, whan him list, can leve and part therfro; 535 But in conning he is to lerne, trewly, That wolde him-self conduite, and can not so. And he that wil not after counsayl do, His sute he putteth in desesperaunce; And al the good, which that shulde falle him to, 540 Is left as deed, clene out of rémembraunce.' Lam. 'Yet wil I sewe this mater faithfully Whyls I may live, what-ever be my chaunce;
And if it hap that in my trouthe I dy, That deeth shal not do me no displesaunce. 545 But whan that I, by your ful hard suffraunce, Shal dy so trew, and with so greet a payne, Yet shal it do me moche the lesse grevaunce Than for to live a fals lover, certayne.' La D. 'Of me get ye right nought, this is no fable, 550 I nil to you be neither hard nor strayt; And right wil not, nor maner customable, To think ye shulde be sure of my conceyt. Who secheth sorowe, his be the receyt! Other counsayl can I not fele nor see, 555 Nor for to lerne I cast not to awayte; Who wil therto, let him assay, for me!' Lam. 'Ones must it be assayd, that is no nay, With such as be of reputacioun, And of trew love the right devoir to pay 560 Of free hertes, geten by due raunsoun; For free wil holdeth this opinioun, That it is greet duresse and discomfort To kepe a herte in so strayt a prisoun, That hath but oon body for his disport.' 565 La D. 'I know so many cases mervaylous That I must nede, of resoun, think certayn, That such entree is wonder perilous, And yet wel more, the coming bak agayn. Good or worship therof is seldom seyn; 570
Wherefore I wil not make no suche aray As for to fynde a plesaunce but barayn, Whan it shal cost so dere, the first assay.' Lam. 'Ye have no cause to doute of this matere, Nor you to meve with no such fantasyes 575 To put me ferre al-out, as a straungere; For your goodnesse can think and wel avyse, That I have made a prefe in every wyse By which my trouth sheweth open evidence; My long abyding and my trew servyse 580 May wel be knowen by playn experience.' La D. 'Of very right he may be called trew, And so must he be take in every place, That can deserve, and let as he ne knew, And kepe the good, if he it may purchace. 585 For who that prayeth or sueth in any case, Right wel ye wot, in that no trouth is preved; Suche hath ther ben, and are, that geten grace, And lese it sone, whan they it have acheved.' Lam. 'If trouth me cause, by vertue soverayne, 590 To shew good love, and alway fynd contráry, And cherish that which sleeth me with the payne, This is to me a lovely adversary! Whan that pitè, which long a-slepe doth tary, Hath set the fyne of al myn hevinesse, 595 Yet her comfort, to me most necessary, Shuld set my wil more sure in stablenesse.'
La D. 'The woful wight, what may he thinke or say? The contrary of al joy and gladnesse. A sick body, his thought is al away 600 From hem that fele no sorowe nor siknesse. Thus hurtes ben of dyvers businesse Which love hath put to right gret hinderaunce, And trouthe also put in forgetfulnesse Whan they so sore begin to sighe askaunce.' 605 Lam. 'Now god defend but he be havëlesse Of al worship or good that may befal, That to the werst tourneth, by his lewdnesse, A gift of grace, or any-thing at al That his lady vouchsauf upon him cal, 610 Or cherish him in honourable wyse! In that defaut what-ever he be that fal Deserveth more than deth to suffre twyse!' La D. 'There is no juge y-set of such trespace By which of right oon may recovered be; 615 Oon curseth fast, another doth manace, Yet dyeth non, as ferre as I can see, But kepe their cours alway, in oon degrè, And evermore their labour doth encrese To bring ladyes, by their gret soteltè, 620 For others gilte, in sorowe and disese!' Lam. 'Al-be-it so oon do so greet offence, And be not deed, nor put to no juÿse, Right wel I wot, him gayneth no defence, But he must ende in ful mischévous wyse,
625 And al that ever is good wil him dispyse. For falshed is so ful of cursednesse That high worship shal never have enterpryse Where it reigneth and hath the wilfulnesse.' La D. 'Of that have they no greet fere now-a-days, 630 Suche as wil say, and maynteyne it ther-to, That stedfast trouthe is nothing for to prays In hem that kepe it long for wele or wo. Their busy hertes passen to and fro, They be so wel reclaymed to the lure, 635 So wel lerned hem to withholde also, And al to chaunge, whan love shuld best endure.' Lam. 'Whan oon hath set his herte in stable wyse In suche a place as is both good and trewe, He shuld not flit, but do forth his servyse 640 Alway, withouten chaunge of any newe. As sone as love beginneth to remewe, Al plesaunce goth anon, in litel space; For my party, al that shal I eschewe, Whyls that the soule abydeth in his place.' 645 La D. 'To love trewly ther-as ye ought of right, Ye may not be mistaken, doutëlesse; But ye be foul deceyved in your sight By lightly understanding, as I gesse. Yet may ye wel repele your businesse 650 And to resoun somwhat have attendaunce, Moch better than to byde, by fol simplesse,
The feble socour of desesperaunce.' Lam. 'Resoun, counsayl, wisdom, and good avyse Ben under love arested everichoon, 655 To which I can accorde in every wyse; For they be not rebel, but stille as stoon; Their wil and myn be medled al in oon, And therwith bounden with so strong a cheyne That, as in hem, departing shal be noon, 660 But pitè breke the mighty bond atwayne.' La D. 'Who loveth not himself, what-ever he be In love, he stant forgete in every place; And of your wo if ye have no pitè, Others pitè bileve not to purchace; 665 But beth fully assured in this case, I am alway under oon ordinaunce, To have better; trusteth not after grace, And al that leveth tak to your plesaunce!' Lam. 'I have my hope so sure and so stedfast 670 That suche a lady shulde nat fail pitè; But now, alas! it is shit up so fast, That Daunger sheweth on me his crueltè. And if she see the vertue fayle in me Of trew servyce, then she to fayle also 675 No wonder were; but this is the suretè, I must suffre, which way that ever it go.' La D. 'Leve this purpos, I rede you for the best; For lenger that ye kepe it thus in vayn,
The lesse ye gete, as of your hertes rest, 680 And to rejoice it shal ye never attayn. Whan ye abyde good hope, to make you fayn, Ye shal be founde asotted in dotage; And in the ende, ye shal know for certayn, That hope shal pay the wrecches for their wage!' 685 Lam. 'Ye say as falleth most for your plesaunce, And your power is greet; al this I see; But hope shal never out of my rémembraunce, By whiche I felt so greet adversitè. For whan nature hath set in you plentè 690 Of al goodnesse, by vertue and by grace, He never assembled hem, as semeth me, To put Pitè out of his dwelling-place.' La D. 'Pitè of right ought to be resonable, And to no wight of greet disavantage; 695 There-as is nede, it shuld be profitable, And to the pitous shewing no damage. If a lady wil do so greet out-rage To shewe pitè, and cause her own debate, Of such pitè cometh dispitous rage, 700 And of the love also right deedly hate.' Lam. 'To comforte hem that live al comfortlesse, That is no harm, but worship to your name; But ye, that bere an herte of such duresse, And a fair body formed to the same, 705 If I durst say, ye winne al this defame
By Crueltè, which sitteth you ful il, But-if Pitè, which may al this attame, In your high herte may rest and tary stil.' La D. 'What-ever he be that sayth he loveth me, 710 And peraventure, I leve that it be so, Ought he be wroth, or shulde I blamed be, Though I did noght as he wolde have me do? If I medled with suche or other mo, It might be called pitè manerlesse; 715 And, afterward if I shulde live in wo, Than to repent it were to late, I gesse.' Lam. 'O marble herte, and yet more hard, pardè, Which mercy may nat perce, for no labour, More strong to bowe than is a mighty tree, 720 What vayleth you to shewe so greet rigour? Plese it you more to see me dy this hour Before your eyen, for your disport and play, Than for to shewe som comfort or socour To respite deth, that chaseth me alway!' 725 La D. 'Of your disese ye may have allegeaunce; And as for myn, I lete it over-shake. Also, ye shal not dye for my plesaunce, Nor for your hele I can no surety make. I nil nat hate myn hert for others sake; 730 Wepe they, laugh they, or sing, this I waraunt, For this mater so wel to undertake That non of you shal make therof avaunt!'
Lam. 'I can no skil of song; by god aloon, I have more cause to wepe in your presence; 735 And wel I wot, avauntour am I noon, For certainly, I love better silence. Oon shuld nat love by his hertes credence But he were sure to kepe it secretly; For avauntour is of no reverence 740 Whan that his tonge is his most enemy.' La D. 'Male-bouche in courte hath greet commaundement; Ech man studieth to say the worst he may. These fals lovers, in this tyme now present, They serve to boste, to jangle as a jay. 745 The most secret wil wel that some men say How he mistrusted is on some partyes; Wherfore to ladies what men speke or pray, It shuld not be bileved in no wyse.' Lam. 'Of good and il shal be, and is alway; 750 The world is such; the erth it is not playn. They that be good, the preve sheweth every day, And otherwyse, gret villany, certayn. Is it resoun, though oon his tonge distayne With cursed speche, to do him-self a shame, 755 That such refuse shuld wrongfully remayne Upon the good, renommed in their fame?' La D. 'Suche as be nought, whan they here tydings newe, That ech trespas shal lightly have pardoun, They that purposen to be good and trewe— 760
Wel set by noble disposicioun To continue in good condicioun— They are the first that fallen in damage, And ful freely their hertes abandoun To litel faith, with softe and fayr langage.' 765 Lam. 'Now knowe I wel, of very certayntè, Though oon do trewly, yet shal he be shent, Sith al maner of justice and pitè Is banisshed out of a ladyes entent. I can nat see but al is at oo stent, 770 The good and il, the vyce and eek vertue! Suche as be good shal have the punishment For the trespas of hem that been untrewe!' La D. 'I have no power you to do grevaunce, Nor to punisshe non other creature; 775 But, to eschewe the more encomberaunce, To kepe us from you al, I holde it sure. Fals semblaunce hath a visage ful demure, Lightly to cacche the ladies in a-wayt; Wherefore we must, if that we wil endure, 780 Make right good watch; lo! this is my conceyt.' Lam. 'Sith that of grace oo goodly word aloon May not be had, but alway kept in store, I pele to god, for he may here my moon, Of the duresse, which greveth me so sore. 785 And of pitè I pleyn me further-more, Which he forgat, in al his ordinaunce, Or els my lyf to have ended before,
Which he so sone put out of rémembraunce.' La D. 'My hert, nor I, have don you no forfeyt, 790 By which ye shulde complayne in any kynde. There hurteth you nothing but your conceyt; Be juge your-self; for so ye shal it fynde. Ones for alway let this sinke in your mynde— That ye desire shal never rejoysed be! 795 Ye noy me sore, in wasting al this wynde; For I have sayd y-nough, as semeth me.' Verba Auctoris. This woful man roos up in al his payne, And so parted, with weping countenaunce; His woful hert almost to-brast in twayne, 800 Ful lyke to dye, forth walking in a traunce, And sayd, 'Now, deeth, com forth! thy-self avaunce, Or that myn hert forgete his propertè; And make shorter al this woful penaunce Of my pore lyfe, ful of adversitè!' 805 Fro thens he went, but whider wist I nought, Nor to what part he drow, in sothfastnesse; But he no more was in his ladies thought, For to the daunce anon she gan her dresse. And afterward, oon tolde me thus expresse, 810 He rente his heer, for anguissh and for payne, And in him-self took so gret hevinesse That he was deed, within a day or twayne.
Lenvoy. Ye trew lovers, this I beseche you al, Such †avantours, flee hem in every wyse, 815 And as people defamed ye hem cal; For they, trewly, do you gret prejudyse. Refus hath mad for al such flateryes His castelles strong, stuffed with ordinaunce, For they have had long tyme, by their offyce, 820 The hool countrè of Love in obeysaunce. And ye, ladyes, or what estat ye be, In whom Worship hath chose his dwelling-place, For goddes love, do no such crueltè, Namely, to hem that have deserved grace. 825 Nor in no wyse ne folowe not the trace Of her, that here is named rightwisly, Which by resoun, me semeth, in this case May be called La Belle Dame sans Mercy. Verba Translatoris. Go, litel book! god sende thee good passage! 830 Chese wel thy way; be simple of manere; Loke thy clothing be lyke thy pilgrimage, And specially, let this be thy prayere Un-to hem al that thee wil rede or here, Wher thou art wrong, after their help to cal 835 Thee to correcte in any part or al. Pray hem also, with thyn humble servyce,
Thy boldënesse to pardon in this case; For els thou art not able, in no wyse, To make thy-self appere in any place. 840 And furthermore, beseche hem, of their grace, By their favour and supportacioun, To take in gree this rude translacioun, The which, god wot, standeth ful destitute Of eloquence, of metre, and of coloures, 845 Wild as a beest, naked, without refute, Upon a playne to byde al maner shoures. I can no more, but aske of hem socoures At whos request thou mad were in this wyse, Commaunding me with body and servyse. 850 Right thus I make an ende of this processe, Beseching him that al hath in balaunce That no trew man be vexed, causëlesse, As this man was, which is of rémembraunce; And al that doon their faythful observaunce, 855 And in their trouth purpose hem to endure, I pray god sende hem better aventure. Explicit. From Th. (Thynne, ed. 1532); collated with F. (Fairfax 16); and H. (Harl. 372). Also in Ff. (Camb. Univ. Lib. Ff. 1. 6). Bad spellings of Th. are corrected by the MSS. Title. Th. H. La ... mercy; F. Balade de la Bele Dame sanz mercy. H. adds—Translatid ... Ros. 1. Th. F. Halfe; H. Half. 2. F. H. Ff. wrapt. 3. All rose. 4. Th. Ff. -selfe; H. F. self. 5. F. matere; H. matier. Th. leuynge. 6. Th. must; F. sholde; H. shold. 7. H. to whom; F. the which; Th. whiche. Th. F. dysobey; H. sey nay. 9.
Th. thynge. Ff. part; rest parte. 10. Th. F. boke; H. book. Th. La bel; F. la bele; H. om. La. H. F. sanz; Th. sauns. 11. Th. Whiche. 12. Th. secratairie; F. secretare; H. secretarie. 13. H. ther-; Th. F. her-. Th. F. stode; H. stood. 14. Th. greatly ymagenynge. 15. Th. shulde; F. H. sholde; Ff. shuld. Th. the; F. H. this. 16. Ff. avysement; rest adv. 17. F. H. Ff. Myn; Th. My. F. H. Ff. symplesse. 18. Th. -warde; strayte. 19. Th. myne. 20. Th. downe. 21. Th. conclusyon. 24. H. in-to. H. green; Th. F. grene. 25. Th. se; great. 26. F. H. Ff. bolded; Th. boldly. F. benyng; Th. benygne; H. benyngne. 27. F. H. Ff. That; Th. Whiche. Th. F. boke; H. booke. H. F. the; Th. Ff. this. Th. om. seid. 28. F. H. begynne. Th. please. (From this point I silently correct the spelling of Th.) 33. Th. Ff. by; F. H. with. 35. Ff. soleyne (for sole thus); perhaps better. 41. F. H. Ff. is; Th. doth. 42. F. felde. Th. maner of ease. 43. F. H. I; Th. as I. 44. F. H. Ff. nor doth noon other. 46. F. H. Ff. Were constreyned. 47. H. Myn eyen; F. Myn eyn; Th. My penne; Ff. My pen. Ff. neuer haue knolege; H. haue knowlege (!); Th. neuer knowe; F. haue no knowlych. 49. F. H. Ff. And; Th. Tho. Th. om. if. 53. F. H. Ff. seke; Th. sicke. 54. Th. Ff. theyr; H. F. her (often). 55. F. H. balade or. 60. F. H. Ff. lyth with hir vndir hir tumbe in graue (Ff. I-graue). 65. Th. Ff. by; F. H. with. F. hath the forser vnschete. 66. Th. sperde; Ff. spred; F. sprad; H. spradde (!). 73. Th. H. om. good. 74. Th. om. Al. H. made than. 75. F. Ff. set; H. sette; Th. shette. F. H. Ff. boundes; Th. bondes. 77. F. H. thoughtes. Th. om. my. 79. F. I (for it). 80. H. I purposid me to bide. 81. H. forth to. 83. F. H. Ff. but; Th. a. 84. F. H. gardeyn; Th. garden. 88. F. om. yet I; H. om. yet. 89. F. H. come; Th. came. 90. Th. her; F. H. Ff. their. 92. F. H. nede; Th. nedes. 95. H. F. Ff. eueryche by one and one; Th. euery one by one. 103. So Ff.; H. F. Were none that serued in that place (!); Th. Ther were no deedly seruaunts in the place. 105. Ff. peraunter. H. om. most. 106. Th.
om. sitting. 110. F. com; H. come; Th. came. 111. H. F. man; Th. one; Ff. on. 115. Th. F. Ff. went; H. yode. 116. Th. F. Ff. Ful; H. At. 117. Th. om. good and right. 122. F. H. Come; Th. Came. 124. F. H. om. 2nd in. 133. F. H. feste; Th. feest. 134. Th. coude; rest couth. F. H. om. it. 138. Th. H. bode. 143. F. eey; H. yee; Th. eye. Th. F. Ff. stedfast; H. faste. 144. Th. om. the. 145. F. H. And; Th. For. Th. Ff. shot; H. sight; F. seght. 146. H. fedired; F. fedred; Ff. federid; Th. fereful. 148. Th. I, or that; F. ther that; H. I that there. Th. iestes. 151. F. H. tendirly; Th. wonderly. 154. F. H. come; Th. came. 155. F. H. om. most. F. H. ruful; Ff. rewfull; Th. woful. F. H. Ff. semblaunce; Th. penaunce. 158. F. H. these; Th. the. 159. F. H. louer; Th. man he. 160. Th. om. but. 166. All chase. 168. F. H. beautevous. 169. F. H. that; Th. so. F. H. set; Th. setteth. H. trist. 170. Th. the (rightly); H. there; F. Ff. their. 171. F. vndir a. 173. F. H. as; Th. that. 174. F. Ff. O; H. On; Th. One. F. H. vice. (!). H. ner (for 1st nor). Th. Ff. nor; H. or; F. ne. Ff. apert; Th. H. perte;F. pert. 175. Th. garyson. Th. goodlynesse. 176. All frounter. 178. F. H. Ff. her; Th. of (twice). 180. Th. standerde; F. standarte; H. standart. 183. Th. -drawe; H. -drewh. 184. Th. Ff. alone; F. H. om. 186. F. withes; H. Ff. wythyes; Th. wrethes. 188. H. Ff. thorughe; Th. through; F. thorgh. Th. no man might. 189. Th. this; H. his. F. H. come; Th. came. 191. Th. Set (for Sith). H. herbier. 192. H. them. Th. but a. 193. Th. of a certayne. 195. Th. om. And. 196. So F. H.; Th. bytwene hem two. 201. Th. more; H. Ff. neer. 204. Ff. hete; Th. heate; F. H. hert. 209. Th. Ff. gan; F. H. can. 210. F. H. The toon. 213-220. F. omits. 224. F. H. Ff. kyns; Th. kynde. 225. H. Ff. avise; Th. aduyse. 226. Th. it at; F. H. om. at. 227. H. enterprise. 228. F. H. It; Th. Yet. 229. Th. it be; F. H. om. it. 231. Th. Ff. eschewynge; F. H. escusyng. 234. F. H. to; Th. vnto. 235. All ye. Th. Ff. right; F. even; H. euyn. 237. H.
om. that. 238. Th. alway; F. H. ay to. 239. F. H. om. for. 240. Th. Withouten; F. Without. 241. H. gif; F. geve. 242. F. H. ayein; Th. any (!). 243. F. withouten; H. withoughtyn; Th. withoute. 248. F. Ff. mesurabely; Th. H. mesurably. 249. Th. Ff. your thought is; F. H. ye do ful. 251. Th. thynketh; F. H. think ye. Th. whyles; H. whil that; Ff. whils that. 252. F. matere; H. matier; Th. mater. 258. F. Ff. dyffiaunce. 259. F. H. Ff. to forbarre; Th. for to barre. 262. Th. om. hath. 263 Th. eye; F. eeye; H. yee; (read y). 265. F. if that ye lyst to beholde; H. Ff. if ye liste to biholde; Th. if ye list ye may beholde. 267. H. nor; Th. F. Ff. ne. 273. Th. om. not. Th. her; F. H. Ff. his. 275. F. H. Ff. But; Th. By (!). 278. H. om. trewly. Th. Ff. nought; F. H. neuer. 281. F. beleue; H. bileue; Th. loue (!). 282. So Ff.; H. F. om. greet (Th. you dyspleasaunce!). 284. So F. Th.; H. encombrance. 290. F. I-falle; H. y-falle; Ff. falle; Th. fal. 297. Th. F. Ff. now; H. nought. 302. Th. it were; F. H. om. it. 303. F. sorow; H. sorwe; Th. Ff. sory. 304. F. H. stroye; Th. destroye. 308. F. H. oo; Th. one. 309. Th. Ff. nor; F. H. ne. 310. F. H. grete desire nor; Th. haue therin no. Th. om. right. 311. F. H. seke; Th. sicke. 312. Th. of; F. H. Ff. to. 313. F. H. their; Th. her. 317. Th. that ioy; F. H. om. that. 318. F. H. om. al. 319. F. H. their; Th. her. 320. Th. maner of age. 322. Th. by; F. H. Ff. of. Th. purchesse; F. H. purchace. 324. Th. tymes. F. om. the. H. dere his richesse bought has. Ff. rechace; rest richesse. 326. Th. in (for 2nd of). 327. F. ben; Th. be; H. are. 329. H. scoolys holden dieuly. 330. F. H. of; Th. al. 331. F. H. their hedes away. 334. F. set; Ff. sette; Th. H. setteth. 337. F. H. om. that. 340. Th. shewe; F. sue; H. Ff. sewe. 341. Th. Ff. awayte; F. H. abayte. 342. F. worching; H. worsching; Th. workyng. 344. F. H. know and fele. 346. F. H. him; Th. Ff. hem. 347. F. H. when that; Th. om. that. 348. F. H. their; Th. her. 350. All avaunced loue. 351. Th. sharpe. F. H. this; Th. thus. 352. F. H. It;
Th. Ff. Yet. 354. F. ton; H. toon; Th. one. F. H. the tother; Th. that other. 355. Th. om. the. Th. certeyne (!). 356. F. wonne; H. wonnen; Th. one (!). F. H. with; Th. in. 358. F. H. is; Th. thinke. 363. F. nor; H. ner; Th. and. Th. om. certayn. 364. F. H. stant; Th. standeth. F. enfeoffed. 366. Th. om. as. 371. F. H. rightwysly; Th. vnryghtfully (!). 384. Th. Ff. ayre; F. eir; H. heire. 386. Th. Thus be. F. H. Ff. man of; Th. maner. 387. F. layth; Th. layeth; H. latith. 388. H. losith. 389. F. Ff. currisch; H. kurressh; Th. cursed. 391. Th. F. right; H. ful. 392. F. H. their; Th. her. F. worchyng; H. werchyng; Th. workynge. 393. Th. and; F. H. a. F. Th. Ff. semyng; H. menyng. 394. F. H. Their; Th. Her (thrice). Th. om. be. Th. but; F. H. not. 400. H. sorowe. 401. Th. wheder; Ff. whedre; F. H. wher. 403. F. H. Ff. if; Th. of. 404. F. Ff. Then; H. Thanne; Th. That. 408. Th. sicknesse. 410. Th. disporte. Th. me. 411. Th. Ff. nor; F. H. ne. 412. F. H. Ff. it; Th. hem. 413. Th. Ff. byrde; F. bride; H. bridde. 415. H. om. 2nd him. 416. F. H. om. 2nd him. 419. Th. farther. 420. F. H. sett lesse. 422. F. H. Ff. of; Th. for. 424. F. H. of all; Th. Ff. om. of. 425. Th. wote; F. H. wytt. 429-716. Misarranged in F. H.; Th. Ff. follow the right order. 429. (Th.) = 669 (F. H.). F. om. 2nd by. 431. F. There-of. F. H. shulde; Th. shal. 432. Th. him that cometh and goth. 433. Th. holdeth. 434. Th. as to; F. H. Ff. om. as. 435. F. H. wolde; Th. Ff. wyl. 436. Th. desyringe (!). 438. Th. To; F. H. With. F. H. best and tendyrly; Th. Ff. om. best and. 440. F. H. om. no. F. H. Ff. yift; Th. gyftes. 442. F. Wheryn hym. 443. F. H. Ff. constreynte. 444. F. H. Ff. may not; Th. can neuer. F. H. ne; Th. Ff. nor. 445. H. seche; F. beseche. 446. F. H. om. it. 450. Th. a curtyse; Ff. a corteys; F. H. curteysy. 456. Th. om. al. 460. H. loste (for left). 461. F. H. Ff. neuer formed (fourmed); Th. founded neuer. 467. Th. no (for non). F. eeyn; H. yeen. 468. H. That ne alle ar. 472. F. feoffeth. 474. Th. be (for he). 475. F. H. om. his. 477-524. Follows 572 in F. H. 477 (Th.) = 525 (F. H.). 478. Th. Ff. so; H. sum;
F. some. 479. H. sowndith. 481. H. Ff. thus; Th. this. 486. F. om. ye. H. F. your sesoun spende not. 488. H. Ff. foly; Th. folly. 489. Th. H. herte. H. F. folyly; Th. follyly. 492. H. F. And; Th. om. Th. to fal. 493. H. Th. faire. 494. H. Ff. had (for hath). H. F. your; Th. Ff. his. 495. F. H. I neuer; Th. Ff. It neuer. 496. F. H. whiles. 500. H. F. not; Ff. nought; Th. neyther. 501. Th. gyfte; H. yifte. 502. Th. om. that. 503. Th. a gifte; H. F. Ff. om. a. 505. H. F. om. an. H. hurte ful fele (!). 506. H. F. Ff. in; Th. to. 508. H. F. neuer; Th. neyther. 509. H. F. Who; Th. Ff. He. 512. F. om. the. Th. reproveable. 513. F. H. feyled; Th. fayned. 514. Th. I mystoke; H. F. Ff. me mystoke. 515. F. entrepris. 516. H. F. goten. 517. H. Th. liste. 518. F. H. Secheth; Th. Seche a. 519. Th. preuayle. 523. H. hosithe (for leseth). 525-572. Follows 716 in F. H. 528. H. hoole; Th. hole. 529. H. F. it; Th. I. H. F. om. ne. 530. H. soundyng. 531. H. F. it ar; Th. I se be. Th. Ff. fantasise; F. fantasyse; H. fantaisise. 533. H. F. Ff. folily; Th. no foly (!). 534. H. Th. parte. 536. F. condyte. 538. Th. Ff. sute; H. F. suerte. H. F. in; Th. in to. 539. Th. om. which. H. F. om. that. 540. H. F. Ff. left as; Th. lost and. F. dethe (!). 542. H. Ff. Whils; Th. Whyles. Th. om. may. 544. Th. Than; H. F. Ff. That. H. not; Th. F. om. 545. Ff. full; rest om. Th. H. harde. 546. H. triew; Th. true. H. grete; Th. great. F. Ff. om. a. 547. F. H. om. the; read mochel less? 550. H. F. nyl; Th. wyl. H. Th. harde. 551. Th. no man (for nor maner). 555. Th. cast me not. 556. H. F. ther-to; Th. therof. 558. H. F. beth. 559. H. trewe; Th. true. Ff. devoyr; H. duetes; F. dewtis; Th. honour. 560. Th. gotten. H. F. due; Th. dewe. 562. H. grete; Th. great. H. Th. -forte. 564. H. F. oo; Ff. on; Th. one. H. Th. -porte. 565. Ff. H. cases; rest causes. 566. H. F. Which; Th. Ff. That. 567. H. F. Ff. entre; Th. auenture (!). 570. Th. Where I ne wyl make suche. 571. Th. but a; H. F. om. a. 573-620. Follows 668 in H. F. 573. F. matere; Th. mater. 574. Th. fantasyse; F. fantasise; H. fantesye. 576. F. Ff. avyse; Th. H. aduyse. 577. H. Ff. prefe; F. preue; Th.
prise. 578. H. trouthe; Th. truthe. 579. H. Th. trewe. 581. H. Th. trewe. 583. H. Ff. deserue; Th. discerne (!). H. Th. knewe. 585. H. Ff. sueth; F. seweth; Th. swereth. 587. Th. geten; H. F. getith. 588. H. F. Ff. it haue; Th. haue it. 590. Th. H. shewe; fynde. 593. H. F. a slepe; Th. on slepe. 595. Th. H. comforte. 596. Ff. Shuld; H. F. Shulde; Th. Shal. 599. Th. sycke; H. F. seke. F. om. his. H. F. Ff. al awaye; Th. alway. 600. H. Ff. fele; Th. felen. H. sorwe; F. Ff. sorowe; Th. sore. 602. Th. om. right. Th. hindraunce. 604. H. Ff. so; Th. ful; F. om. 605. H. Th. defende. H. F. haueles; Th. harmlesse (!). 607. Th. om. the. 608. Th. gyfte; H. yifte. 609. Th. Ff. vouchesafe; H. vouchith sauf. 610. H. F. cherissh; Th. Ff. cherissheth. 611. H. Th. defaute. 613. H. F. of; Th. on. H. Th. suche. 614. H. one; F. ōn; Th. loue. 615. H. Th. One. 616. H. Th. none. 617. H. Th. her; see 618. Th. course; H. corse. Th. H. one; F. a. 618. H. F. euere newe; Th. Ff. euermore. Ff. their; Th. theyr; H. there; F. thair. 619. Th. Ff. their great; H. F. om. great. H. F. subtilite; Th. subtelte; Ff. sotelte. 621-668. Follows 524 in F. H. 621. F. oone; H. on; Th. one. Th. dothe; great. 622. H. F. Ff. be; Th. is. H. F. Ff. Iuyse; Th. iustyse. 625. So H. F. Ff.; Th. And al euer sayd god wyl. 626. Th. om. so. 627. Ff. highe; H. F. her; Th. his. H. F. shal; Th. Ff. may. 629. Th. great; F. H. om. Th. dayse; H. daies. 631. H. preys; Th. prayse. 632. F. H. Ff. for; Th. in. 633. Th. F. Theyr; H. There. 637. Th. one; H. on; Ff. won. 638. H. Ff. which (for as). 643. So F. H.; Th. As for my partie that. 644. Th. Whyle; H. F. Ff. Whils that. 645. F. H. ye; Th. it. 647. Th. H. foule. H. F. deceyued; Th. disceyued. 648. H. F. lightly; Th. light. 649. H. F. this; Th. Ff. your. 650. H. Ff. sumwhat haue; Th. haue some. 651. All Moche. H. sonner; F. sunner; Th. Ff. better. Th. to abide. Ff. fole; rest foly. Th. simplenes; rest simplesse. 653. F. Ff. avyse; Th. H. aduyse. 656. Th. as a; H. F. Ff. om. a. 657. H. There. Th. H. one; Ff. won. 659. Th. Ff. as (rightly); H. F. is. Th. H. none. 660. Th. H. bonde. 661. H. Ff. Who loueth; F. Who love; Th. Ye loue. H. F. hym-; Th. your-. H. F. he be; Th. ye be. 662.
So H. F. Ff.; Th. That in loue stande. 664. Th. bileue ye; rest om. ye. 665. H. F. beth; Th. be. Th. as in; rest om. as. 666. Th. alway; H. F. alwaies. Th. one; Ff. on; H. an. 667. F. H. trusteth; Th. trust. 668. Th. H. take. 669-716. Follows 428 in F. H. 670. Th. lacke; H. F. Ff. faile. 673. H. faileth. 674. F. H. Ff. then she to; Th. thoughe she do. 675. Th. my; F. H. Ff. the. H. surtee; F. seurte. 677. H. purpos; Th. pupose. 678. Th. For the lenger ye. H. F. Ff. thus; Th. is. 680. H. F. Ff. ye; Th. you. 684. Th. om. That. H. ther; Th. her. 686. Th. great. 688. F. H. Ff. felt; Th. fele. Th. great. 691. H. F. semeth; Th. semed. 694. H. F. of; Th. do no. 696. F. damage; H. dammage; Th. Ff. domage. 697. H. F. om. wil. 699. H. dispetous. 700. Th. suche; H. F. Ff. the. 702. Th. H. harme. H. F. Ff. worship; Th. comforte. 703. H. F. Ff. bere an; Th. haue a. Th. H. suche. 704. H. F. Ff. om. And. All fayre. H. F. Ff. body; Th. lady (!). H. formed to; F. Ff. y-formed to; Th. I must affirme (!). 710. H. F. Ff. that; Th. wel. 712. H. noght; Th. not. 714. H. F. Ff. manerles; Th. mercylesse. 717. Here H. F. agree with Th. again. Ff. marbre. Th. H. harde. 720. H. F. Ff. vaileth; Th. auayleth. Th. great. 721. H. F. Please; Th. Pleaseth. Th. H. dye. 722. Th. H. dysporte. 723. H. F. Ff. or; Th. and. 724. Th. H. dethe. H. F. that; Th. whiche. 725. Th. H. disease. 726. H. F. Ff. shake; Th. slake. 728. Th. heale. 729. H. F. Ff. nyl; Th. wyl. H. F. Ff. hate myn herte; Th. hurte my selfe. 730. Th. they I; H. F. Ff. this I. 731. H. F. wel to: Th. wyl I. 732. H. F. you; Th. hem. 733. H. noo; Th. nat. H. F. Ff. song; Th. loue. Th. alone. 735. H. F. Ff. I; Th. ye. Th. H. wote. Th. none. 737. Th. One; H. On. 739. Th. H. a vauntour; cf. l. 735. 741. Th. great. 744. H. F. Ff. to boste; Th. best. 745. H. wil wele; F. Ff. wille wel; Th. ywis. H. F. Ff. that; Th. yet. 746. H. F. on; Th. in. F. Th. partyse; Ff. partyes; H. party. 747. H. F. Ff. what; Th. whan so. Th. say (for pray). 748. H. F. shal; Ff. schuld; Th. shulde. 750. Th. H. suche. Th. Ff. erth; H. F. dethe. H. F. Ff. it is not; Th. is not al. 751. H. F. preve; Th. profe. 752. Th. great villony. 753. F. Ff. Is it; Th. H. It is. Th. H. one. 755. H. F. refuse. 756. Th. renomed; H.
renommeed. F. H. her (for their). 757. Th. here; H. herde. 758. Th. H. eche. 759. H. purposen; F. porposyn; Th. pursuen. 760. So H. F. Ff.; Th. Wyl not set by none il d. 761. Th. in euery; H. F. om. euery. 763. Ff. thair; F. ther; H. theym; Th. the. F. H. om. hertes. 764. Th. faithe. Th. Ff. softe and fayre; H. faire and softe. 766. F. H. Though; Th. Ff. If. All one. 768. H. banshid. 769. H. F. oo; Th. one. 770. Th. the (for 1st and); H. F. and. Ff. eke; rest eke the. 771. H. Ff. shal; Th. such. 772. H. F. ben; Ff. beth; Th. lyue. 777. F. H. Ff. visage; Th. face (!). 778. H. F. Ff. the; Th. these. Th. H. Ff. a wayte. 779. F. H. Ff. yf that we wil; Th. if we wyl here. 780. Th. H. conceyte. 781. F. H. oo; Th. a. Th. worde. H. F. Ff. allone; Th. nat one. 782. F. H. not; Th. nowe. Th. kepte. 783. H. F. Ff. pele; Th. appele. All mone (read moon). 785. H. Ff. pleyne me; F. pleyn me; Th. complayne. 786. Th. H. forgate. 787. H. elles. 788. Ff. H. F. he so sone put; Th. so sone am put. 789. Th. H. forfeyte. 791. So H. F. Ff.; Th. Nothing hurteth you but your owne conceyte. 792. H. shal ye. 793. H. F. Ones for; Th. Thus. 794. So H. Ff.; so F. (with the for ye); Th. That your desyre shal neuer recouered be. 796. Th. ynoughe. Title; in H. 797. Th. rose; H. rosse. H. F. al in; Th. Ff. in al. 798. Ff. partyd; rest departed. 799. Th. to-brast; H. F. Ff. it brest. 800. H. forth walkyng; Th. Ff. walkynge forth. 801. Th. om. Now. 803. Th. Ff. shorter; H. shorte; F. short. 805. H. Ff. whider; Th. whither. 806. F. party. F. Ff. drow; H. drowh; Th. drewe. 809. Th. Ff. thus; H. it; F. om. 811. Th. great. Title; in Th. 813. H. F. Ff. Ye; Th. The. F. trew; H. trewe; Th. true. Th. thus; H. Ff. this. 814. Ff. aventours; rest aventures (see note). Th. flie; H. F. fle. 816. Th. great. 817. Th. omits this line; from H. F. Ff. H. F. made. H. F. Ff. flaterise. 821. Th. H. estate; Ff. astate. 822. H. F. Ff. In; Th. Of. 824. Ff. haue; F. hath; H. om. Th. omits the line. 825. H. folwe ye not; F. folowe ye not; Ff. folowe not; Th. foule not. After 828, F. has— Explicit la bele dame sanz mercy; H. F. Verba translatoris. 829. Th. H. Ff. the. 833. H. F. om. al. All the. 834. Th. hir (for their). 835. Th. H. The.
837. Th. cace; H. caas. 838. H. elles. 840, 841. Th. her (for their). 843. Th. H. wote. 844. Th. om. and. 845. H. F. Wilde; Th. Ff. Lyke. 846. Ff. tabyde; Th. to abyde. 847. H. axe. 848. Th. Ff. were made; F. was made; H. made was. 850. H. F. Ff. processe; Th. prosses. 852. Th. H. trewe. 854. Th. done her; Ff. do thair; H. dothe here; F. doth thair. 855. Th. her (for their). After 856; Th. Explicit; H. Amen. XVII. THE TESTAMENT OF CRESSEID.
Ane dooly sesoun to ane cairfull dyte Suld correspond, and be equivalent. Richt sa it wes quhen I began to wryte This tragedy; the wedder richt fervent, 5 Quhen Aries, in middis of the Lent, Shouris of haill can fra the north discend; That scantly fra the cauld I micht defend. Yit nevertheles, within myn orature I stude, quhen Tytan had his bemis bricht 10 Withdrawin doun and sylit under cure; And fair Venus, the bewty of the nicht, Uprais, and set unto the west full richt Hir goldin face, in oppositioun Of god Phebus direct discending doun. 15 Throwout the glas hir bemis brast sa fair That I micht see, on every syde me by, The northin wind had purifyit the air, And shed the misty cloudis fra the sky. The froist freisit, the blastis bitterly 20 Fra pole Artyk come quhisling loud and shill, And causit me remuf aganis my will. For I traistit that Venus, luifis quene, To quhom sum-tyme I hecht obedience, My faidit hart of luf sho wald mak grene; 25 And therupon, with humbil reverence, I thocht to pray hir hy magnificence; But for greit cald as than I lattit was,
And in my chalmer to the fyr can pas. Thocht luf be hait, yit in ane man of age 30 It kendillis nocht sa sone as in youthheid, Of quhom the blude is flowing in ane rage; And in the auld the curage †douf and deid, Of quhilk the fyr outward is best remeid, To help be phisik quhair that nature failit; 35 I am expert, for baith I have assailit. I mend the fyr, and beikit me about, Than tuik ane drink my spreitis to comfort, And armit me weill fra the cauld thairout. To cut the winter-nicht, and mak it short, 40 I tuik ane quair, and left all uther sport, Writtin be worthy Chaucer glorious, Of fair Cresseid and lusty Troilus. And thair I fand, efter that Diomeid Ressavit had that lady bricht of hew, 45 How Troilus neir out of wit abraid, And weipit soir, with visage paill of hew; For quhilk wanhope his teiris can renew, Quhill †esperans rejoisit him agane: Thus quhyl in joy he levit, quhyl in pane. 50 Of hir behest he had greit comforting, Traisting to Troy that sho suld mak retour, Quhilk he desyrit maist of eirdly thing, For-quhy sho was his only paramour. Bot quhen he saw passit baith day and hour
55 Of hir gaincome, than sorrow can oppres His woful hart in cair and hevines. Of his distres me neidis nocht reheirs, For worthy Chaucer, in the samin buik, In guidly termis and in joly veirs 60 Compylit hes his cairis, quha will luik. To brek my sleip ane uther quair I tuik, In quilk I fand the fatall desteny Of fair Cresseid, that endit wretchitly. Quha wait gif all that Chauceir wrait was trew? 65 Nor I wait nocht gif this narratioun Be authoreist, or fenyeit of the new Be sum poeit, throw his inventioun, Maid to report the lamentatioun And woful end of this lusty Cresseid, 70 And quhat distres sho thoillit, and quhat deid. Quhen Diomed had all his appetyt, And mair, fulfillit of this fair lady, Upon ane uther he set his haill delyt, And send to hir ane lybel of répudy, 75 And hir excludit fra his company. Than desolait sho walkit up and doun, And, sum men sayis, into the court commoun. O fair Cresseid! the flour and A-per-se Of Troy and Grece, how was thou fortunait, 80 To change in filth all thy feminitee,
And be with fleshly lust sa maculait, And go amang the Greikis air and lait Sa giglot-lyk, takand thy foull plesance! I have pity thee suld fall sic mischance! 85 Yit nevertheles, quhat-ever men deme or say In scornful langage of thy brukilnes, I sall excuse, als far-furth as I may, Thy womanheid, thy wisdom, and fairnes, The quilk Fortoun hes put to sic distres 90 As hir pleisit, and na-thing throw the gilt Of thee, throw wikkit langage to be spilt. This fair lady, in this wys destitut Of all comfort and consolatioun, Richt prively, but fellowship, on fut 95 Disgysit passit far out of the toun Ane myle or twa, unto ane mansioun Beildit full gay, quhair hir father Calchas, Quhilk than amang the Greikis dwelland was. Quhan he hir saw, the caus he can inquyr 100 Of hir cuming; sho said, syching full soir, 'Fra Diomeid had gottin his desyr He wox wery, and wald of me no moir!' Quod Calchas, 'Douchter, weip thow not thairfoir; Peraventure all cummis for the best; 105 Welcum to me; thow art full deir ane gest.' This auld Calchas, efter the law was tho, Wes keeper of the tempill, as ane preist,
In quhilk Venus and hir son Cupido War honourit; and his chalmer was thaim neist; 110 To quhilk Cresseid, with baill aneuch in breist, Usit to pas, hir prayeris for to say; Quhill at the last, upon ane solempne day, As custom was, the pepill far and neir, Befoir the none, unto the tempill went 115 With sacrifys devoit in thair maneir. But still Cresseid, hevy in hir intent, In-to the kirk wald not hir-self present, For giving of the pepil ony deming Of hir expuls fra Diomeid the king: 120 But past into ane secreit orature Quhair sho micht weip hir wofull desteny. Behind hir bak sho cloisit fast the dure, And on hir knëis bair fell down in hy. Upon Venus and Cupid angerly 125 Sho cryit out, and said on this same wys, 'Allas! that ever I maid yow sacrifys! Ye gave me anis ane devyn responsaill That I suld be the flour of luif in Troy; Now am I maid an unworthy outwaill, 130 And all in cair translatit is my joy. Quha sall me gyde? quha sall me now convoy, Sen I fra Diomeid and nobill Troilus Am clene excludit, as abject odious? O fals Cupide, is nane to wyte bot thow
135 And thy mother, of luf the blind goddes! Ye causit me alwayis understand and trow The seid of luf was sawin in my face, And ay grew grene throw your supply and grace. But now, allas! that seid with froist is slane, 140 And I fra luifferis left, and all forlane!' Quhen this was said, doun in ane extasy, Ravishit in spreit, intill ane dream sho fell; And, be apperance, hard, quhair sho did ly, Cupid the king ringand ane silver bell, 145 Quhilk men micht heir fra hevin unto hell; At quhais sound befoir Cupide appeiris The sevin planetis, discending fra thair spheiris, Quhilk hes powèr of all thing generábill To reull and steir, be thair greit influence, 150 Wedder and wind and coursis variábill. And first of all Saturn gave his sentence, Quhilk gave to Cupid litill reverence, But as ane busteous churl, on his maneir, Com crabbitly, with auster luik and cheir. 155 His face fronsit, his lyr was lyk the leid His teith chatterit and cheverit with the chin His ene drowpit, how, sonkin in his heid Out of his nois the meldrop fast can rin With lippis bla, and cheikis leine and thin 160 The yse-shoklis that fra his hair doun hang Was wonder greit, and as ane speir als lang.
Atour his belt his lyart lokkis lay Felterit unfair, ourfret with froistis hoir; His garmound and his †gyte full gay of gray; 165 His widderit weid fra him the wind out woir. Ane busteous bow within his hand he boir; Under his gyrdil ane flash of felloun flanis Fedderit with yse, and heidit with hail-stanis. Than Juppiter richt fair and amiábill, 170 God of the starnis in the firmament, And nureis to all thing[is] generábill, Fra his father Saturn far different, With burely face, and browis bricht and brent; Upon his heid ane garland wonder gay 175 Of flouris fair, as it had been in May. His voice was cleir, as cristal wer his ene; As goldin wyr sa glitterand was his hair; His garmound and his gyte full gay of grene, With goldin listis gilt on every gair; 180 Ane burely brand about his middill bair. In his right hand he had ane groundin speir, Of his father the wraith fra us to weir. Nixt efter him com Mars, the god of ire, Of stryf, debait, and all dissensioun; 185 To chyde and fecht, als feirs as ony fyr; In hard harnes, hewmound and habirgeoun, And on his hanche ane rousty fell fachioun: And in his hand he had ane rousty sword, Wrything his face with mony angry word.
190 Shaikand his sword, befoir Cupide he com With reid visage and grisly glowrand ene; And at his mouth ane bullar stude of fome, Lyk to ane bair quhetting his tuskis kene Richt tuilyour-lyk, but temperance in tene; 195 Ane horn he blew, with mony bosteous brag, Quhilk all this warld with weir hes maid to wag. Than fair Phebus, lanterne and lamp of licht Of man and beist, baith frute and flourishing, Tender nuréis, and banisher of nicht, 200 And of the warld causing, be his moving And influence, lyf in all eirdly thing; Without comfort of quhom, of force to nocht Must all ga dy, that in this warld is wrocht. As king royáll he raid upon his chair, 205 The quhilk Phaeton gydit sum-tyme unricht; The brichtnes of his face, quhen it was bair, Nane micht behald for peirsing of his sicht. This goldin cart with fyry bemes bricht Four yokkit steidis, full different of hew, 210 But bait or tyring throw the spheiris drew. The first was soyr, with mane als reid as rois, Callit Eöy, in-to the orient; The secund steid to name hecht Ethiös, Quhytly and paill, and sum-deill ascendent; 215 The thrid Peros, richt hait and richt fervent; The feird was blak, callit †Philegoney,
Quhilk rollis Phebus down in-to the sey. Venus was thair present, that goddes gay, Hir sonnis querrel for to defend, and mak 220 Hir awin complaint, cled in ane nyce array, The ane half grene, the uther half sabill-blak; Quhyte hair as gold, kemmit and shed abak; But in hir face semit greit variance, Quhyles perfit treuth, and quhylës inconstance. 225 Under smyling sho was dissimulait, Provocative with blenkis amorous; And suddanly changit and alterait, Angry as ony serpent venemous, Richt pungitive with wordis odious. 230 Thus variant sho was, quha list tak keip, With ane eye lauch, and with the uther weip:— In taikning that all fleshly paramour, Quhilk Venus hes in reull and governance, Is sum-tyme sweit, sum-tyme bitter and sour, 235 Richt unstabill, and full of variance, Mingit with cairfull joy, and fals plesance; Now hait, now cauld; now blyth, now full of wo; Now grene as leif, now widderit and ago. With buik in hand than com Mercurius, 240 Richt eloquent and full of rethory; With pólite termis and delicious; With pen and ink to réport all redy; Setting sangis, and singand merily.
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com

More Related Content

PDF
Mapping Spatial Pps The Cartography Of Syntactic Structures 1st Guglielmo Cin...
pujadibove
 
PDF
Syntax And Its Limits Raffaella R Folli Christina C Sevdali
kottohmanav
 
PDF
Syntactic Categories Their Identification and Description in Linguistic Theor...
lcbsilia
 
PDF
Elementary Syntactic Structures Prospects Of A Featurefree Syntax Cedric Boeckx
vyhitci3380
 
PDF
Syntactic Theory A Formal Introduction Second Edition Ivan A Sag Thomas Wasow...
qpzfcshyv005
 
PDF
Mapping The Left Periphery The Cartography Of Syntactic Structures Volume 5 P...
utnostucig365
 
DOCX
English Syntax An IntroductionJong-Bok Kim and Peter Sell
TanaMaeskm
 
PDF
Syntax course
blessedkkr
 
Mapping Spatial Pps The Cartography Of Syntactic Structures 1st Guglielmo Cin...
pujadibove
 
Syntax And Its Limits Raffaella R Folli Christina C Sevdali
kottohmanav
 
Syntactic Categories Their Identification and Description in Linguistic Theor...
lcbsilia
 
Elementary Syntactic Structures Prospects Of A Featurefree Syntax Cedric Boeckx
vyhitci3380
 
Syntactic Theory A Formal Introduction Second Edition Ivan A Sag Thomas Wasow...
qpzfcshyv005
 
Mapping The Left Periphery The Cartography Of Syntactic Structures Volume 5 P...
utnostucig365
 
English Syntax An IntroductionJong-Bok Kim and Peter Sell
TanaMaeskm
 
Syntax course
blessedkkr
 

Similar to The Structure Of Cp And Ip The Cartography Of Syntactic Structures Volume 2 Luigi Rizzi (20)

PDF
Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information Uwe Junghanns
kiqakveoay2797
 
PDF
Inflectional Morphology A Theory Of Paradigm Structure 1st Edition Gregory T ...
conleylimao
 
PPT
The sentence and the utterance
Lyudmila Osinovskaya
 
PDF
Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information Uwe Junghanns
kenjeeehmoud
 
PPTX
Syntax by George Yule
Asif Ali Raza
 
PDF
Information Structure And Agreement Victoria Camachotaboada
zorktayipeng95
 
PDF
Information Structure And Agreement Victoria Camachotaboada
zorktayipeng95
 
PPTX
Deep structure and surface structure
Asif Ali Raza
 
PPTX
Grammar and its types
Asif Ali Raza
 
PPTX
Movement rules
Asif Ali Raza
 
PPTX
Phrase structure rules
Asif Ali Raza
 
PPTX
Structural ambiguity
Asif Ali Raza
 
PPTX
Complement phrase
Asif Ali Raza
 
PPTX
Recursion
Asif Ali Raza
 
PPTX
Tree diagram
Asif Ali Raza
 
PDF
Information Structure And Its Interfaces Interface Explorations 1st Edition M...
winakruci
 
PPTX
Syntax: grammar of clauses; higher constituents
MayJoyCalcaben1
 
PDF
Network Morphology A Defaultsbased Theory Of Word Structure Brown
lgcnfvhbf2034
 
PPTX
Generative grammar
Asif Ali Raza
 
PPTX
grammaticality, deep & surface structure, and ambiguity
Dedew Deviarini
 
Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information Uwe Junghanns
kiqakveoay2797
 
Inflectional Morphology A Theory Of Paradigm Structure 1st Edition Gregory T ...
conleylimao
 
The sentence and the utterance
Lyudmila Osinovskaya
 
Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information Uwe Junghanns
kenjeeehmoud
 
Syntax by George Yule
Asif Ali Raza
 
Information Structure And Agreement Victoria Camachotaboada
zorktayipeng95
 
Information Structure And Agreement Victoria Camachotaboada
zorktayipeng95
 
Deep structure and surface structure
Asif Ali Raza
 
Grammar and its types
Asif Ali Raza
 
Movement rules
Asif Ali Raza
 
Phrase structure rules
Asif Ali Raza
 
Structural ambiguity
Asif Ali Raza
 
Complement phrase
Asif Ali Raza
 
Recursion
Asif Ali Raza
 
Tree diagram
Asif Ali Raza
 
Information Structure And Its Interfaces Interface Explorations 1st Edition M...
winakruci
 
Syntax: grammar of clauses; higher constituents
MayJoyCalcaben1
 
Network Morphology A Defaultsbased Theory Of Word Structure Brown
lgcnfvhbf2034
 
Generative grammar
Asif Ali Raza
 
grammaticality, deep & surface structure, and ambiguity
Dedew Deviarini
 
Ad

Recently uploaded (20)

PPTX
Institutional Correction lecture only . . .
limvtheghins
 
PDF
RMMM.pdf make it easy to upload and study
sajedul2
 
PDF
OBE - B.A.(HON'S) IN INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE -Ar.MOHIUDDIN.pdf
ArchitectAFMMohiuddi
 
PDF
3rd Neelam Sanjeevareddy Memorial Lecture.pdf
Academy of Grassroots Studies and Research of India (AGRASRI)
 
PPTX
Introduction-to-Literarature-and-Literary-Studies-week-Prelim-coverage.pptx
EricaRamos80
 
PDF
STATICS OF THE RIGID BODIES Hibbelers.pdf
pascualasturiaskaye4
 
PPTX
Cell Types and Its function , kingdom of life
ClaireMangundayao1
 
PPTX
PPT- ENG7_QUARTER1_LESSON1_WEEK1. IMAGERY -DESCRIPTIONS pptx.pptx
KMDee
 
PDF
A systematic review of self-coping strategies used by university students to ...
CleeveMoralde1
 
PDF
Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Surgery in India
mohitsuren827
 
PDF
Complications of Minimal Access Surgery at WLH
mohitsuren827
 
PPTX
Pharmacology of Heart Failure /Pharmacotherapy of CHF
Rajshri Ghogare
 
PDF
O5-L3 Freight Transport Ops (International) V1.pdf
labyankof
 
PPTX
Pharma ospi slides which help in ospi learning
rameetkumar304
 
PDF
Black Hat USA 2025 - Micro ICS Summit - ICS/OT Threat Landscape
Chris Sistrunk
 
PPTX
202450812 BayCHI UCSC-SV 20250812 v17.pptx
home
 
PDF
The Lost Whites of Pakistan by Jahanzaib Mughal.pdf
jahanzaibmughal6
 
PDF
Chapter 2 Heredity, Prenatal Development, and Birth.pdf
MarjorieLopezTiu
 
PPTX
human mycosis Human fungal infections are called human mycosis..pptx
shilpa939953
 
PPTX
Presentation on HIE in infants and its manifestations
joghikamal786
 
Institutional Correction lecture only . . .
limvtheghins
 
RMMM.pdf make it easy to upload and study
sajedul2
 
OBE - B.A.(HON'S) IN INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE -Ar.MOHIUDDIN.pdf
ArchitectAFMMohiuddi
 
3rd Neelam Sanjeevareddy Memorial Lecture.pdf
Academy of Grassroots Studies and Research of India (AGRASRI)
 
Introduction-to-Literarature-and-Literary-Studies-week-Prelim-coverage.pptx
EricaRamos80
 
STATICS OF THE RIGID BODIES Hibbelers.pdf
pascualasturiaskaye4
 
Cell Types and Its function , kingdom of life
ClaireMangundayao1
 
PPT- ENG7_QUARTER1_LESSON1_WEEK1. IMAGERY -DESCRIPTIONS pptx.pptx
KMDee
 
A systematic review of self-coping strategies used by university students to ...
CleeveMoralde1
 
Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Surgery in India
mohitsuren827
 
Complications of Minimal Access Surgery at WLH
mohitsuren827
 
Pharmacology of Heart Failure /Pharmacotherapy of CHF
Rajshri Ghogare
 
O5-L3 Freight Transport Ops (International) V1.pdf
labyankof
 
Pharma ospi slides which help in ospi learning
rameetkumar304
 
Black Hat USA 2025 - Micro ICS Summit - ICS/OT Threat Landscape
Chris Sistrunk
 
202450812 BayCHI UCSC-SV 20250812 v17.pptx
home
 
The Lost Whites of Pakistan by Jahanzaib Mughal.pdf
jahanzaibmughal6
 
Chapter 2 Heredity, Prenatal Development, and Birth.pdf
MarjorieLopezTiu
 
human mycosis Human fungal infections are called human mycosis..pptx
shilpa939953
 
Presentation on HIE in infants and its manifestations
joghikamal786
 
Ad

The Structure Of Cp And Ip The Cartography Of Syntactic Structures Volume 2 Luigi Rizzi

  • 1. The Structure Of Cp And Ip The Cartography Of Syntactic Structures Volume 2 Luigi Rizzi download https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-cp-and-ip-the- cartography-of-syntactic-structures-volume-2-luigi-rizzi-4687644 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
  • 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. The Structure Of Atonal Music Allen Forte https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-atonal-music-allen- forte-50353844 The Structure Of Creole Words Segmental Syllabic And Morphological Aspects Reprint 2012 Parth Bhatt Editor Ingo Plag Editor https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-creole-words-segmental- syllabic-and-morphological-aspects-reprint-2012-parth-bhatt-editor- ingo-plag-editor-50367558 The Structure Of Compact Groups A Primer For The Student A Handbook For The Expert 4th Revised And Expanded Edition Karl H Hofmann https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-compact-groups-a- primer-for-the-student-a-handbook-for-the-expert-4th-revised-and- expanded-edition-karl-h-hofmann-50378610 The Structure Of Compact Groups A Primer For The Student A Handbook For The Expert 3rd Revised And Augmented Edition Karl H Hofmann https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-compact-groups-a- primer-for-the-student-a-handbook-for-the-expert-3rd-revised-and- augmented-edition-karl-h-hofmann-50378670
  • 3. The Structure Of Compact Groups A Primer For Students A Handbook For The Expert 2nd Rev And Augmented Ed Karl H Hofmann Sidney A Morris https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-compact-groups-a- primer-for-students-a-handbook-for-the-expert-2nd-rev-and-augmented- ed-karl-h-hofmann-sidney-a-morris-50378810 The Structure Of Policy Evolution Painting An Integrated Picture Of Change In Policy And Institutional Systems 1st Edition Oldrich Bubak https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-policy-evolution- painting-an-integrated-picture-of-change-in-policy-and-institutional- systems-1st-edition-oldrich-bubak-50431080 The Structure Of Game Design Wallace Wang https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-game-design-wallace- wang-50546698 The Structure Of Scientific Inference Mary Hesse https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-scientific-inference- mary-hesse-50849622 The Structure Of Learner Varieties Henritte Hendriks Editor https://ebookbell.com/product/the-structure-of-learner-varieties- henritte-hendriks-editor-50959072
  • 6. The Structure of CP and IP
  • 7. OXFORD STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE SYNTAX Richard Kayne, General Editor The Higher Functional Field: Evidence from North Italian Dialects Cecilia Poletto The Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages Edited by Andrew Carnie and Eithne Guilfoyle Parameters and Universals Richard Kayne Portugese Syntax: New Comparative Studies Edited by Joao Costa XP-Adjunction in Universal Grammar: Scrambling and Binding in Hindi-Urdu Ayesha Kidwai Infinitive Constructions: A Syntactic Analysis of the Romance Languages Guido Mensching Subject Inversion in Romance and the Theory of Universal Grammar Edited by Aafke Hulk and Jean-Yves Pollock Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP Edited by Peter Svenonius A Unified Theory of Verbal and Nominal Projections Yoshiki Ogawa Functional Structures in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 1 Edited by Guglielmo Cinque Syntactic Heads and Word Formation Marit Julien The Syntax of Italian Dialects Christina Tortora The Morphosyntax of Complement-Head Sequences: Clause Structure and Word Order Patterns in Kwa Enoch Olade Aboh The Structure ofCP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 2 Edited by Luigi Rizzi
  • 8. The Structure of CP and IP The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Volume 2 Edited by LUIGI RIZZI OXPORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 2004
  • 9. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Oxford New York Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Sao Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto Copyright © 2004 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 www.oup.com Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The structure of CP and IP / edited by Luigi Rizzi. p. cm.—(Oxford studies in comparative syntax) (The cartography of syntactic structures ; v. 2) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-19-515948-9; ISBN 0-19-515949-7 (pbk.) 1. Grammar, Comparative and general—Clauses. 2. Grammar, Comparative and general—Inflection. 3. Generative grammar. I. Rizzi, Luigi. II. Series. III. Series: The cartography of syntactic structures ; v. 2 P297 .s77 2003 415—dc21 2002038159 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
  • 10. Contents Contributors vii 1 On the Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Luigi Rizzi 3 2 Aspects of the Low IP Area, Adriana Belletti 16 3 Topic, Focus, and V2: Defining the CP Sublayers, Paola Beninca' and Cecilia Poletto 52 4 Resumptive Relatives and LF Chains, Valentino Bianchi 76 5 Toward a Cartography of Subject Positions, Anna Cardinaletti 115 6 Remnant Movement in the Theory of Phases, Carlo Cecchetto 166 7 Complementizer Deletion in Italian, Alessandra Giorgi and Fabio Pianesi 190 8 Clitics: Cooccurrence and Mutual Exclusion Patterns, M. Rita Manzini and Leonardo M. Savoia 211 9 On the Left Periphery of Some Romance Wh-Questions, Cecilia Poletto and Jean-Yves Pollock 251 10 The C-System in Brythonic Celtic Languages, V2, and the EPP, Ian Roberts 297 11 Enclisis and Proclisis, Ur Shlonsky 329 Subject Index 355 Language Index 361 Name Index 364
  • 12. Contributors Adriana Belletti University of Siena Paola Beninca' University of Padua Valentina Bianchi University of Siena Anna Cardinaletti University of Bologna and University of Venice Carlo Cecchetto University of Milano-Bicocca Alessandra Giorgi University of Venice M. Rita Manzini University of Florence Fabio Pianesi ITC-IRST, Trento Cecilia Poletto University of Padua, CNR Jean-Yves Pollock University of Picardie, Amiens Luigi Rizzi University of Siena Ian Roberts Downing College, University of Cambridge Leonardo Savoia University of Florence Ur Shlonsky University of Geneva VII
  • 14. The Structure of CP and IP
  • 16. On the Cartography of Syntactic Structures LUIGI RIZZI •Syntactic structures are complex objects. Much theory-guided descriptive work on syntactic constituents over the 1980s and 1990s has shown that phrases and clauses have a richly articulated internal structure.As the empirical evidence of such complexity had been steadily accumulating, some researchers came to the conclusion that it was a worthwhile endeavor to studythis rich domain on its own, and they set the goal of arriv- ing at structural maps that could do justice to the complexity of syntactic structures. This was the initial motivation of the cartographic projects that have come to the fore in the last few years. If the impulse that prompted these efforts has to do with the complexity and richness of the domain, an equally influential driving factor is the intui- tion of the fundamental uniformity and underlyingsimplicity of the basic constituents— the syntacticatoms. The tension between these two drivingforces offers a useful vantage point to understand certain directions taken by the cartographic analyses and to place these studies within the broader context of current syntactic theory. Here I illustrate some of the discoveries that are at the origins of the cartographic projects and provide certain guidelines that have directed these efforts. I will then discuss some of the results achieved and their possible influence on the general theory of syntax, with special reference to minimalism. An overview of the content of the different chapters will conclude this introduction. 1. Background One of the backbones of cartographic research is the view that inflectional morphol- ogy is distributed in the syntax. This view originates from the analysis of the English 3 1
  • 17. 4 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP inflectional system in Syntactic Structures. Chomsky (1957) showed that it was ad- vantageous to analyze inflectional affixes as elements of the syntactic computation: assuming them to be subjected to certain syntactic processes (local movement) permitted a simple analysis of complex distributional dependencies in the English auxiliary system. This analysis suggested a fairly abstract view of syntactic repre- sentations: the atoms of syntactic computations can be elements that are not mor- phologically autonomous words; morphological well-formedness can be obtained by submitting such atoms to movement processes; an inflectional affix may occupy the same structural position that is expressed by an autonomous function word if differ- ent featural choices are made. These ideas had already been very influential in the early days of generative grammar, but their effect was multiplied when they were combined with two basic insights of X-bar theory: all syntactic atoms project auni- form subtree (Chomsky 1970), and functional elements are full-fledged syntactic at- oms, capable of projecting their own phrasal categories (Chomsky 1986a). These considerations supported the conclusion that clauses should be formed by the articu- lation of lexical and functional elements, each projecting uniform subtrees accord- ing to the general laws of structurebuilding. The question then arose of the number and label of functional heads and projec- tions constitutingthe structure of the clauses. Richly inflected languages provide direct morphological evidence illustrating the morphosyntactic components of the clause. If overt morphological richness is a superficial trait of variation and a fundamental assumption of uniformity is followed, as much work in Case theory suggests ever since Vergnaud (1982), then it is reasonable to expect that clauses should be formed by a constant system of functional heads in all languages, each projecting a subtree occurring in a fixed syntactic hierarchy, irrespective of the actual morphological manifestation of the head (as an affix, as an autonomous function word, or as noth- ing at all). If this is correct, it should be possible to detect the extra syntactic space determined by this richly articulated clausal structure even in languages in which the morphology does not provide direct evidence for the postulation of independent layers: layer detection may be provided by more indirect kinds of evidence, having to do with the need of syntactic positions to accommodate certain phrasal constitu- ents (adverbials, etc.), to account for word order alternations through head move- ment and so on. This is the line of reasoning that led from Chomsky's "affix hopping" to Emonds's (1978) comparative analysis of the position of the verb in French and English to Pollock's (1989) postulation of distinct affixal heads in the inflectional system. The latter reference, in particular, provided clear evidence that complex word order pat- terns could be reduced to uniform syntactic structures plus simple parameters hav- ing to do with the way in which affixation takes place. This provided a very appealing model for the cross-linguistic study of the clause, which gave rise to a phase of in- tense comparative research. Among other things, the detailed study of the ordering of adverbial positions started to bear very directly on the analysis of the basic clausal structure, a trend that culminated in Cinque's (1999) book, which fully integrated morphological, syntactic, and interpretive evidence in the exploration of the fine details of the clausal structure across languages. So the view that inflectional mor- phology is distributed in the syntax, combined with a host of uniformity assump-
  • 18. ON THE CARTOGRAPHY OF SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES 5 tions (phrases are structured and ordered uniformly for lexical and functional heads across languages), paved the way to the articulated conception of syntactic structures that is assumed and validated by cartographic studies. This view of the morphology-syntax interface bears primarily on the identifica- tion of head positions in the clausal and phrasal structure. Another important ele- ment of the background has to do directly with the positions occupied by phrases and the computations involved in phrasal movement. Traditional transformational analyses of movement processes divide phrasal movement into two types: substitu- tion to a specifier (which, in turn, can be A or A') and phrasal adjunction.Earmarks of the latter were considered the apparent optionality and the correlated apparent lack of an explicit trigger: typical cases of phrasal adjunctions were considered various movements to the left periphery, argument and adverb preposing to a position in between the overt complementizer and the subject position (e.g., to derive / think that yesterday, John went home from / think that John went home yesterday), often analyzed as involving adjunction to IP. As of the late 1980s, economy principles started to acquire a central role in syntactic theory, leading to a conception of move- ment as a "last resort" operation, applicable only when necessary to warrant well- formedness (Chomsky 1986b); this and other related developments cast doubts on the possibility of truly optional movement. The growing role of economy considerations within the minimalist program led researchers to pay more attention to the interpretive difference associated to preposing in terms of discourse-informational properties. Such more refined interpretive con- siderations invariably supported the view that no movement is really optional. So left peripheral movement is not free in that it goes with whatever additional interpre- tive properties are associated to left-peripheral positions (topicality, focus, etc.); but how is it formally triggered? As the triggering of phrasal movement is normally governed by heads, which attract phrases to local Spec positions, this naturally led to the postulation of special heads (often null, but sometimes morphologically overt; see, e.g., Aboh 1998) acting as attractors. These ideas crystallized in parallel with the proposal of restrictive frameworks of phrase structure, such as Kayne's (1994), which banned the possibility of phrasal adjunction (as an option formally distinct from specifier creation). The ban on phrasal adjunction as the result of movement was then extended to base-generated structures, with the major consequence of rul- ing out an adjunction analysis of adverbial positions in general (but see Chomsky 2004 for an analysis of relative clauses that assumes the possibility of base-generated phrasal adjunction). So these developments also offered formal support to the theory of adverbial positions in Cinque (1999), assuming adverbs to be licensed in specifier positions of dedicated heads of the inflectional system. 2. Cartography and minimalism Cartographic projects have been developed in parallel with the development of minimalism, following partially independent trails. There are clear points of connec- tion, such as the central role of economy considerations and the emphasis on the interfaces. There are also points of theoretical tension, at least at first sight. The car-
  • 19. 6 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP tographic projects underscore the richness and complexity of syntactic structuresand try to provide realistic descriptions of this complexity. Minimalism tries to capture the fundamental empirical results of syntactic theory through a set of descriptive tools which is substantially impoverished with respect to previous versions of the Prin- ciples and Parameters framework. The apparent tension manifests itself very directly in the fact that syntactic representations in much minimalist literature (starting from Chomsky 1995, chap. 4, and much subsequent work) look somewhat simpler than the representations normally assumed some ten years ago, while cartographic repre- sentations (e.g., in Cinque 1999, 2002; Belletti 2004, and chapter 2 in this volume) look substantially enriched. The tension is only apparent, though. The focus of much minimalist analysis on the "core categories" C, T, v, and V seems to be a matter of expository convenience, rather than a substantive hypothesis, and the possibility that each "core category" may, in fact, be shorthand for referring to a more articulated structural zone is ex- plicitly acknowledged (e.g., in Chomsky 2001: n. 8; 2002). In fact, the onlysubstan- tive reduction in the inventory of functional heads proposed in recent years in the minimalist literature is the ban on independent Agreement heads, on grounds that agreement features in the inflectional system are redundant, hence presumably uninterpretable; a syntactic head consisting uniquely of uninterpretable features could not subsist if uninterpretable features must disappear by LF. The view that agreement features in the inflectional system are uninterpretable is not uncontroversial, and the theoretical arguments against the postulation of an inde- pendent Agr node leave room for a certain leeway (see Chomsky 2001, particularly n. 3, 12, 16). Nevertheless, the possibility that syntax may specify no independent Agr- type heads is per se not inconsistent with the cartographic work. Much of the work on the inflectional system is focused on the uncovering and identification of functional heads of mood, tense, aspect, voice, and heads with a clear interpretive content, which therefore uncontroversially pass the muster of minimalist analysis. Analyses based on the positional difference of an Agr head with respect to, say, T, or Asp (Pollock 1989; Belletti 1990, 2000; Guasti and Rizzi 2002) can be reanalyzed as showing that agree- ment of subjects and objects is checked in positions distinct from and higher than T or Asp; this state of affairs is naturally expressible in a richer system of heads such as Cinque (1999) without necessarily appealing to Agr. So the question of the indepen- dent existence of Agr as a syntactic atom is basically an empirical question having to do with the label of the categories carrying 4>-features involved in agreement processes; this is a difficult question as questions involving choice of labels often are. Essentially the same considerations apply to the core cartographic work on the structure of the DP and the set of functional categories assumed there. Consider now the system of functional heads proposed for the CP domain in Rizzi (1997, 2000) and subsequent work, including various chapters of the present vol- ume. The two heads delimiting the C system have a clear interpretive import: Force expresses the illucutionary force (at least in main clauses), or the clausal type; Fi- niteness expresses a property related to Tense and Mood (in fact, it is identified with a mood-type head in some analyses; see chapter 7 in this volume). Both Topic and Focus are assumed to create a substructurethat explicitly signals to the external sys- tems certain interpretively relevant properties, along the following lines:
  • 20. ON THE CARTOGRAPHY OF SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES 7 (1) XP = Topic XP = Focus YP = Comment YP = Presupposition The specifier of the Top head is interpreted as the Topic, a kind of higher subject of predication assumed to be contextually familiar; its complement is interpreted as the Comment, a complex predicate predicated of the Topic. The specifier of the Foe head is interpreted as the Focus, and its complement as the Presupposition. In this view, the syntactic computation hands over to the interpretive compo- nent representationstransparently indicating dedicated positions for certain discourse functions (or other interpretively relevant properties, such as scope). Historically, this was the view underlying the assumption of special Criteria in the A-bar system (such as the Wh, or Q Criterion), formal principles triggering A-bar movement to ensure that an element with the appropriate featural specification will fill the posi- tions dedicated to a particular interpretive property (the scope position of interroga- tive operators in the case at issue; Rizzi 1996). The system of A-bar Criteria is akin to the system of inherent Case for argumental semantics in certain respects: the two systems transparently signal interpretive proper- ties of the two basic kinds. Given the distinction in Chomsky (2004) between semantic properties associated with "external merge" (argumental and thematic structure) and semantic properties associated with "internal merge" (scope-discourse semantics)— the current variety of the classical divide between deep and surface semantics—inher- ent Case is to argumental semantics what the criterial features Top, Foe, Q, and so on are to scope-discourse semantics: they both signal syntactically (and sometimes also morphologically) certain positions dedicated to interpretiveproperties of the two kinds. From this viewpoint, Top, Foe and other left-peripheral heads don't seem to be less legitimate elements of minimalist syntacticcomputationthan is inherent Case.Attempts to replace such labels with intepretively more neutral and opaque labels may not be more desirable than abandoning such labels as Instrumental, Benefactive, and Loca- tive in favor of interpretively neutral labels in the system of inherent Case. 3. Local simplicity One driving factor of the cartographic endeavor is a fundamental intuition of sim- plicity, which is clearly akin to core ideas of minimalism. Complex structures arise from the proliferation of extremely simple structural units: ideally, one structural unit (a head and the phrase it projects) is defined by a single syntactically relevant fea- ture (again, we abstract away here from what the ultimate fate of Agr heads and pro- jections may be; we also abstract away from the question of whetherthis fundamental biuniqueness extends to Spec Head relations—that is, if there is a single specifier per head or if multiple Spec's are allowed). Complex heads obviously exist, but they
  • 21. 8 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP are not syntactic primitives: they can be assembled by the operation of head to head movement, the only device available to create conglomerates of syntactically relevant properties. Local simplicity is preserved by natural languages at the price of accept- ing a higher global complexity, through the proliferation of structural units. The same intuition seems to underlie the Ideological motivation of movement in the MinimalistProgram. Movement exists, it is assumed, to allow elements to carry two types of interpretive properties: argumental and scope-discourse. Through move- ment, an element can occur in distinct positions specialized for the two kindsof inter- pretive properties (see, in particular, Chomsky 2000, 2002, 2004). But why couldn't languages attribute both kinds of interpretive properties to the same position, thus avoiding multiple occurrences of elements? Again, preservation of local simplicity seems to be the key factor: natural language design favors local attribution of single properties and is prepared to pay the price of multiplying the occurrences: recursion is cheap; local computation is expensive and to be reduced to the bareminimum. What particular kind of simplicity natural language design chooses to favor is an empirical question. To quote Chomsky: '"Good design' conditions are in part a matter of empirical discovery, though within general guidelines of an aprioristic character, a familiar feature of rational inquiry. ... Even the most extreme propo- nents of deductive reasoning from first principles, Descartes for example, held that experiment is critically necessary to discover which of the reasonable options was instantiated in the actual world" (Chomsky 2001: 1-2). In different domains, the empirical evidence seems to suggest that natural languages favor local simplicity, and accept paying the price of ending up with global representations involving such complex properties as multiple occurrences of elements (movement), along with a very rich articulation of functional structures. 4. Contributions In this section I highlight certain central ideas and analyses proposed in the different chapters by grouping them around three basic themes. 4.1. The CP zone The cartography of the CP zone is addressed directly in the chapters by Roberts (10), Beninca' and Poletto (3), and Poletto and Pollock (9); the chapters by Bianchi (4), Cecchetto (6), and Giorgi and Pianesi (7) address certain specific properties and computations relating to the CP zone. Ian Roberts (chapter 9) deals with properties ofthe C-system in Celtic languages, in comparison with Germanic. Celtic languages tend to express the Fin head of the complementizer system, in that the element translated as that typically occurs after left peripheral elements, as the following Irish example shows, with the particle go occurring after the proposed adverbial: (3) Is dofche [faoi cheann cupla Id [go bhfeadfai imeacht] ] is probable at-the-end-of couple day that could leave
  • 22. ON THE CARTOGRAPHY OF SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES 9 This is a natural reinterpretation, within a richer theory of the left periphery, of the pattern analyzed by McCloskey (1996) in terms of PF cliticization of C to I across the left peripheral material. Straightforward evidence for the richer approach to C is provided by Welsh, Roberts argues, with the left peripheral field sandwiched in be- tween the two C particles mai and a, arguably expressing Force and Fin: (4) dywedais i [mai 'r dynion fel arfer a [werthith y ci ] ] said I C the men as usual C will-sell the dog The chapter then focuses on properties of the C system in Breton, in comparison with V-2 in Germanic. Long Verb Movement in Breton, with proposing of a lower verbal element to the left periphery across the higher zone of the inflectional system, is analyzed as involving a genuine violation of the Head Movement Constraint (rather than being a case of remnant VP movement), permitted by a suitable adaptation of the Relativized Minimality / Minimal Link Condition (Rizzi 1990; Chomsky 1995). An analysis of V-2, based on the idea that (unselected) Fin must be lexicalized in Celtic and Germanic, is outlined. This lexicalization may be achieved by special lexicalizing particles, as in Welsh, or by movement of the inflected verb, as in Ger- manic; in turn, the latter option involves the filling of Fin's specifier position. Paola Beninca' and Cecilia Poletto's chapter (3) is a contribution to the carto- graphic study of the left periphery through a more fine-grained analysis of the form- function mapping concerning the left peripheral positions, with special reference to Italian and other Romance varieties. First, the authors suggest that the system of heads licensing discourse-related specifier positions disallows recursion (and multiple specifiers) of a single head. If this is correct, the proliferation of topics observed in Romance Clitic Left Dislocation constructions should, in fact, manifestdifferent topic- like positions, each with certain specialized interpretive properties. Second, the au- thors argue that the different topic-like and focus-like positions postulated by their analysis are organized in distinct subfields, with the topic-like subfield higher than the focus-like subfield (this being a particular subcase of more general ordering re- strictions between positions conveying old and new information). This hypothesis has the advantage of bringing Italian into line with the frequently observed pattern according to which topic strictly precedes left-peripheral focus (i.e., in systems like Hungarian: Brody 1995; Kiss 1987; Puskas 2000; and much related work). In con- trast, as sentences with a left dislocated element following contrastive focus are ac- ceptable in Italian (e.g., Credo che domani, QUESTO, a Gianni, gli dovremmo dire 'I believe that tomorrow, THIS, to Gianni we should say to him'; see Rizzi 1997: 295), the proposed reanalysis leads to the attempt to reanalyze such examples as not involving genuine Foe-Top configurations. Cecilia Poletto and Jean-Yves Pollock (chapter 9) provide a comprehensive analysis of Wh constructions in French, Italian, and some Northern Italian dialects. Backbones of this analysis are the assumption of a structured left periphery, which, among other things, includes distinct positions that may be targeted by distinct Wh elements, and an extensive use of remnant movement, which subsumes effects more traditionally ascribed to covert movement and head movement. Particularly striking evidence in favor of distinct operator positions is provided by Northern Italian dia-
  • 23. 10 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP lects like Bellunese, which allows multiple occurrences of (components of) certain Wh phrases in distinct positions: (5) Cossa ha-lo fat che? 'What has he done what?' Building on previous work on this dialect, the authors motivate an analysis in which che and cossa occupy two distinct left-peripheral operator positions, with the rest of the IP remnant moved to a left peripheral position sandwiched in between. This analysis is extended to cover different cases of inversion in Romance (e.g., subject- clitic inversion, stylistic inversion) through the postulation of at least two topic-like positions in the intermediate Comp zone: the familiar Top position, which in this ap- proach hosts the subject DP in stylistic inversion configurations, and a Ground posi- tion, which may attract remnant IPs that do not contain nonpronominal DPs. Valentina Bianchi (chapter 4) addresses aspects of a major left peripheral con- struction, the relative clause. The main focus of the chapter is the typology of re- sumptive pronouns. Three kinds of resumptive pronouns are identified. First, optional resumptive pronouns, generally corresponding to argument DPs, as in the following example from Brazilian Portuguese: (6) O livro che eu deixei (ele) aqui na mesa desapareceu. 'The book that I left (it) here on the table disappeared.' Second, obligatory resumptive pronouns, occurring within PPs or in other inherently Case-marked positions, as in the following example from Venetian, a Northern Italian dialect: (7) Questo ze un argoment che no voio parlarghe *(ne). 'This is a topic that I don't want to talk to him (about it).' Third, resumptive pronouns rescuing island violations (e.g., in English: The guy who I hate almost everything he does). Bianchi shows that the three types of resumptive pronouns give rise to distinct cross-linguistic generalizations as to their possible occurrence. The most interesting case is offered by optional resumptive pronouns, whose occurrence depends on cer- tain interpretive properties of the relative clause: in some languages (e.g., certain Northern Italian dialects) they only occur in nonrestrictive relatives; in other languages (e.g., Brazilian Portuguese) they occur in nonrestrictive and specific restrictive rela- tives, but not in nonspecific restrictive relatives. Certain a priori imaginable distri- butions don't seem to be attested across languages: no language seems to allow optional resumptive pronouns in restrictive but not in nonrestrictive relatives, or in nonspecific restrictive relatives but not in specific restrictive relatives. This peculiar cross-linguistic distribution is explained by Bianchi by sharpening the theory of the LF representations of the different kinds of relatives, along lines that interact in im- portant ways with the different properties of the three types of relatives with respect to the theory of reconstruction. Carlo Cecchetto (chapter 6) addresses the question of the selective possibility of remnant movement. It is well known that a constituent from which a subconstituent has been extracted can undergo further movement in some cases (for instance, a VP
  • 24. ON THE CARTOGRAPHY OF SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES 1 1 from which the subject has been extracted can undergo topicalization: ... and [given t to Bill] it was t'), but not in other cases; for instance, a constituent from whichC1LD took place cannot undergo C1LD in Romance: (8) *[Diparlarle t], credo che, [a Maria] non lo abbiano ancora deciso t'. To speak to her, I believe that, to Maria, they haven't decided it yet.' Cecchetto's proposal is that what characterizes the second class of cases is that the relevant examples violate Chomsky's (2001) Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC): the remnant constituent remains too deeply embedded to be successfully extracted at the relevant phase. Certain apparent cases of violation of PIC, such as the extrac- tion of Wh arguments from weak islands, are explained by assuming a structured CP edge, in line with cartographic proposals. Alessandra Giorgi and Fabio Pianesi (chapter 7) address the phenomenon of complementizer deletion in finite clauses in Italian, an option that differs from the much analyzed English equivalent, among other things, in that it is restricted to sub- junctive environments. Rather then assuming an actual process of licensing of a zero complementizer (through deletion, base-generation of a null element or cliticization to the main verb, as in classical analyses of the English equivalent, from Kayne 1981 and Stowell 1981 to Pesetsky 1995), the authors propose that the CP system is not projected in the relevant structures, an option that can be expressed in the approach to the mapping from features to positions advocated in Giorgi and Pianesi (1997): in this system, distinct features can, in fact, coalesce to form single syntactic heads (see section 3), but this option is limited to the case in which specifiers are not activated. The authors then show that various formal and interpretive properties of the con- struction can be made to follow from the proposed analysis. 4.2. Clitics within the IP system The remaining four chapters deal with different properties of the IP system. Manzini and Savoia (8) and Shlonsky (11) address the issues raised by cliticization within the cartographic study of the IP space. Maria Rita Manzini and Leonardo Savoia (chapter 8) provide a comprehensive theory of clitic positions in Romance, based on comparative evidence originating mainly from the Italian dialects. This analysis is connected to an extensive survey that these authors have been conducting in recent years on the syntax of the Italian dialects. Clitic positions are assumed to be inherent components of the inflectional structure of the sentence and ordered according to a cross-linguistically stable hier- archy. Another guiding intuition that the authors borrow from Abney (1986) and Szabolcsi (1994) is that the sentence has a functional structure analogous to the one of the noun phrase, with the different clitic heads mirroring the order of elements in the functional nominal structure. This syntactic approach to cliticization is then com- pared with the morphological approaches involving templates and postsyntactic reorderings in the morphological component (Bonet 1995), as well as with the optimality theoretic approach advocated by Grimshaw (1997). The approach is then confronted with the empirical issues of cross-linguistic variation in clitic order (mainly Dat-Obj versus Obj-Dat). The various mutual exclusion patterns that several Romance
  • 25. 12 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP varieties manifest and the appropriate way to express the relevant parametrization are discussed. Ur Shlonsky (chapter 11) addresses another major aspect of the Romance clitic systems, the enclisis-proclisis alternation. The alternation manifests itself in differ- ent forms in Western Romance, where it gives rise to a complex pattern sensitive to the clause-initial element, and in other Romance varieties, where it is sensitive to finiteness. The author endorses the view that there are fundamental asymmetries between enclisis and proclisis. Enclisis arises when the verb adjoins to the functional head hosting the clitic; proclisis arises when the verb, in its movement in the inflec- tional space, does not cross over the clitic position, either because it stops at a lower functional head, or because the clitic itself adjoins to the complex created by verb movement: proclisis thus is a cover term for rather different structuralconfigurations having in common the linear order clitic-verb. The proposed analysis assumes that the two configurations are normally mutually exclusive in that enclisis takes place whenever possible, and proclisis is the last resort case. The parametrisation required to express the observed patterns is then related to the position of the cliticization site with respect to the other components of the functional structure of the sentence. 4.3. Subjects Finally, the chapters by Belletti (2) and Cardinaletti (5) deal with the cartography of subject positions within the IP space. Adriana Belletti's chapter (2) is, in fact, linked to both the IP and the CP do- main. It proposes that the clausal structure contains a lower area peripheral to the argumental nucleus endowed with focus and topic positions, and thus analogous to the higher left peripheral domain. So-called free subject inversion in Italian and other Null Subject Languages involves movement of the subject to the low-focus position, whence the systematic focal character of postverbal subjects in Italian, shown by Weak-crossover effects and other diagnostics. That the inverted focal subject is not in the high left peripheral position is shown, among other things, by the fact that the position must be c-commanded by the IP internal negation, as shown by examples like the following: (9) Non me lo ha detto nessuno. 'not said it to me anyone' Here the negative quantifier nessuno requires c-command by non. Evidence of this kind argues against the possibility of movement of the subject to the left-peripheral focus position plus remnant movement of the IP. Other cases in which the subject (or any other constituent) is right-dislocated can be analyzed as involvingmovement to the Top position in the lower peripheral zone. If the lower part of the clause, the verb phrase, is endowed with a full-fledged periphery of discourse-related structural positions, it is tempting to capture the parallel with the higher left periphery by as- suming that analogous discourse-related zones mark the edge of phases in Chomsky's (2001) sense. Anna Cardinaletti's chapter (5) investigates the subject positions in the higher part of the IP space. Distributional evidence strongly suggests that referential sub-
  • 26. ON THE CARTOGRAPHY OF SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES 1 3 jects can occur in positions that are precluded to nonreferential subjects. For instance, in English, a referential subject can be separated from the inflected verb by a paren- thetical expression, but a nonreferential subject cannot: (10) a. John, in my opinion, is a nice guy. b.*There, in my opinion, is hope. Cardinaletti thus distinguishes a lower subject position, demanded by a purely struc- tural need such as the satisfaction of the Case-agreement properties, which may be filled by an expletive, from a higher subject position, expressing the substantive subject-predicate relation, hence requiring a referential subject of which the predi- cate is predicated. Cardinaletti then argues that this higher subject position is to be kept distinct from the Topic position in the left periphery of the clause, which can host different types of topicalized arguments. Cardinaletti gives arguments that this positional difference also holds in Null Subject Languages, for which a total assimi- lation of preverbal subjects and topics has often been proposed. If the "subject of predication" position is more restricted than the Top position, it is not strictly lim- ited to canonical DP subjects agreeing with the verbal inflection. It also is the posi- tion occupied by quirky subjects, predicative DPs in inverted copular constructions (Moro 1997) and inverted locatives, Cardinaletti argues. Belletti's and Cardinaletti's chapters complement each other in drawing a par- tial map of the subject positions in the clause, with the identification of at least four positions, from lowest to highest: the thematic position in the VP, the VP-peripheral lower focus position, the EPP position, and the Subject of Predication position. Various types of comparative evidence considered in these chapters clearly hint at the con- clusion that a more refined map would involve more positions—for instance, an IP medial position filled in VSO structures in the Romance languages allowing this word order, and possibly distinct positions for the checking of different ^-features. To conclude, a word on the events that are at the source of the present volume. Two cartographic projects were funded by the Ministery of University and Research in Italy in 1997 and 1999, involvingthe Universities of Ferrara, Florence, Milan, Siena, and Venice; a third project connected to cartography is now being pursued. These projects generated a body of research that was presented in various formal and infor- mal workshops and seminars. Some of the results are published in independent vol- umes of the Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntaxof Oxford University Press, under the common heading The Cartography of Syntactic Structures', see Cinque 2002 and Belletti 2004. This volume represents the proceedings of the "Workshop on the Car- tography of Syntactic Positions and Semantic Types" that took place at the Certosa di Pontignano (Siena), on November 25-26, 1999. References Abney, S. (1986) "The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspects," Ph.D. diss., MIT, Cambridge. Aboh, E. (1998) "From the Syntax of Gungbe to the Grammar of Gbe," Ph.D. diss., Univer- sity of Geneva.
  • 27. 14 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP Belletti, A. (1990) Generalized Verb Movement. Turin: Rosenberg and Sellier. Belletti, A. (2000) "(Past) Participle Agreement," in H. van Riemsdijk and M. Everaert (eds.), SynCom: The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. (ed.). (2004) Structures and Beyond: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press. Bonet, E. (1995) "Feature Structure of Romance Clitics." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 607-647. Brody, M. (1995) "Focus and Checking Theory," in I. Kenesei (ed.) Levels and Structures. Approaches to Hungarian, no. 5. Szeged: JATE, 30^-3. Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. (1970) "Remarks on Nominalization," in R. A. Jacobs and Rosenbaum P. S. (eds). Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Mass: Ginn, 184-221. (1986a) Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (1986b) Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger. (1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (2000) "Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework," in R. Martin, D. Michaels, and J. Uriagereka (eds.) Step by Step: Essays in Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 89-155. (2001) "Derivation by Phase," in M. Kenstowicz (ed.) Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1-52. — (2002) On Language and Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • (2004) "Beyond ExplanatoryAdequacy," in A. Belletti (ed.) (2004). Cinque, G. (1999) Adverbs and Functional Heads. New York: Oxford University Press. (2002) The Structure of DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. Emonds, J. (1978) "The verbal complex V'-V in French". Linguistic Inquiry 9, 151-175. Giorgio, A., and Pianesi, F. (1997) Tense and Aspect: From Semantics to Morphosyntax. New York: Oxford University Press. Grimshaw, J. (1997) "The Best Clitic: Constraint Conflictin Morphosyntax," in L. Haegeman, (ed.) Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 169-196. Guasti, M. T., and L. Rizzi (2002) "Agreement and Tense as Distinct Syntactic Positions: Evidence from Acquisition," in G. Cinque, (ed.) Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press, 167-194. Kayne, R. (1981) "ECP Extensions." Linguistic Inquiry 12, 93-133. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kiss, K. E.(1987) Configurationality in Hungarian. Dordrecht: Reidel. McCloskey, J. (1996) "On the Scope of Verb Movement in Irish." Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 47-104. Moro, A. (1997) The Raising of Predicates: Predicative Noun Phrases and the Theory of Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pesetsky, D. (1995) Zero Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Pollock, J.-Y. (1989) "Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP." Lin- guistic Inquiry 20, 365-424. Puskas, G. (2000) Word Order in Hungarian. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins. Rizzi, L. (1990) Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (1996) "Residual Verb Second and the Wh Criterion," in A. Belletti and L. Rizzi, (eds.) Parameters and Functional Heads. New York: Oxford University Press, 63-90. (1997) "The Fine Structureof the Left Periphery," in L. Haegeman (ed.) Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht, Kluwer, 281-337.
  • 28. ON THE CARTOGRAPHY OF SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES 1 5 (2000) Comparative Syntax and Language Acquisition. London: Routledge. Stowell, T. (1981) "Origins of Phrase Structure," Ph.D. diss., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Szabolcsi, A. (1994) "The Noun Phrase," in K. Kiss and F. Kiefer (eds.) The Syntactic Struc- ture of Hungarian (Syntax and Semantics no. 27). New York, Academic Press, 179- 274. Vergnaud, J.-R. (1982) "Dependences et niveaux de representation en syntaxe," These de doctoral d'etat, Universite de Paris VII.
  • 29. Aspects of the Low IP Area ADRIANA BELLETTI I his chapter reconsiders and develops a proposal presented in Belletti (2001). The discussion that follows leaves the core insight of the original proposal essentially unchanged, although some aspects of the implementation are revised in a way that leads to changes in some areas; the overall empirical coverage of the proposal itself is also widened. Recent studies on the cartography of the left periphery of the clause, started with Rizzi (1997) and subsequent work (Poletto 2000; Beninca' 2001; Beninca' and Poletto [chapter 3 in this volume], and Poletto and Pollock [chapter 9 in this volume] and references cited therein), have come to the conclusion that the clause (IP, henceforth for simplicity) external area, traditionally labeled CP, is indeed a much richer and articulated space than traditionally assumed. Several dedicated positions split the single head C, including positions indicating the Force of the following clause and its Fin(itness). As extensively discussed in Rizzi (1997) and related work, between Force and Fin various other CP internal positions are identified: crucially a Focus position surrounded by (possibly iterated) Topic positions. Processes of Focaliza- tion and Topicalization are thus analyzed as involving movement of a phrase to the dedicated position in the left periphery.1 In this view, the different interpretations of the peripheral constituent, either as a topic or as a focus with respect to the following sentence, are automatic reflexes of the derived configuration.Under the general idea that a relation which closely recalls an agreement relation, and which is often as- similated to it, is established between the head of a phrase and the constituent filling its Spec,2 a focus head and the phrase in its specifier will share the focus feature; an identical relation will account for the topic interpretation of a phrase in the specifier of the topic projection. 16 2
  • 30. ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 1 7 These by now fairly standard assumptions provide a very simple and straight- forward way of expressing the mechanisms granting the possible different interpre- tations related to different configurations. The interpretation as focus or topic of an element in the left periphery is an automatic consequence of the element's filling the specifier of different heads. A simple conclusion of the sort could not be as easily drawn in a CP projection not internally analyzed and split in the different positions discussed in the references quoted. The relation between syntax and the interpreta- tive interface (LF) is expressed in an optimally simple way: the interpretation is read off the syntactic configuration. The same analysis should also lead to an equally simple way to express the relation of the syntactic configuration with the phonetic/phono- logical interface. In particular, as far as the stress contour of a clause and its overall intonation are concerned, they should be directly determined from the syntactic con- figuration. Typically, a focused constituent in the left periphery is contrastively stressed; a topicalized phrase in the peripheral position is associated with a special downgrading intonation: (1) a. A GIANNI ho dato il libro (non a Piero). to Gianni I have given the book (not to Piero) b. A Gianni, (gli) ho dato il libro. to Gianni (I) to him (cl) have given the book Both intonations should be directly read off the different syntactic positions the phrases occupy in the CP area. The proposal developed here analyses the fine-grained structural cartography of the clause's (IP) internal low area. It will be suggested that the area immediately above VP displays a significant resemblance to the left periphery of the clause, the so-called CP area just discussed. In particular, a clause-internal Focus position, sur- rounded by Topic positions, is identified in the low part of the clause.3 Partly differ- ent intonations are associated with these positions, as opposed to the parallel positions in the left periphery. Different interpretations are also associated with the positions of what we may call the "clause-internal periphery" as opposed to those in the clause- external one. Both the interpretations and the related intonations are thus linked to properties of the configuration. Without attempting a systematic investigation of the various detectable differences between the left peripheral positions and the clause- internal parallel periphery but just pointing out some of the crucial ones, in what follows I concentrate on the properties of the clause-internal focus, with some refer- ence to the clause-internal topic.4 Before entering the close empirical investigation, one further general question should be raised. If the conclusion of the proposal to be presented here is on the right track, a significantly parallel configurationintroduces the verb phrase and the IP. As- suming that this sort of duplication isjustified on empirical grounds, the question as to why such a parallelism should exist arises. Although a definite answerto this atpresent relatively complex question cannot be produced, it is worth pointing out that similar conclusions, differently phrased and in different perspectives, have already been reached. Most recently, Chomsky (2001) has precisely singled out CP and complete verb phrases (vP in his terminology) as "(strong) phases" in the sense of the recent version of the MP—that is, syntactic units that share a certain amount of independence
  • 31. 18 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP (and which are transmitted to the interface systems). According to our proposal, CP and the verb phrase (vP or VP) would be parallel in that vP/VP has a CP-like periph- ery. Furthermore, various proposals have appeared ultimately attributing to vP/VP a periphery resembling that of the clause. The idea has led to the assimilation of the vP/ VP of the clause to the general format of small clauses, some of them VP small clauses. In this type of approach, small clauses are analyzed as full clauses (Starke 1995; Sportiche 1995), including a peripheral C projection. The proposal presented here can be seen as a contribution within this same line of approach to clause structure, provid- ing a more finely grained design of the assumed vP/VP periphery. 1. Position of postverbal subjects Let us briefly review the fundamental data arguing for the plausibility of the pro- posal that a clause-internal focus position is present in the VP area.5 Subject inversion is a widespread phenomenon in Romance. The topic has been extensively addressed, with the general conclusion that so-called Free Subject Inver- sion is a fundamentalproperty of Null Subject languages somehow linked to the pos- sibility of leaving the preverbal subject position phonetically unrealized.6 Among the Romance languages, French has a special status in that it does not display the phenom- enon of free subject inversion, a consequence of its non-Null Subject nature. Indeed, the kind of inversion structures allowed in French—the so-called Stylistic Inversion (SI) structures (Kayne and Pollock 1978, 2001)—have very different properties from those found in Null Subject Romance languages: descriptively, they require a "trigger" for inversion (wh, subjunctive),while no overt trigger is required in the case of Free Inversion (whence, the characterization as "free," FI). Basing my discussion mainly on Italian as far as Fl is concerned,7 the following contrasts arise with French: (2) a. Ha parlato Gianni, has spoken Gianni b. E' partite Gianni. is left Gianni c. *A parle Jean. has spokenJean d.*Est parti Jean. is left Jean e. Le jour ou a parle/est parti Jean, the day when has spoken/is left Jean f. II faut que parle/parte Jean. it is necessary that speak/leave (subj.) Jean g. II giorno in cui ha parlato/e partito Gianni, the day in which has spoken/is left Gianni h. E' necessario che parli/parta Gianni. it is necessary that speak/leave (subj.) Gianni The fact that examples (2)g and h are possible in French as well, as in examples (2)e and f, whereas examples (2) a and b are also perfectly well formed in Italian but are excluded in French, as shown in examples (2)c and d, strongly indicates the differ-
  • 32. ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 19 ent nature of the two inversion processes, SI and FI. The word by word parallelism of (2)e and f and (2)g and h must be considered epiphenomenal: the Italian struc- tures in (2)g and h plausibly involve the same "inversion"8 process that is at work in (2)a and b, which is different from the one at work in (2)e and f. In their recent analysis of SI, Kayne and Pollock (2001) have crucially characterized the phenom- enon as involving the high, clause-external periphery of the clause. Briefly put: the subject is moved out of the clause9 to a position within the left periphery; the remnant IP is subsequently moved past the subject into a higher position of the left periphery. One crucial feature of this analysis is that the subject is very high in the clause structure. A natural way to characterize the difference between SI and FI would then consist in assuming that the postverbal subject is not high in FI. As in traditional accounts, we could reach the conclusion that FI is indeed a clause-in- ternal phenomenon. According to this (rather traditional) hypothesis, the same order VS canbe thought of as being obtained in two very different ways in the two processes: either through IP- remnant movement as for SI or through movement of the verb over the subject as for FI.10 I assume that this characterization is fundamentally on the right track. As a gen- eral guideline, I adopt the restrictive working hypothesis that remnant-type movements be limited to those cases in which interpretive (or intonational) factors seem to call for them. I assume that, although not always explicitly discussed in these terms in Kayne and Pollock (2001), this shouldbe takento be the case for SIin the frame of their analysis. However, a remnant-type analysis is not justified for FI in the general case. The next step is then to determine how internal to IP the postverbal subject is. 1.1. Postverbal S is low in the clause structure The distributional evidence concerning the respective location of the subject and adverbs which are located in a very low position in the clause structure, according to Cinque's (1999) hierarchy, as discussed in Belletti (2001) and also pointed out in Cardinaletti (2001), points to the conclusion that the postverbal subject is very low in the clause as it follows low adverbs. Consider the contrasts in (3) in this perspective: (3) a. ?Capira completamente Maria. will understand completely Maria b. ?Spieghera completamente Maria al direttore. will explain completely Maria to the director c. ?Capira/spieghera bene Maria (al direttore). will understand/explain well Maria (to the director) d. Capira/spieghera tutto Maria (al direttore). will understand/explaineverything Maria (to the director) (4) a.*Capira/spieghera Maria completamente (al direttore). will understand/explain Maria completely (to the director) b.*Capira/spieghera Maria bene (al direttore). will understand/explain Maria well (to the director) c.*Capira/spieghera Maria tutto (al direttore). will understand Maria everything
  • 33. 20 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP Notice incidentally that similar data have been discussed also for Icelandic in Bobaljik and Jonas (1996), example (21),giving opposite results: (5) ba3 luku sennilega einhverjir studentar alveg verkefninu there finished probably some students completely the assignment (6) *ba3 luku sennilega alveg einhverjir studentar verkefninu there finished probably completely some students the assignment The contrast between (3)-(4) and (5)-(6) suggests that a further, higher position is available for subjects in Icelandic, but not in Italian. Note that no special intonation is associated with the sentences in (3).This will always be the case in the examples to be discussed here, unless explicitly indicated. The examples in (3)b,c, and d, where the postverbal subject is followed by a PP complement (seesection 3.1 on this possibility) are particularly significant in that they indicate that even lower portions of the clausecan be present followingthe subject (i.e., a PP complement).11 Given the guidelines indicated here, as there do not seem to be reasons to admit a complex derivation including remnant movement steps, I assume that these steps are not implemented in the derivation of these sentences. Whence the significance of these cases.12 A closer discussion of the lack of the "?" in example (3)d is also relevant in this connection. Suppose that the "?" in (3)a, b, and c is due to some interference effect between the adverb and the postverbal subject, which should ideally immediately follow the verb. The perfect status of (3)d is an indication that no interference oper- ates here. The relevant notion characterizing the disturbing proximity between the adverb and the postverbal subject must be hierarchical, as all the examples are alike from the linear point of view (seeRizzi 1996 for a proposal). As tutto is supposed to move in the clause leaving its original location,13 contrary to adverbs, it can be assumed that precisely this movement is responsible for the establishment ofthe rele- vant necessary distance between tutto and the postverbal subject. Notice now that, were the Vadv/tuttoS order to be obtained through remnant movement of the rele- vant portion of the IP,14 leaving the subject behind, there would be no way to capture the relevant hierarchical distinction between the adverbs and tutto, which are both equally included in the remnant moved portion.15 From the preceding considerations, we can conclude that paradigms (3) and (4) indicate that the subject is low in the clause structure. 1.2. Postverbal S and extraction If we abstract away from the case of postverbal subjects of unaccusatives,16 it ap- pears that the postverbal subject is not a felicitous extraction domain. Both ne clitici- zation and wh-extraction are less than perfect, as illustrated in(7): (7) a. Ha telefonato il direttore del giornale al presidente. has phoned the director of the newspaper to the president b. ?? II giornale di cui ha telefonato il direttore al presidente. the newspaper of which phoned the director to the president c. ?? Ne ha telefonato il direttore al presidente. of it has phoned the director to the president
  • 34. ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 21 d. ?? Ne hanno telefonato molti al presidente. of them have phoned many to the president If we put together the observations of the preceding section and the shape of para- digm (7), we can conclude that the low position of the subject is not an extraction domain, as extraction gives rise to CED-type effects.17 Kayne and Pollock (2001) point out a distinction as for extractability from the postverbal subject in French SI. While extraction of en appears to be impossible, combien extraction gives better results: (8) a.*Le jour ou en ont t61ephone trois. (K&P (19a)) the day when of them (cl) have called three b. ?*Le jour ou en sont partis trois. (K&P(19c)) the day when of them (cl) are left three c.*Le criminel qu'en ont comdamne' trois. (K&P(21)) the criminal that of (them) have condemned three d. Combien ont telephone de linguistes? (K&P (29a)) how many have called of linguists e. Combien sont partis de linguistes? (K&P(29b)) how many are left of linguists Their interpretation of the contrast is in terms of c-command. The IP preceding the subject is moved past it through remnant movement. In the resulting configura- tion, en does not c-command its trace within the subject from which it has been ex- tracted; hence, a violation of proper binding is created. No equivalent violation is created in the case of combien extraction via wh-movement as the wh-quantifier is further raised to the appropriate high position in the CP where wh-phrases normally end up. From there, it c-commands its trace as required. As no contrast is displayed in the Italian examples between en extraction and wh-extraction, this is an indica- tion that a similar analysis should not be extended to the FI structures.18 The conclu- sion must be that the position occupied by the postverbal subject in FI is not a felicitous extraction domain altogether. If the proposal that follows is on the right track, anatural reason can be provided for that, as such a position is identified with the Specifier of a Focus phrase,19 not an argument position in the sense relevant for CED.20 I now turn to the core of this proposal. 2. The interpretation of the postverbal subject in FI Here I briefly review the fundamental paradigm leading to the proposal. Question- answer pairs like the following indicate that the postverbal subject can be interpreted as new information focus: (9) a. Chi e partito / ha parlato? who has left / has spoken b. E' partito / ha parlato Gianni, has left / has spoken Gianni c. #Gianni e partito / ha parlato. Gianni has left / has spoken
  • 35. 22 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP However, with the appropriate intonation and in the appropriate pragmatic conditions, a postverbal subject can also receive the topic (given information) interpretation: (10) a. Che cosa ha poi fatto Gianni? What has Gianni finally done? b. Ha parlato, Gianni. He has spoken, Gianni. In what follows I will mainly concentrate my attention on the new information focus interpretation, keeping the possibility of exchanges like the one in (10) in mind, as they can provide a direct indication of the fine configuration of the low IP internal area under discussion (see section 5 for more on that). It is very clear from the contrast between (9)b and c that the postverbal and the preverbal positions21 have a very different informational content: only the former can carry new information. The postverbal subject is also informationally new when the whole clause is new information. Example (9)b is also an appropriate answer to a general question like (11), while (9)c would not be, unless some presupposition is held by the speaker concerning the subject: (11) Che cosa e successo? What happened? Let us concentrate our attention on the case of the so-called narrow new infor- mation focus reading of sentences like (9)b.22 According to the general guidelines assumed in this work, the focus interpreta- tion of the postverbal subject should optimally come out of the syntactic configura- tion in which the subject DP is inserted. As I have shown that the subject is low in the clause structure, this naturally leads to the proposal that it should fill a low Focus position (or Topic; see following section 5).23 This, in turn, argues in favor of the existence of such a position clause internally. To make the point stronger, a possible alternative should be considered, in line with the following assumed guidelines: the postverbal subject fills a Focus position indeed, but this position is not clause internal; rather, this position should be identi- fied with the left peripheral one already proposed and independently justified in the literature. According to this alternative, the subject is actually very high in the clause structure, and the portion of the clause preceding it is even higher. Within this analy- sis, FI would look much more akin to SI than we have hypothesized so far. The fol- lowing section closely discusses, and dismisses on empirical grounds, this alternative, which the data discussed in section 1 already put into question. 2.1. The subject is not high in FI We saw in section 1 that the distribution of low adverbs leads to the conclusion that S is low in FI. We also noticed some properties (extraction) that differentiate SI and FI. We now look at other differentiating behaviors of SI and FI that appear to be naturally derived if the postverbal subject is thought of as being high in the former case but low in the latter. Consider the following contrasts:
  • 36. ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 23 (12) a. Non ho ho incontrato che (i/dei) linguist!. I have 'not' seen 'that' (the/some) linguists b. Non hanno parlato che (i/dei) linguisti. have 'not' spoken 'that' (the/some) linguists c.*(Che) (i/dei) linguisti non hanno parlato24 ('that') (the/some) linguists 'not' have spoken (13) a. Non conosco alcun linguista.25 I do not know any linguist. b. Non parlera alcun linguista. will not speak any linguist c.*Alcun linguista non parlera. Any linguist will not speak. (14) a. Non ho visto nessuno. (I) have not seen nobody, b. Non ha parlato nessuno. has not spoken nobody c.*Nessuno non ha parlato. nobody has not spoken In all these examples, the postverbal noun phrase is an NPI element that needs to be licensed by the negative marker non. Suppose that licensing is obtainedthrough c-command: in all of the b examples, the postverbal subject behaves like the direct object of the a examples and differently from the corresponding preverbal subject of the c examples. This strongly suggests that the necessary c-command relation is es- tablished in the b examples as it is in the a examples. In turn, this suggests that the b sentences should not be analyzed as involving a high subject and a higher remnant IP. If that were the case, the relevant c-command relation could not be established, and the resulting sentences shouldbe as ungrammatical as those involvingapreverbal subject are.26 Indeed, precisely paradigms withthistypeof distributionofjudgements are discussed by Kayne and Pollock and are used as an argument in favor of their analysis of SI in terms of remnant movement of IP past the high subject. The rele- vant examples that they discuss in this connection are reproduced in (15): (15) a. Jean a peu vu de linguistes. Jean few saw of linguists b.*De linguistes ont peu vu Jean. of linguists have few seen Jean c.*Le jour ou ont peu telephone de linguistes. the day where have few phoned of linguists d. II n'a pas vu de linguistes. he has not seen of linguists e.*De linguistes ne sont pas venus. Of linguists are not come f. *Le jour oil ne sont pas venus de linguistes. the day where are not come of linguists If peu and pas are taken to be the licensor of the polarity nounphrase introduced by de, lack of c-command can be held as the responsible factor ruling out the de-
  • 37. 24 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP phrase from the preverbal subject position. Similarly, lack of c-command could ac- count for the same impossibility in (15)c and f, which involve SI. This sort of para- digm is then used by Kayne and Pollock as a substantial argument in favor of their analysis of SI. The shape of the Italian paradigm remains unchanged if the relevant examples are made equally complex, as in the SI cases: (16) a. II giorno in cui non hanno parlato che (i/dei) linguist!, the day when have not spoken that (the/some) linguists b. II fatto di cui non parlera alcun linguista. the fact of which will not speak any linguist c. II momento in cui non ha parlato nessuno. the moment in which has not spoken nobody The postverbal subject of FI is then not a high subject. If it is correct to as- sume that it fills a Focus position, this position cannot be the high, left peripheral one.27 2.2. The postverbal subject does not fill the left peripheral focus Furthermore, the identification of the focus position of postverbal subjects with the left peripheral one does not seem justified on empirical grounds if the kind of focal interpretation is considered in more detail. In Italian, the peripheral focus position is systematically associated with a contrastive/corrective interpretation and carries a special stress, as mentioned in connection with (1). No equivalent interpretation or intonation is necessarily associated with a postverbal subject. Although, as noted earlier, the postverbal subject is the carrier of new information, the peripheral focus position cannot be associated with simple new information: (17) a. Chi e partito / ha parlato? Who has left / has spoken? b. (*) GIANNI e partito / ha parlato. GIANNI has left / has spoken. (18) a. Che cosa hai letto? What have you read? b. (*) II LIBRO ho letto (non il giornale). THE BOOK I have read, not the newspaper. Examples (17)b and (18)b are not appropriate answers to genuine questions of information. Contrast or correction is necessarily implied. It would be difficult to understand why the opposite should hold for postverbal subjects.28 From this it is legitimate to conclude that the focus position hosting the postverbal subject can- not be the same as the one located in the left periphery. Rather, it must be a clause- internal position, and the VS order is not obtained through a remnant topicalization process that moves a portion of IP over a left peripheral high subject. I maintain that an analysis along these lines could hold for SI, as in Kayne and Pollock, but not for FI.29
  • 38. ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 25 The most direct way to phrase the proposal is in term of a diagram like (19)a, which postulates the presence of the clause-internal focus position right above the VP. This is too simple a version of the proposal, though, and it must be enriched to allow for topic-like positions to also be present in the low, clause-internal domain. In this way the possible topic interpretation of postverbal subjects illustrated by sen- tences like (10)b will be directly captured. This leads to the version in (19)b, which assumes a strict parallelism between the clause-internal vP/VP periphery and the clause-external one in the CP left periphery, mentioned at the outset: 2.3. Why is S focus (or topic) in FI? We have established that S typically is new information focus in FI, and we have made the hypothesis that this is a consequence of S filling a clause-internal focus position where it is interpreted. The question then is, what forces S to be in focus? Or, put differently, why is S necessarily focalized in FI? In Belletti (2001) I related that to Case: if Case is only assigned locally, there is no available Case assigner for S in the lower portion of the clause. S moves to Focus in order to be licensed by a feature different from Case—namely, Focus. But, the hypothesis of allowing Focus to play a role comparable to Case can look as aweaken- ing of the general approach, as it is not obvious what Case and Focus should have in common to allow them to play an essentially equivalent role.30 Moreover, in recent versions of MP, Chomsky has made the proposal that Case assignment can be a nonlocal process and that Case can also be available at a distance, with the (agree- ing) Case assigning head looking for its Case assignee target also in a nonlocal domain. If some process of the sort has to be admitted, we should look for a different reason to account for the focalized nature of the postverbal subject. I would like to speculate that this effect may be ultimately related to economy considerations. Let us ask, what would fill the preverbal subject position in FI struc- tures; namely, what would satisfy EPP? I will assume that, as in traditional accounts, the preverbal subject position is filled by a nonovert expletive pro, the associate of the postverbal subject: pro ha parlato Gianni has spoken Gianni No expletive is present in structures that contain a preverbal subject, as the EPP is satisfied by the lexical subject in those structures. Hence, FI structures contain one
  • 39. 26 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP element more than do the structures that contain a preverbal subject. Suppose that a kind of economy principle drives the selection of the initial Lexical Array (LA; Chomsky 2000) to the effect that an LA bigger in size is to be chosen only for some "purpose," or, to put it in Chomsky's terms, only if this choice has a reflex on the outcome. Focalization could precisely be one such reflex. It can be assumed that exactly the same ultimate reason is responsible for the topic interpretation of the postverbal subject as well.31 If this line of interpretation is on the right track, locali- zation (or topic interpretation) of the postverbal subject could be derived without having to admit any special licensing property for the focus (or topic) feature, com- parable to Case.32 1 tentatively make this assumption here. 3. On VSXP 3.1. VSOandVSPP A fairly clear contrast can be detected with VSXP word order according to whether what follows S is a direct object or a PP. The following examples (discussed in part in the references quoted) illustrate the contrast: (20) a. (?)Ha telefonato Maria al giornale. has phoned Maria to the newspaper b. *Ha comprato Maria il giornale. has bought Maria the newspaper c. (?)Ha parlato uno studente col direttore. has spoken a student to the director d. *Ha corrotto uno studente il direttore. has bribed a student the director e. (?)Ha sparato il bandito al carabiniere. has shot the gangster at the policeman f. *Ha colpito il bandito il carabiniere. has hit the gangster the policeman g. (?)Ha telefonato il direttore del giornale al presidente. has phoned the director of the newspaper to the president h.*Ha incontrato il direttore del giornale il presidente. has met the director of the newspaper the president The sentences in (20) should be pronounced with continuous intonation, with no special break between S and the following complement. When a break intervenes, the picture changes in a way discussed in section 3.2. The crucial difference between a direct object and a prepositional object is that the former is a DP while the latter is a PP. DPs need Case, while PPs do not.33 Rather, it is the DP embedded within the PP which needs Case and such Case is provided or checked within the PP, due to the presence of P. A Case-related account thus sug- gests itself, which I will phrase in the following terms. Assume that the direct object must be associated with a relevant Case assigning/checking head. Assumethis Case- related head34 is located outside vP/VP in a position higher than the Focus projection hosting the postverbal subject. This is the crucial factor ruling out VSO: the relation
  • 40. ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 27 of O with the Case-assigning/checking head cannot be established due to the inter- vention of S, ultimately, due to RM.35 Consider the simplified representation in (21) illustrating this point: (21) As no relation external to vP is required for PPs, no RM violation is brought about by the presence of a PP following the postverbal S. Two further considerations have to be made, before moving to the discussionof VS#O (# is an intonational break). The VSPP sequences in (20) appear to be opti- mally appropriate in situations where the whole VP is taken to be new information focus. The most direct way to characterize this interpretation within the guidelines assumed so far would be to assume that it is actually the whole verb phrase, rather than just the subject, that moves to the specifier of the Focus phrase. We leave this as an open possibility. If this hypothesis is adopted, nothing changes in the proposed ac- count for the different status of VSPP versus VSO, as all the relevant hierarchical rela- tions involved remain unchanged.36 Note that PP can also be topic in sentences displaying the VSPP order. This would be the case in a sentence like (22)b as an an- swer to (22)a, which is normally associated with a downgrading intonation on the PP: (22) a. Chi ha sparato al carabiniere? b. Ha sparato il bandito al carabiniere. In these sentences only the subject should fill the Focus position. As a last remark, something should also be said on the mild (the question mark in parentheses) degradation attributed to the VSPP examples in (20). The less than perfect status of these examples could be related to a tendency to have a narrow focus interpretation of the postverbal subject; hence, a preference to have it in the last po- sition.37 The tendency is not respected in the relevant examples in (20), whence their less than perfect status.Still, no grammatical principleis violated, so these sentences are acceptable. 3.2. VS#O Judgments change according to whether a pause intervenes between S and O, when O is a direct object. Consider the following two possible sentences:
  • 41. 28 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP (23) a. L'ha comprato Maria, il giornale. it(cl) bought Maria the newspaper b. Ha comprato Maria, il giornale. has bought Maria the newspaper Example (23)a is a case of clitic right dislocation; (23)b is a case of so-called emarginazione—"marginalization"—in the sense of Antinucci and Cinque (1977). After the pause, indicated in both cases by the comma, a downgrading intona- tion characterizes the pronunciationof the following direct object. Although appar- ently very similar, the two structures can be considered to differ significantly. The distinction, which only manifests itself in few special contexts, has been brought to light in Cardinaletti (2001) and Frascarelli (2000). Consider the following question- answer pairs: (24) A. Chi ha comprato il giornale? Who bought the newspaper? B. a. L'ha comprato Maria, il giornale. it(cl) bought Maria the newspaper b.*Ha comprato MARIA, il giornale. has bought MARIA the newspaper The postverbal subject is necessarily contrastively focused in the case of emargina- zione ((24)Bb), while it is not necessarily so in the case of right dislocation ((24)Ba). This explains why a sentence like (24)Ba can be a felicitous answer to the question of information in (24)A, while (24)Bb cannot. Example (24)Bb essentially repro- duces the judgment reported in (17)-(18). The following account can be provided for the distinction. Consider the analysis of (24)Ba first. Following Cecchetto (1999), I assume that the right dislocated phrase fills a clause-internal low topic position; the clitic is raised to the appropriate clitic position in the higher portion of the clause, leav- ing behind the topicalized object, with a stranding type of derivation that assimi- lates these structures to clitic-doubling structuresin most important respects.38 Given the shape of the vP/VP periphery assumed here, this amounts to claiming that the right dislocated phrase fills the low topic position below the clause-internal focus. We can assume that the necessary Case requirements are fulfilled by the clitic in these structures.39 Hence, there is no need to directly associate the topicalized di- rect object with the Case head located above the Focus projection. The postverbal subject fills the low focus position, accounting for its possible interpretation as new information focus. Let us elaborate more on how the clitic fulfills Case requirements in (24)Ba. As the clitic moves to the (Specifier of the) Case projection, it ends upin aposition higher than the position filled by S. In this position no interference by S occurs; hence, accu- sative can be correctly assigned, or checked.40 Lack of a clitic would leave the direct object as the only element to fulfill Case requirements, with O in VP and lower than S; there is no way to avoid the interference by S. The structure is consequently im- possible, as we saw VSO structures are in general. The following schema summa- rizes the two different situations:
  • 42. ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 29 Given the very different status of (24)Ba and (24)Bb, an analysis along the lines just proposed is not to be extended to (24)Bb. In fact, an analysis along these lines could not be extended to (24)Bb, given the analysisjust developed. Lack of the clitic in (24)Bb indicates that the object has to be related to its Case-assigning head di- rectly, without the mediation of the clitic. Hence, the structure is impossible as VSO usually is, as discussed. The presence of a pause in VS#O should not make any dif- ference. The fact that the same word order is in fact (only) acceptable with an inter- pretation of the subject as contrastive focus rather than new informationfocus indicates that a different structure and derivation should be associated with this interpretation/ intonation. Let us make the restrictive hypothesis that the contrastive focus interpretation is available in the left peripheral focus position and, in fact, this interpretation is avail- able only in that position. If this is the case, the contrastive focus interpretation indi- cates that the element carrying it is located in the high left peripheral focus position. This means that the postverbal subject should fill the peripheral focus position in (24)Bb, and this has a direct consequence for the object. We can think that move- ment of the subject to the clause-external focus position frees the object to establish the appropriate relation with the VP external Case-assigning head. Schematically, if in (24)Ba the order of the relevant projections is the one indicated in (25), with S intervening between the object Case-assigning head and O itself, in (24)Bb the order is the one indicated in (26), where S does not create any intervention effect, it being much higher in the structure: (25) (26) If this is the correct hypothesis, the naturalanalysis of sentences like (24)Bb must imply that other topicalization processes are at work to reach the final word order: topicalization of the direct object into the peripheral topic position located below the focus projection (Rizzi 1997), and remnant topicalization of the remaining portion of the IP past the peripheral focalized subject and topicalized direct object: (27)
  • 43. 30 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP 3.2.1. A follow-up on VS#O Given the described analysis of the "emarginazione" cases of VS#O, a natural ques- tion to ask is what would happen if the IP remnant movement part of the derivation did not take place.43 It appears that sentences resulting from this kind of derivation are relatively acceptable:44 (28) a. 7MARIA, quel giornale, ha comprato. Maria that newspaper has bought b. 7QUEI RAGAZZI, Maria, hanno criticato. those boys Maria have criticized c. ?IL RESPONSABILE, le soluzioni, trovera. the responsible the solutions will find We can assume that the same procedures involved in the derivation of the "emargi- nazione" "VS#O" cases would extend to (28), modulo absence of the IP remnant movement step. Direct objects are not normally allowed to be topic, without a clitic being present in the following clause. Well-known contrasts like the one in (29) are easily detect- able, however: (29) a. II discorso, (Gianni) lo leggera (Gianni) (a tutti). the discourse, (G.)it-cl will read (G.) (to everybody) b.*Il discorso, (Gianni) leggera (Gianni) (a tutti). the discourse, (G.)will read (G.) (to everybody) As the constituents in parentheses indicate, their presence and location appear to be irrelevant: the source of the contrast in (29)—in particular, the ungrammatically of (29)b—is solely to be identified in the absence of the clitic. Suppose that neces- sity of the clitic here is due to the fact that the empty position to which the topicalized phrase should be linked would not otherwise have a precise status (an assumption often made).45 The fact that the clitic can be missing in (28) is further indication that the possibility comes as a by-product of the clause external focalization of the sub- ject. Indeed, the phenomenon appears to be more general, as the possibility is also manifested if another constituent,different from the subject, is focalized, as indicated in (30)a, which contrasts with (30)b: (30) a. A GIANNI, il libra, ho dato. to Gianni the book I have given b.*I1 libro ho dato a Gianni.46 The book I have given to Gianni. We can conclude that O can be topicalized without presence of the clitic only if another constituent is simultaneously focalized in the left periphery. We leave open for the time being a precise analysis as to exactly what kind of parasitic use of focali- zation the topicalized object is allowed to make, this crucially depending on what the exact explanation for the impossibility of (29)b turns out to be, one option being the one alluded to above (and note 45). We just note here that the equivalent of the emarginazione VS#O type sentences not involving the remnant step seems indeed
  • 44. ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 31 to be possible, as one would expect. Also, in all the possible cases, O is adequately Case-licensed IP internally due to lack of intervention of S. Lack of intervention is brought about by focalization of S in (28) and by movement of (null subject pro) S to the preverbal subject position in cases like (30). The kind of parasitic use of focalization that a topicalized direct object seems to be able to make, which we just discussed and which allows it to appear without a clitic in the following sentence, seems to be constrained in a precise manner: it is available only in the respective order illustrated in (28) and (30) with the focused phrase preceding the topic phrase. The opposite order gives impossible results. Com- pare (28) and (30) with (31): (31) a.*Quel giornale, MARIA, ha comprato. that newspaperMaria has bought b.*Maria, QUEI RAGAZZI, hannocriticato. Maria those boys have criticized c.*Le soluzioni,IL RESPONSABILE,trovera. the solutionsthe responsiblewill find d.*Il libro, a GIANNI, ho dato. the book to Gianni I have given We can describe the different status by observing that only a topic in a complement- like relation with focus can take advantage of the presence of focus in the structure. If topic has focus as a complement, the same advantage cannot be taken. I leave open further elaborations on this point.47 3.2.2. VSO, S pronoun A systematic class of "exceptions" to the general ban against VSO in Italian is pro- vided by cases in which S corresponds to a personal pronoun. Consider in this re- spect the contrast in (32): (32) a. Di quel cassette ho io le chiavi. of that drawer have I the keys b.*?Di quel cassette ha Maria le chiavi.48 of that drawerhas Maria the keys While the sentence in (32)b can only be rescued with a special contrastive or correc- tive intonation/interpretation on the postverbal subject "Maria," no similar special intonation/interpretation needs to be associated with the pronoun in (32)a. The con- trast between the personal pronoun and the lexical noun phrase suggests that pro- nouns should avail themselves of a further position in the postverbal domain, which is excluded for lexical noun phrases. This further subject position should be higher than the one filled by the lexical noun phrase and such that it would not interfere in the Case assignment of the direct object. Converging evidence is provided by the contrasts in (33). While a lexical post- verbal subject noun phrase must follow low adverbs, a postverbal pronominal sub- ject must precede them: (33) a. Di questo mi informero io bene. of this will inform myself I well
  • 45. 32 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP b. *?Di questo si informer^ Maria bene. of this will inform herself Maria well c. Spiegherii lei completamente al direttore. will explain she completely to the director d.*?Spieghera Maria completamente al direttore. (cf. (3)). will explain M. completely to the director Notice that if a low adverb precedes the postverbal pronomial subject, the latter necessarily receives a special contrastive or corrective interpretation ((34)a). This suggests that, in this case, the postverbal subject fills the higher focus position, and the sentence is associated with a very different representation involving remnant movement of the clause above the postverbal subject, as in the preceding analysis of (24)Bb. The contrast in interpretation in (34) indicates that, contrary to the postverbal pronominal subject, the postverbal lexical subject can remain clause-internal, thus not requiring any contrastive/corrective interpretation, as assumed so far: (34) a. Di questo mi informero bene io (non tu /... non importa che lo facciano altri). of this will inform myself well I (not you/... it doesn't matter that other people do it) b. Di questo si informera bene Maria, of this will inform herself well Maria 3.3. VSO, VSPP: FI versus SI In concluding this discussion, it is worth pointing out that a contrast in acceptability in VSXP structures seems to be detectable in French SI as well, with VSPP judged more acceptable than the excluded VSO. For instance, Kayne and Pollock (2001) quote pairs like the following: (35) a. Qu'a dit Jean a Marie? (K&P (133)) what said Jean to Marie b. *A qui a dit Jean tout cela? to whom has said Jean all that Although similar at first sight to the contrasts presented in (20), it is fairly clear from Kayne and Pollock's discussion that the similarity of the two paradigms in the two languages should not be taken as an indication that the processes involved in the derivation of SI and FI should ultimately be the same. The most significant indica- tion that this would not be the right approach is provided by the fact that the VSPP order of Italian does not appear to be subject to the numerous constraints the equiva- lent order appears to be subject to in French. An illustration of that is provided by the fact that no so-called counterdefiniteness requirement constrains the nature of the PP in the VSPP order of Italian, as it does in French (36a-f in Kayne and Pollock 2001: (140)a,b, quoted from Cornulier 1974): (36) a. (?) Sta parlando Maria a qualcuno. is talking Maria to somebody b. (?) Sta parlando Maria a Jean-Jacques, is talking Maria to Jean-Jacques
  • 46. ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 33 c.*Sta salutando Maria qualcuno. is greeting Maria somebody d.*Sta salutando Maria Jean-Jacques. is greeting Maria Jean-Jacques e. ?*Qu'a avoue Pierre a quelqu'un? what has confessed Pierre to somebody f. Qu'a avoue Pierre a Jean-Jacques? what has confessed Pierre to Jean-Jacques Furthermore, Kayne and Pollock remind the observation in Kampers-Mahne (1998) that VSPP is actually impossible in the structures where SI is induced by the pres- ence of the subjunctive mood: (37) *I1 faut que le dise Jean a Marie it is necessary that it(cl) say (subj.) Jean to Marie VSPP in Italian FI does not make any such distinction: (38) a. E' necessario che lo dica Gianni a Maria. (it) is necessary the it(cl) say(subj.) G. to M. b. Mi sembrava che lo stesse dicendo Gianni a qualcuno. (it) seemed to me that was(subjunctive)saying it(cl) G. to somebody The order VSPP is equally possible in both cases.49 3.4. On VSO in other Romance languages As has been described in the literature(Zubizarreta 1998; Ordonez 1997; Motapanyane 1995), VSO (where O is a direct object) is a possible word order in various Romance languages, not requiring any special stress or intonation associated to the sequence. I repeat below some examples from the reference quoted: (39) a. Todos los dias compra Juan el diario. (Zubizarreta 1998) every day buys Juan the newspaper b. Espero que te devuelva Juan el libro. (Ordonez 1997) I hope that cl-you return Juan the book 'I hope that Juan returns the book to you.' c. O invita cam des Ion pe fata acesta. (Motapanyane 1995) her invites quite often Ion 'pe' girl the-that 'Ion invites that girl quite often.' But why should it be so? Why should there be such a difference between Italian (and Catalan; see Picallo 1998) on the one side and Spanish and Romanian on the other, limiting the domain of investigation to (some of) Romance? There are two possible approaches to this problem: (a) the languages allowing VSO avail themselves of a further subject position, higher in the structure than the Focus (or Topic) position hosting the postverbal subject in Italian and such that it would not interfere with Case assignment of the object; (b) the languages allowing VSO avail themselves of a further way to Case mark the direct object, allowing it to remain VP internal, with no need to be associated to the VP external Case position, thus reducing VSO to the same status as VSPP in Italian.
  • 47. 34 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP In favor of the first approach, which is the one adopted, with differences, in the references quoted and in Belletti (2001) among others, is the observation that a similar higher subject position seems available in other languages anyway—for example, Icelandic (see (5) and (6) above), and, possibly, in Italian as well, but there limited to hosting subject pronouns only, as in the discussion in section 3.2.2. In favor of the second alternative, the following consideration is given: There ap- pears to be a correlation between availability of VSO and existence of a special Case marking of direct objects in the same set of languages involving a preposi- tion under certain conditions (e.g., animacy of the object in Spanish; see Torrego 1998, from which I draw the examples in (40)). The preposition is also visible in object Clitic doubling constructions also possible in both Spanish and Romanian, in Romance: (40) a. Ana saludo a uno amigo. Ana greeted to a friend b. Juan lo visito al chico. Juan visited to the boy50 The hypothesis could then be that, at least in VSO, there can be recourse to an "ab- stract" version of the preposition for Case marking the direct object. Of course, the next step should be athorough investigation of the conditions under which the abstract preposition should be licensed. I leave the two alternatives open here at this rather speculative stage, noticing that the correlation between possibility of VSO and existence of a preposition available to Case mark the direct object ap- pears to hold beyond the Romance domain as it is also found in other languages as well, such as modern Greek.51 4. On VOS To the extent that VOS sequences are possible in Italian, they are only marginally so and appear to allow for only a special interpretation. To be able to have sentences like the following (41), the VO sequence must be given in the immediate context: that is, it must be topic: (41) a. ??Capira il problema Gianni. will understand the problem Gianni b. ??Ha chiamato Maria Gianni, has called Maria Gianni c. ??Ha letto il romanzo Gianni, has read the novel Gianni For instance, a sentence like (41)a could constitute a possible answer to (42): (42) Chi capira il problema? Who will understand the problem? In (41)a, the given part of the VP, VO, is repeated word by word. Of course, there are other more natural ways to answer (42). In the by far most natural answer to (42), the direct object is not fully repeated but is rather pronominalized, as in (43)a;
  • 48. ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 35 (43)b and c are the respective more natural answers than (41)b and c to the relevant parallel questions: (43) a. Lo capira Gianni. it will understand Gianni b. L'ha chiamata Gianni, her has called Gianni c. L'ha letto Gianni, it has read Gianni We can account for the difference between the relatively strong marginality of (41) and the full acceptability of (43) in the following terms. Suppose that O is not allowed to remain in the position where it checks its Case. O can transit through (the Spec of) the Case position, but must void it.52 This leads us to conclude that VOS is impossible in Italian. I assume that this is the right idealization of the data. If O can empty the Case position, the structure is rescued, though: this is precisely what cliticization does. Whence, the full acceptability of (43). But why is it that VOS, although highly marginal, is not fully ungrammatical, then? It is clear, for instance, that VOS is felt as more acceptable than VSO by Ital- ian speakers. Suppose that, as suggested by the interpretation, VOS can be given an analysis such that no violation of grammatical principles is involved. According to this analysis, the constituent containing the VO sequence is interpreted as topic. Assume for concreteness that it fills the low topic position right above the clause- internal focus. S fills the low new information focus position. To the extent that they are considered acceptable, these sentences wouldthen illustratean instance of clause- internal remnant topicalization.53 We can speculate that this analysis is felt as some- how more costly than the more straightforward one whereby O is pronominalized and then cliticized. Whence, the nonperfect status of the sentences in (41).54 As an independent indication that this might be the correct approach to the prob- lem, the more "prototypical" the situationillustrated by the VO sequence is, the better the status of VOS becomes. For instance, sentences like the following (44) can often be heard in live radio broadcasting of soccer games, where VO expresses a typical situation in the games and counts as if it were taken from a given list of possibilities: (44) Protegge 1'uscita del portiere il terzino sinistro. protects the coming out of the goal keeper the left back Another case where VOS is fully acceptable, and which does not involve pro- nominalization of O, is the one given in sentences like (3)d, repeated in (45), where O is the quantifier tutto: (45) Capira tutto Maria. will understand everything Maria As noted in connection with the discussion of paradigm (3), the quantifier tutto moves in syntax to a position high enough to enable it not to give rise to the same interfer- ence effect that low adverbs give rise to, whichleads to the marginal flavor ofVAdvS. The perfect status of (45) as opposed to the usually impossible VOS indicates that tutto should be located in a different position than the position a normal direct object would fill in VOS. As a possible way of characterizing the difference, we can
  • 49. 36 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP assume that tutto is not in the object Case position. Possibly, tutto never ends up in this position altogether, as its quantifier status does not impose Case requirements on it. If the problem posed by VOS is linked to the impossibility of filling the object Case position, as we are assuming, we understand why tutto should not cause any similar problem. Moreover, the perfect status of "V tutto S" as opposed to the im- possibility of VOS is further indication that the relevant ordering constraints do not involve any linear requirement. Furthermore, no topic-like interpretation is neces- sarily attributed to VO, O = tutto, as expected under the adopted analysis. 4.1. More on [VO] remnant topicalization The postverbal subject in VOS is not c-commanded by the material contained within the remnant phrase. This leads us to expect that if some c-command relation is re- quired to hold between 0 and S, this should not be possible. Indeed, it appears that binding relations cannot hold between O and S in VOS. Consider the following question-answer pair, necessary to provide a somewhat natural context for (the lim- ited availability of) VOS in (46)b: (46) a. Chi ha salutato Gianni? Who greeted Gianni? b.*Hanno salutato Gianni; i proprii genitori.55 greeted(pl) Gianni his own parents The opposite direction of binding significantly improves thejudgment: (47) a. Chi ha salutato i propri genitori? Who greeted his own parents? b. Ha salutato i proprij genitori Gianni;, greeted (sing) his own parents Gianni. c. Chi ha baciato la propria moglie? Who kissed his own wife? d. Hanno baciato la propriaj moglie tutti i candidati,. have kissed (pi) their own wife all the candidates The acceptability of binding in (47)b and d, can be assumed to be obtained through reconstruction of the remnant VO, with O interpreted in its base position where it is c-commanded by S. The relative acceptability of the various answers to the questionsin (48) follow- ing (granted the usual marginality of VOS) may appear as problematic, at least at first glance: (48) a. Chi ha detto la verita? Who has said the truth? a. Che cosa/chi ha espresso la verita? What/who has expressed the truth? (49) a. Non hanno detto la verita che due studenti. have "not" said the truth "that" two students b. Non ha detto la verita nessuno. has not said the truth nobody
  • 50. ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 37 c. Non ha espresso la verita alcunche/alcun ministro. has not expressed the truth anything/any minister If non, the licensor of the polarity expression in the postverbal subject position, is contained within the remnant-moved VO sequence, the sentences in (49) should be impossible. But they are perfectly acceptable. How can this be? Suppose that, in fact, non is not contained within the remnant-moved [VO] constituent, but that it is outside the topicalized constituent, in a position from where it does c-command the postverbal subject. Indeed, this is directly suggested by the fact that the negation is attached to the auxiliary and not to the lexical verb. In the assumed analysis of VOS as involving remnant topicalization of the [VO] constituent, the verb involved in the process is the lexical verb; the auxiliary must be higher in the clause. The negation should then be at least as high as the auxiliary to which it is attached. This is sche- matically indicated in the simplified representation (50): (50) . . . [IP non+hanno [TOP [Vp 6j detto la verita]j Top [FOc [che due studenti]j Foe Top [VPj] ]]]... Hence, the (marginal, as always for VOS) acceptability of (49) is not problematic for our general assumed account of the (marginal) VOS word order. It is interesting that a contrastive focus interpretation/intonation on the postverbal subject in sentences like (49) leads to an even stronger marginality than the one nor- mally associated with VOS. This is coherent with the restrictive assumption that contrastive focus is only established in the left peripheral focus position and not in the clause-internal one, which is reserved for new information focus only. If the postverbal subject fills the left peripheral focus position when it is contrastively focused or stressed, then the remnant portion of the clause to be topicalized must contain the whole clause itself (with the subject trace); this, in turn, implies that the negation should be contained within the remnant topicalized portion, whence, c-command would not hold between non and the polarity phrase in the postverbal subject. Indeed, it appears that it is not possible to associate the relevant interpreta- tion/intonation to the following sentences in (51)B and D:56 (51) A. Hanno detto la verita tutti i partecipanti. have said the truth all the participants B. 1.*? No, non hanno detto la verita CHE GLI STUDENTI. no have "not" said the truth "that" the students 2.*? No, non ha detto la verita NESSUNO. no has not said the truth nobody C. Ha espresso la verita quel comportamento/quel ministro. has expressed the truth that behavior/that minister D.*?No, non ha espresso la verita ALCUNCHE'/ALCUN MINISTRO no, has not said the truth anything/any minister Sentences word by word identical to (51)B and D—for example, (49)—can be (marginally, as always with VOS) acceptable in the context of (51)A and C, but the intonation involved is not the contrastive one suggested by use of the capital letters on the postverbal subject in (51)B and D. In those cases, the whole sentence might count as a correction, and the postverbal subject is not contrastively stressed or
  • 51. 38 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP focused.57 It is only in the latter interpretation/intonation that the sentences in (51)B and D are judged as very strange—indeed, impossible. This is further illustrated by pairs like the following, which explicitly indicate the strong marginality arising if contrast/correction is exclusively put on the postverbal S: (52) a. Ha detto la verita GIANNI (non Mario). has said the truth Gianni (not Mario) b.*?Non hanno detto la verita CHE GLI STUDENTI (non i professor!). have "not" said the truth "that" the students (not the professors) c.*?Non ha detto la verita NESSUNO (non Gianni). has not said the truth nobody (not Gianni) As a final remark on this point, we note that if we take the negative quantifier nessuno in the preverbal subject position where non licensing is not required in Ital- ian as non does not show up altogether, and we associate it with contrastive focus intonation/interpretation, the resulting sentence is perfectly acceptable, as (53)b il- lustrates in the following: (53) a. Tutti hanno detto la verita. Everybody has said the truth, b. No, NESSUNO ha detto la verita (non tutti). No, nobody has said the truth (not everybody). This indicates that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this particular intona- tion/interpretation, but that the problem in (52)c is indeed structural in nature. 5. Postverbal S can also be Topic As we have assumed that a low topic position is available below the clause-internal focus one, nothing in principle should prevent a postverbal subject to fill the topic position in some cases. This possibility is available, as already illustrated in (10), and it is the only available one in some contexts. These contexts are the wh-interrogatives, which will be discussed in section 5.1. Let us first consider some further examples of simple declaratives in which postverbal S appears to be a low topic, a possibility left open by the proposed ac- count. As also suggested by the downgrading intonation on postverbal S, the most suitable analysis of the examples b and d of the exchange in (54), has the subject as a topic. This would precisely be the low topic in question: (54) a. Che cosa ha poi fatto Gianni per quella questione? what has then done Gianni for that matter b. Si, si ha poi parlato, Gianni, al direttore. yes yes has then spoken Gianni to the director c. Che cosa fara Gianni? what will do Gianni d. Partira, Gianni, will leave Gianni
  • 52. ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 39 The PP "al direttore" in (54)b is a further topic. It is known from the left periphery that topics can be iterated. There wouldn't be any reason for this not to happen for clause-internal topics as well. 5.1. Postverbal subjects in wh-interrogatives We start by noting that wh-interrogatives allow—and, in fact, require—that the sub- ject be postverbal. Contrasts like the following are well known and widely discussed in the literature: (55) a. Che cosa ha detto Gianni? what has said Gianni b.*Che cosa Gianni ha detto? what Gianni has said Without trying to provide an account for the reason(s) why the subject could not be preverbal in these interrogatives,58 let us try to determine where it is found when it is in the postverbal position. We start by noting that wh-interrogatives are systematically incompatible with left peripheral focalization. The ill-formedness of the sentences in (56), shaped on similar ones discussed in Rizzi (1997), illustrate this point: (56) a.*Che cosa A GIANNI hai detto? what TO GIANNI have you said b.*A GIANNI che cosa hai detto? TO GIANNI what have you said? This kind of ill-formedness is interpreted by Rizzi to be due to the fact that wh-words end up into the specifier of the peripheral focus position. This position being unique, it cannot contain both a contrastively focused phrase and the wh-word. Assuming this to be the right approach, we could suppose that since in the approach developed here the postverbal subject is located in a different clause-internal focus position, no incompatibility should be expected between wh-interrogatives and clause- internal focalization. It could then be assumed that there is no particular issue raised by wh-interrogatives and that the postverbal subject of interrogatives like (55)a could be a postverbal focalized subject. The situation does not appear to be that simple, however. The next observation to make is that focalization appears to be a process nor- mally affecting one single constituent per clause.59 For instance, no more than one constituent can undergo focalization in the left periphery: (57) *A GIANNI MARIA ho presentato. to Gianni Maria (I) have introduced This impossibility could be traced back once again to the fact that there is only one focus position in the left periphery. The problem seems to be more general, though. It appears that left peripheral focalization is also not compatible with clause-internal focalization. It does not seem to be possible to associate the right interpretation/into- nation to sentences like the following, with the left peripheral phrase contrastively
  • 53. 40 THE STRUCTURE OF CP AND IP focused and the direct object in (58)a and the postverbal subject in (58)b interpreted as new information focus (underscored, for clarity); the sentences are excluded under this interpretation: (58) a.*A GIANNI ho regalato unjibro to Gianni (I) have given a book b.*UN LIBRO ha letto Gianni a book has read Gianni The shape of paradigms (56), (57), and (58) suggests that a constraint is opera- tive to the effect that a sentence can contain only one focused element, but this con- straint does not seem to make a distinction as to the kind of focus in question, as (58) reveals.60 If this is the case, wh-interrogatives containing a postverbal subject are unlikely to be analyzed as involving a focalized postverbal subject and a wh-word in the left peripheral focus position; they would constitute an isolated exception to the set of the paradigms in (56), (57), and (58). I conclude that, in fact, the postverbal subject of wh-interrogatives fills the low topic, not the low focus, position. This possibility is made available by the analysis proposed and is used in other cases as well as those illustrated in (54) and (10). Further independent indication that this hypothesis is on the right track is pro- vided by data from some northern Italian dialects. In these dialects (Fiorentino and Trentino) a particular subject clitic (F) or no clitic at all (T) appear in inversion struc- tures in declarative clauses. The data are taken from Brandi and Cordin (1981): (59) a. Gl'e venuto le su' sorelle. (F) it+has come his sisters b. E' vegnii le so" sorele. (T) has come his sisters In wh-interrogatives the subject must be in a postverbal position, much as in standard Italian, but a different clitic from the one that shows up signaling inver- sion in declarative clauses appears in these cases. The subject clitic appearing in wh-interrogatives is the one found in right dislocation. Consider (60) and (61) in this respect (from Brandi and Cordin 1981: 15a,b, 74, 75): (60) a. Quando 1'e venuta la Maria? (F) when she+has come the Maria b. Icche 1'ha portato la Maria? what she+has brought the Maria c.*Icche gl'ha portato la Maria? what it+has brought the Maria (61) a. Quando e la vegnuda la Maria? (T) when has-she come the Maria b. Cosa ha la porta la Maria? what has-she brought the Maria c.*Cosa ha porta la Maria? what has brought the Maria These data are perfectly coherent with the analysis proposed above: the right dislocated subject of (60) and (61) fills the low topic position, as in the analysis
  • 54. ASPECTS OF THE LOW IP AREA 41 developed for standard Italian both for subject inversion in wh-interrogatives and for right dislocation more generally. The interesting aspect of these data from the dialects is that the nature of the position occupied by the postverbal subject is revealed and made visible by the nature of the subject clitic (F) or by its very presence (T). A last piece of evidence that the postverbal subject is not a focalized subject but rather a topic in wh-interrogatives comes from contrasts like the one in (62) involv- ing weak crossover configurations: (62) a.*?Attualmente, in un suo; appartamento vive Gianni;. at present in one his apartment lives Gianni b. Attualmente, in quale suo; appartamento vive Giannij? at present in which his apartment lives Gianni? Example (62)a shows that a WCO violation is induced by a postverbal subject in declarative clauses, while no such violation is induced by a postverbal subject in a wh-interrogative. For reasons that I will not develop here, focus is known to give rise to WCO violations. Thus, the impossibility of (62)a can be seen as a typical WCO violation induced by focus, as the postverbal subject fills the clause-internal focus position according to our analysis.61 The fact that no comparable violation is at work in the wh-interrogative (62)b is a further indication that the postverbal subjectin these interrogatives is not focalized. The status of sentences like (62)b is perfectly com- patible with the proposed analysis that the postverbal S is in topic position in wh- interrogatives and the contrast between (62)a and (62)b indirectly supports the over- all approach.62 6. Concluding remarks The main purpose of this essay has been the identification of different positions in the low IP area surrounding the VP. These positions appear to be related to different types of interpretations and their associated intonations. The aim has been internal to the cartographic perspective presented at the outset. The main empirical domain analyzed has been the one concerning the distribution of postverbal subjects; how- ever, the aim of this work has not been that of providing a systematic and compre- hensive analysis of subjectinversion structures.Several issues related to VSstructures have not been touched upon, and they are central for a detailed account of this com- plex phenomenology. Two of them are dealt with in some detail in Belletti (2001): the integration within the proposed clause structure and the assumed processes of clause internal focalization/topicalization of structures containingunaccusativeverbs; the availability of nominative Case for postverbal subjects. For a discussion of these issues, see the reference quoted.63 The evidence presented here strongly indicates that the low IP vP/VP-periphery is plausibly rich in the positions made available. These positions appear to be tightly connected with discourse-related interpretations of Focus and Topic in a way that is significantly parallel to the positions available in the clause-external (left) periphery.
  • 55. Another Random Document on Scribd Without Any Related Topics
  • 56. Are moch better, the lesse whyl they abyde; They make you thinke, and bring you in a traunce; But that seknesse wil sone be remedyed. Respite your thought, and put al this asyde; 410 Ful good disportes werieth men al-day; To help nor hurt, my wil is not aplyed; Who troweth me not, I lete it passe away.' Lam. 'Who hath a brid, a faucon, or a hound, That foloweth him, for love, in every place, 415 He cherissheth him, and kepeth him ful sound; Out of his sight he wil not him enchace. And I, that set my wittes, in this cace, On you alone, withouten any chaunge, Am put under, moch ferther out of grace, 420 And lesse set by, than other that be straunge.' La D. 'Though I make chere to every man aboute For my worship, and of myn own fraunchyse, To you I nil do so, withouten doute, In eschewing al maner prejudyse. 425 For wit ye wel, love is so litel wyse, And in beleve so lightly wil be brought, That he taketh al at his own devyse, Of thing, god wot, that serveth him of nought.' Lam. 'If I, by love and by my trew servyse, 430 Lese the good chere that straungers have alway, Wherof shuld serve my trouth in any wise Lesse than to hem that come and go al-day, Which holde of you nothing, that is no nay?
  • 57. Also in you is lost, to my seming, 435 Al curtesy, which of resoun wold say That love for love were lawful deserving.' La D. 'Curtesy is alyed wonder nere To Worship, which him loveth tenderly; And he wil nat be bounde, for no prayere, 440 Nor for no gift, I say you verily, But his good chere depart ful largely Where him lyketh, as his conceit wil fal; Guerdon constrayned, a gift don thankfully, These twayn may not accord, ne never shal.' 445 Lam. 'As for guerdon, I seke non in this cace; For that desert, to me it is to hy; Wherfore I ask your pardon and your grace, Sith me behoveth deeth, or your mercy. To give the good where it wanteth, trewly, 450 That were resoun and a curteys maner; And to your own moch better were worthy Than to straungers, to shewe hem lovely chere.' La D. 'What cal ye good? Fayn wolde I that I wist! That pleseth oon, another smerteth sore; 455 But of his own to large is he that list Give moche, and lese al his good fame therfore. Oon shulde nat make a graunt, litel ne more, But the request were right wel according; If worship be not kept and set before, 460 Al that is left is but a litel thing.'
  • 58. Lam. 'In-to this world was never formed non, Nor under heven crëature y-bore, Nor never shal, save only your persone, To whom your worship toucheth half so sore, 465 But me, which have no seson, lesse ne more, Of youth ne age, but still in your service; I have non eyen, no wit, nor mouth in store, But al be given to the same office.' La D. 'A ful gret charge hath he, withouten fayle, 470 That his worship kepeth in sikernesse; But in daunger he setteth his travayle That feffeth it with others businesse. To him that longeth honour and noblesse, Upon non other shulde nat he awayte; 475 For of his own so moche hath he the lesse That of other moch folweth the conceyt.' Lam. 'Your eyen hath set the print which that I fele Within my hert, that, where-so-ever I go, If I do thing that sowneth unto wele, 480 Nedes must it come from you, and fro no mo. Fortune wil thus, that I, for wele or wo, My lyf endure, your mercy abyding; And very right wil that I thinke also Of your worship, above al other thing.' 485 La D. 'To your worship see wel, for that is nede, That ye spend nat your seson al in vayne; As touching myn, I rede you take no hede, By your foly to put your-self in payne.
  • 59. To overcome is good, and to restrayne 490 An hert which is disceyved folily. For worse it is to breke than bowe, certayn, And better bowe than fal to sodaynly!' Lam. 'Now, fair lady, think, sith it first began That love hath set myn hert under his cure, 495 I never might, ne truly I ne can Non other serve, whyle I shal here endure; In most free wyse therof I make you sure, Which may not be withdrawe; this is no nay. I must abyde al maner aventure; 500 For I may not put to, nor take away.' La D. 'I holde it for no gift, in sothfastnesse, That oon offreth, where that it is forsake; For suche gift is abandoning expresse That with worship ayein may not be take. 505 He hath an hert ful fel that list to make A gift lightly, that put is in refuse; But he is wyse that such conceyt wil slake, So that him nede never to study ne muse.' Lam. 'He shuld nat muse, that hath his service spent 510 On her which is a lady honourable; And if I spende my tyme to that entent, Yet at the leest I am not reprevable Of feyled hert; to thinke I am unable, Or me mistook whan I made this request, 515 By which love hath, of entreprise notable,
  • 60. So many hertes gotten by conquest.' La D. 'If that ye list do after my counsayl, Secheth fairer, and of more higher fame, Whiche in servyce of love wil you prevayl 520 After your thought, according to the same. He hurteth both his worship and his name That folily for twayne him-self wil trouble; And he also leseth his after-game That surely can not sette his poyntes double.' 525 Lam. 'This your counsayl, by ought that I can see, Is better sayd than don, to myn advyse; Though I beleve it not, forgive it me, Myn herte is suche, so hool without feyntyse, That it ne may give credence, in no wyse, 530 To thing which is not sowning unto trouthe; Other counsayl, it ar but fantasyes, Save of your grace to shewe pitè and routhe.' La D. 'I holde him wyse that worketh folily And, whan him list, can leve and part therfro; 535 But in conning he is to lerne, trewly, That wolde him-self conduite, and can not so. And he that wil not after counsayl do, His sute he putteth in desesperaunce; And al the good, which that shulde falle him to, 540 Is left as deed, clene out of rémembraunce.' Lam. 'Yet wil I sewe this mater faithfully Whyls I may live, what-ever be my chaunce;
  • 61. And if it hap that in my trouthe I dy, That deeth shal not do me no displesaunce. 545 But whan that I, by your ful hard suffraunce, Shal dy so trew, and with so greet a payne, Yet shal it do me moche the lesse grevaunce Than for to live a fals lover, certayne.' La D. 'Of me get ye right nought, this is no fable, 550 I nil to you be neither hard nor strayt; And right wil not, nor maner customable, To think ye shulde be sure of my conceyt. Who secheth sorowe, his be the receyt! Other counsayl can I not fele nor see, 555 Nor for to lerne I cast not to awayte; Who wil therto, let him assay, for me!' Lam. 'Ones must it be assayd, that is no nay, With such as be of reputacioun, And of trew love the right devoir to pay 560 Of free hertes, geten by due raunsoun; For free wil holdeth this opinioun, That it is greet duresse and discomfort To kepe a herte in so strayt a prisoun, That hath but oon body for his disport.' 565 La D. 'I know so many cases mervaylous That I must nede, of resoun, think certayn, That such entree is wonder perilous, And yet wel more, the coming bak agayn. Good or worship therof is seldom seyn; 570
  • 62. Wherefore I wil not make no suche aray As for to fynde a plesaunce but barayn, Whan it shal cost so dere, the first assay.' Lam. 'Ye have no cause to doute of this matere, Nor you to meve with no such fantasyes 575 To put me ferre al-out, as a straungere; For your goodnesse can think and wel avyse, That I have made a prefe in every wyse By which my trouth sheweth open evidence; My long abyding and my trew servyse 580 May wel be knowen by playn experience.' La D. 'Of very right he may be called trew, And so must he be take in every place, That can deserve, and let as he ne knew, And kepe the good, if he it may purchace. 585 For who that prayeth or sueth in any case, Right wel ye wot, in that no trouth is preved; Suche hath ther ben, and are, that geten grace, And lese it sone, whan they it have acheved.' Lam. 'If trouth me cause, by vertue soverayne, 590 To shew good love, and alway fynd contráry, And cherish that which sleeth me with the payne, This is to me a lovely adversary! Whan that pitè, which long a-slepe doth tary, Hath set the fyne of al myn hevinesse, 595 Yet her comfort, to me most necessary, Shuld set my wil more sure in stablenesse.'
  • 63. La D. 'The woful wight, what may he thinke or say? The contrary of al joy and gladnesse. A sick body, his thought is al away 600 From hem that fele no sorowe nor siknesse. Thus hurtes ben of dyvers businesse Which love hath put to right gret hinderaunce, And trouthe also put in forgetfulnesse Whan they so sore begin to sighe askaunce.' 605 Lam. 'Now god defend but he be havëlesse Of al worship or good that may befal, That to the werst tourneth, by his lewdnesse, A gift of grace, or any-thing at al That his lady vouchsauf upon him cal, 610 Or cherish him in honourable wyse! In that defaut what-ever he be that fal Deserveth more than deth to suffre twyse!' La D. 'There is no juge y-set of such trespace By which of right oon may recovered be; 615 Oon curseth fast, another doth manace, Yet dyeth non, as ferre as I can see, But kepe their cours alway, in oon degrè, And evermore their labour doth encrese To bring ladyes, by their gret soteltè, 620 For others gilte, in sorowe and disese!' Lam. 'Al-be-it so oon do so greet offence, And be not deed, nor put to no juÿse, Right wel I wot, him gayneth no defence, But he must ende in ful mischévous wyse,
  • 64. 625 And al that ever is good wil him dispyse. For falshed is so ful of cursednesse That high worship shal never have enterpryse Where it reigneth and hath the wilfulnesse.' La D. 'Of that have they no greet fere now-a-days, 630 Suche as wil say, and maynteyne it ther-to, That stedfast trouthe is nothing for to prays In hem that kepe it long for wele or wo. Their busy hertes passen to and fro, They be so wel reclaymed to the lure, 635 So wel lerned hem to withholde also, And al to chaunge, whan love shuld best endure.' Lam. 'Whan oon hath set his herte in stable wyse In suche a place as is both good and trewe, He shuld not flit, but do forth his servyse 640 Alway, withouten chaunge of any newe. As sone as love beginneth to remewe, Al plesaunce goth anon, in litel space; For my party, al that shal I eschewe, Whyls that the soule abydeth in his place.' 645 La D. 'To love trewly ther-as ye ought of right, Ye may not be mistaken, doutëlesse; But ye be foul deceyved in your sight By lightly understanding, as I gesse. Yet may ye wel repele your businesse 650 And to resoun somwhat have attendaunce, Moch better than to byde, by fol simplesse,
  • 65. The feble socour of desesperaunce.' Lam. 'Resoun, counsayl, wisdom, and good avyse Ben under love arested everichoon, 655 To which I can accorde in every wyse; For they be not rebel, but stille as stoon; Their wil and myn be medled al in oon, And therwith bounden with so strong a cheyne That, as in hem, departing shal be noon, 660 But pitè breke the mighty bond atwayne.' La D. 'Who loveth not himself, what-ever he be In love, he stant forgete in every place; And of your wo if ye have no pitè, Others pitè bileve not to purchace; 665 But beth fully assured in this case, I am alway under oon ordinaunce, To have better; trusteth not after grace, And al that leveth tak to your plesaunce!' Lam. 'I have my hope so sure and so stedfast 670 That suche a lady shulde nat fail pitè; But now, alas! it is shit up so fast, That Daunger sheweth on me his crueltè. And if she see the vertue fayle in me Of trew servyce, then she to fayle also 675 No wonder were; but this is the suretè, I must suffre, which way that ever it go.' La D. 'Leve this purpos, I rede you for the best; For lenger that ye kepe it thus in vayn,
  • 66. The lesse ye gete, as of your hertes rest, 680 And to rejoice it shal ye never attayn. Whan ye abyde good hope, to make you fayn, Ye shal be founde asotted in dotage; And in the ende, ye shal know for certayn, That hope shal pay the wrecches for their wage!' 685 Lam. 'Ye say as falleth most for your plesaunce, And your power is greet; al this I see; But hope shal never out of my rémembraunce, By whiche I felt so greet adversitè. For whan nature hath set in you plentè 690 Of al goodnesse, by vertue and by grace, He never assembled hem, as semeth me, To put Pitè out of his dwelling-place.' La D. 'Pitè of right ought to be resonable, And to no wight of greet disavantage; 695 There-as is nede, it shuld be profitable, And to the pitous shewing no damage. If a lady wil do so greet out-rage To shewe pitè, and cause her own debate, Of such pitè cometh dispitous rage, 700 And of the love also right deedly hate.' Lam. 'To comforte hem that live al comfortlesse, That is no harm, but worship to your name; But ye, that bere an herte of such duresse, And a fair body formed to the same, 705 If I durst say, ye winne al this defame
  • 67. By Crueltè, which sitteth you ful il, But-if Pitè, which may al this attame, In your high herte may rest and tary stil.' La D. 'What-ever he be that sayth he loveth me, 710 And peraventure, I leve that it be so, Ought he be wroth, or shulde I blamed be, Though I did noght as he wolde have me do? If I medled with suche or other mo, It might be called pitè manerlesse; 715 And, afterward if I shulde live in wo, Than to repent it were to late, I gesse.' Lam. 'O marble herte, and yet more hard, pardè, Which mercy may nat perce, for no labour, More strong to bowe than is a mighty tree, 720 What vayleth you to shewe so greet rigour? Plese it you more to see me dy this hour Before your eyen, for your disport and play, Than for to shewe som comfort or socour To respite deth, that chaseth me alway!' 725 La D. 'Of your disese ye may have allegeaunce; And as for myn, I lete it over-shake. Also, ye shal not dye for my plesaunce, Nor for your hele I can no surety make. I nil nat hate myn hert for others sake; 730 Wepe they, laugh they, or sing, this I waraunt, For this mater so wel to undertake That non of you shal make therof avaunt!'
  • 68. Lam. 'I can no skil of song; by god aloon, I have more cause to wepe in your presence; 735 And wel I wot, avauntour am I noon, For certainly, I love better silence. Oon shuld nat love by his hertes credence But he were sure to kepe it secretly; For avauntour is of no reverence 740 Whan that his tonge is his most enemy.' La D. 'Male-bouche in courte hath greet commaundement; Ech man studieth to say the worst he may. These fals lovers, in this tyme now present, They serve to boste, to jangle as a jay. 745 The most secret wil wel that some men say How he mistrusted is on some partyes; Wherfore to ladies what men speke or pray, It shuld not be bileved in no wyse.' Lam. 'Of good and il shal be, and is alway; 750 The world is such; the erth it is not playn. They that be good, the preve sheweth every day, And otherwyse, gret villany, certayn. Is it resoun, though oon his tonge distayne With cursed speche, to do him-self a shame, 755 That such refuse shuld wrongfully remayne Upon the good, renommed in their fame?' La D. 'Suche as be nought, whan they here tydings newe, That ech trespas shal lightly have pardoun, They that purposen to be good and trewe— 760
  • 69. Wel set by noble disposicioun To continue in good condicioun— They are the first that fallen in damage, And ful freely their hertes abandoun To litel faith, with softe and fayr langage.' 765 Lam. 'Now knowe I wel, of very certayntè, Though oon do trewly, yet shal he be shent, Sith al maner of justice and pitè Is banisshed out of a ladyes entent. I can nat see but al is at oo stent, 770 The good and il, the vyce and eek vertue! Suche as be good shal have the punishment For the trespas of hem that been untrewe!' La D. 'I have no power you to do grevaunce, Nor to punisshe non other creature; 775 But, to eschewe the more encomberaunce, To kepe us from you al, I holde it sure. Fals semblaunce hath a visage ful demure, Lightly to cacche the ladies in a-wayt; Wherefore we must, if that we wil endure, 780 Make right good watch; lo! this is my conceyt.' Lam. 'Sith that of grace oo goodly word aloon May not be had, but alway kept in store, I pele to god, for he may here my moon, Of the duresse, which greveth me so sore. 785 And of pitè I pleyn me further-more, Which he forgat, in al his ordinaunce, Or els my lyf to have ended before,
  • 70. Which he so sone put out of rémembraunce.' La D. 'My hert, nor I, have don you no forfeyt, 790 By which ye shulde complayne in any kynde. There hurteth you nothing but your conceyt; Be juge your-self; for so ye shal it fynde. Ones for alway let this sinke in your mynde— That ye desire shal never rejoysed be! 795 Ye noy me sore, in wasting al this wynde; For I have sayd y-nough, as semeth me.' Verba Auctoris. This woful man roos up in al his payne, And so parted, with weping countenaunce; His woful hert almost to-brast in twayne, 800 Ful lyke to dye, forth walking in a traunce, And sayd, 'Now, deeth, com forth! thy-self avaunce, Or that myn hert forgete his propertè; And make shorter al this woful penaunce Of my pore lyfe, ful of adversitè!' 805 Fro thens he went, but whider wist I nought, Nor to what part he drow, in sothfastnesse; But he no more was in his ladies thought, For to the daunce anon she gan her dresse. And afterward, oon tolde me thus expresse, 810 He rente his heer, for anguissh and for payne, And in him-self took so gret hevinesse That he was deed, within a day or twayne.
  • 71. Lenvoy. Ye trew lovers, this I beseche you al, Such †avantours, flee hem in every wyse, 815 And as people defamed ye hem cal; For they, trewly, do you gret prejudyse. Refus hath mad for al such flateryes His castelles strong, stuffed with ordinaunce, For they have had long tyme, by their offyce, 820 The hool countrè of Love in obeysaunce. And ye, ladyes, or what estat ye be, In whom Worship hath chose his dwelling-place, For goddes love, do no such crueltè, Namely, to hem that have deserved grace. 825 Nor in no wyse ne folowe not the trace Of her, that here is named rightwisly, Which by resoun, me semeth, in this case May be called La Belle Dame sans Mercy. Verba Translatoris. Go, litel book! god sende thee good passage! 830 Chese wel thy way; be simple of manere; Loke thy clothing be lyke thy pilgrimage, And specially, let this be thy prayere Un-to hem al that thee wil rede or here, Wher thou art wrong, after their help to cal 835 Thee to correcte in any part or al. Pray hem also, with thyn humble servyce,
  • 72. Thy boldënesse to pardon in this case; For els thou art not able, in no wyse, To make thy-self appere in any place. 840 And furthermore, beseche hem, of their grace, By their favour and supportacioun, To take in gree this rude translacioun, The which, god wot, standeth ful destitute Of eloquence, of metre, and of coloures, 845 Wild as a beest, naked, without refute, Upon a playne to byde al maner shoures. I can no more, but aske of hem socoures At whos request thou mad were in this wyse, Commaunding me with body and servyse. 850 Right thus I make an ende of this processe, Beseching him that al hath in balaunce That no trew man be vexed, causëlesse, As this man was, which is of rémembraunce; And al that doon their faythful observaunce, 855 And in their trouth purpose hem to endure, I pray god sende hem better aventure. Explicit. From Th. (Thynne, ed. 1532); collated with F. (Fairfax 16); and H. (Harl. 372). Also in Ff. (Camb. Univ. Lib. Ff. 1. 6). Bad spellings of Th. are corrected by the MSS. Title. Th. H. La ... mercy; F. Balade de la Bele Dame sanz mercy. H. adds—Translatid ... Ros. 1. Th. F. Halfe; H. Half. 2. F. H. Ff. wrapt. 3. All rose. 4. Th. Ff. -selfe; H. F. self. 5. F. matere; H. matier. Th. leuynge. 6. Th. must; F. sholde; H. shold. 7. H. to whom; F. the which; Th. whiche. Th. F. dysobey; H. sey nay. 9.
  • 73. Th. thynge. Ff. part; rest parte. 10. Th. F. boke; H. book. Th. La bel; F. la bele; H. om. La. H. F. sanz; Th. sauns. 11. Th. Whiche. 12. Th. secratairie; F. secretare; H. secretarie. 13. H. ther-; Th. F. her-. Th. F. stode; H. stood. 14. Th. greatly ymagenynge. 15. Th. shulde; F. H. sholde; Ff. shuld. Th. the; F. H. this. 16. Ff. avysement; rest adv. 17. F. H. Ff. Myn; Th. My. F. H. Ff. symplesse. 18. Th. -warde; strayte. 19. Th. myne. 20. Th. downe. 21. Th. conclusyon. 24. H. in-to. H. green; Th. F. grene. 25. Th. se; great. 26. F. H. Ff. bolded; Th. boldly. F. benyng; Th. benygne; H. benyngne. 27. F. H. Ff. That; Th. Whiche. Th. F. boke; H. booke. H. F. the; Th. Ff. this. Th. om. seid. 28. F. H. begynne. Th. please. (From this point I silently correct the spelling of Th.) 33. Th. Ff. by; F. H. with. 35. Ff. soleyne (for sole thus); perhaps better. 41. F. H. Ff. is; Th. doth. 42. F. felde. Th. maner of ease. 43. F. H. I; Th. as I. 44. F. H. Ff. nor doth noon other. 46. F. H. Ff. Were constreyned. 47. H. Myn eyen; F. Myn eyn; Th. My penne; Ff. My pen. Ff. neuer haue knolege; H. haue knowlege (!); Th. neuer knowe; F. haue no knowlych. 49. F. H. Ff. And; Th. Tho. Th. om. if. 53. F. H. Ff. seke; Th. sicke. 54. Th. Ff. theyr; H. F. her (often). 55. F. H. balade or. 60. F. H. Ff. lyth with hir vndir hir tumbe in graue (Ff. I-graue). 65. Th. Ff. by; F. H. with. F. hath the forser vnschete. 66. Th. sperde; Ff. spred; F. sprad; H. spradde (!). 73. Th. H. om. good. 74. Th. om. Al. H. made than. 75. F. Ff. set; H. sette; Th. shette. F. H. Ff. boundes; Th. bondes. 77. F. H. thoughtes. Th. om. my. 79. F. I (for it). 80. H. I purposid me to bide. 81. H. forth to. 83. F. H. Ff. but; Th. a. 84. F. H. gardeyn; Th. garden. 88. F. om. yet I; H. om. yet. 89. F. H. come; Th. came. 90. Th. her; F. H. Ff. their. 92. F. H. nede; Th. nedes. 95. H. F. Ff. eueryche by one and one; Th. euery one by one. 103. So Ff.; H. F. Were none that serued in that place (!); Th. Ther were no deedly seruaunts in the place. 105. Ff. peraunter. H. om. most. 106. Th.
  • 74. om. sitting. 110. F. com; H. come; Th. came. 111. H. F. man; Th. one; Ff. on. 115. Th. F. Ff. went; H. yode. 116. Th. F. Ff. Ful; H. At. 117. Th. om. good and right. 122. F. H. Come; Th. Came. 124. F. H. om. 2nd in. 133. F. H. feste; Th. feest. 134. Th. coude; rest couth. F. H. om. it. 138. Th. H. bode. 143. F. eey; H. yee; Th. eye. Th. F. Ff. stedfast; H. faste. 144. Th. om. the. 145. F. H. And; Th. For. Th. Ff. shot; H. sight; F. seght. 146. H. fedired; F. fedred; Ff. federid; Th. fereful. 148. Th. I, or that; F. ther that; H. I that there. Th. iestes. 151. F. H. tendirly; Th. wonderly. 154. F. H. come; Th. came. 155. F. H. om. most. F. H. ruful; Ff. rewfull; Th. woful. F. H. Ff. semblaunce; Th. penaunce. 158. F. H. these; Th. the. 159. F. H. louer; Th. man he. 160. Th. om. but. 166. All chase. 168. F. H. beautevous. 169. F. H. that; Th. so. F. H. set; Th. setteth. H. trist. 170. Th. the (rightly); H. there; F. Ff. their. 171. F. vndir a. 173. F. H. as; Th. that. 174. F. Ff. O; H. On; Th. One. F. H. vice. (!). H. ner (for 1st nor). Th. Ff. nor; H. or; F. ne. Ff. apert; Th. H. perte;F. pert. 175. Th. garyson. Th. goodlynesse. 176. All frounter. 178. F. H. Ff. her; Th. of (twice). 180. Th. standerde; F. standarte; H. standart. 183. Th. -drawe; H. -drewh. 184. Th. Ff. alone; F. H. om. 186. F. withes; H. Ff. wythyes; Th. wrethes. 188. H. Ff. thorughe; Th. through; F. thorgh. Th. no man might. 189. Th. this; H. his. F. H. come; Th. came. 191. Th. Set (for Sith). H. herbier. 192. H. them. Th. but a. 193. Th. of a certayne. 195. Th. om. And. 196. So F. H.; Th. bytwene hem two. 201. Th. more; H. Ff. neer. 204. Ff. hete; Th. heate; F. H. hert. 209. Th. Ff. gan; F. H. can. 210. F. H. The toon. 213-220. F. omits. 224. F. H. Ff. kyns; Th. kynde. 225. H. Ff. avise; Th. aduyse. 226. Th. it at; F. H. om. at. 227. H. enterprise. 228. F. H. It; Th. Yet. 229. Th. it be; F. H. om. it. 231. Th. Ff. eschewynge; F. H. escusyng. 234. F. H. to; Th. vnto. 235. All ye. Th. Ff. right; F. even; H. euyn. 237. H.
  • 75. om. that. 238. Th. alway; F. H. ay to. 239. F. H. om. for. 240. Th. Withouten; F. Without. 241. H. gif; F. geve. 242. F. H. ayein; Th. any (!). 243. F. withouten; H. withoughtyn; Th. withoute. 248. F. Ff. mesurabely; Th. H. mesurably. 249. Th. Ff. your thought is; F. H. ye do ful. 251. Th. thynketh; F. H. think ye. Th. whyles; H. whil that; Ff. whils that. 252. F. matere; H. matier; Th. mater. 258. F. Ff. dyffiaunce. 259. F. H. Ff. to forbarre; Th. for to barre. 262. Th. om. hath. 263 Th. eye; F. eeye; H. yee; (read y). 265. F. if that ye lyst to beholde; H. Ff. if ye liste to biholde; Th. if ye list ye may beholde. 267. H. nor; Th. F. Ff. ne. 273. Th. om. not. Th. her; F. H. Ff. his. 275. F. H. Ff. But; Th. By (!). 278. H. om. trewly. Th. Ff. nought; F. H. neuer. 281. F. beleue; H. bileue; Th. loue (!). 282. So Ff.; H. F. om. greet (Th. you dyspleasaunce!). 284. So F. Th.; H. encombrance. 290. F. I-falle; H. y-falle; Ff. falle; Th. fal. 297. Th. F. Ff. now; H. nought. 302. Th. it were; F. H. om. it. 303. F. sorow; H. sorwe; Th. Ff. sory. 304. F. H. stroye; Th. destroye. 308. F. H. oo; Th. one. 309. Th. Ff. nor; F. H. ne. 310. F. H. grete desire nor; Th. haue therin no. Th. om. right. 311. F. H. seke; Th. sicke. 312. Th. of; F. H. Ff. to. 313. F. H. their; Th. her. 317. Th. that ioy; F. H. om. that. 318. F. H. om. al. 319. F. H. their; Th. her. 320. Th. maner of age. 322. Th. by; F. H. Ff. of. Th. purchesse; F. H. purchace. 324. Th. tymes. F. om. the. H. dere his richesse bought has. Ff. rechace; rest richesse. 326. Th. in (for 2nd of). 327. F. ben; Th. be; H. are. 329. H. scoolys holden dieuly. 330. F. H. of; Th. al. 331. F. H. their hedes away. 334. F. set; Ff. sette; Th. H. setteth. 337. F. H. om. that. 340. Th. shewe; F. sue; H. Ff. sewe. 341. Th. Ff. awayte; F. H. abayte. 342. F. worching; H. worsching; Th. workyng. 344. F. H. know and fele. 346. F. H. him; Th. Ff. hem. 347. F. H. when that; Th. om. that. 348. F. H. their; Th. her. 350. All avaunced loue. 351. Th. sharpe. F. H. this; Th. thus. 352. F. H. It;
  • 76. Th. Ff. Yet. 354. F. ton; H. toon; Th. one. F. H. the tother; Th. that other. 355. Th. om. the. Th. certeyne (!). 356. F. wonne; H. wonnen; Th. one (!). F. H. with; Th. in. 358. F. H. is; Th. thinke. 363. F. nor; H. ner; Th. and. Th. om. certayn. 364. F. H. stant; Th. standeth. F. enfeoffed. 366. Th. om. as. 371. F. H. rightwysly; Th. vnryghtfully (!). 384. Th. Ff. ayre; F. eir; H. heire. 386. Th. Thus be. F. H. Ff. man of; Th. maner. 387. F. layth; Th. layeth; H. latith. 388. H. losith. 389. F. Ff. currisch; H. kurressh; Th. cursed. 391. Th. F. right; H. ful. 392. F. H. their; Th. her. F. worchyng; H. werchyng; Th. workynge. 393. Th. and; F. H. a. F. Th. Ff. semyng; H. menyng. 394. F. H. Their; Th. Her (thrice). Th. om. be. Th. but; F. H. not. 400. H. sorowe. 401. Th. wheder; Ff. whedre; F. H. wher. 403. F. H. Ff. if; Th. of. 404. F. Ff. Then; H. Thanne; Th. That. 408. Th. sicknesse. 410. Th. disporte. Th. me. 411. Th. Ff. nor; F. H. ne. 412. F. H. Ff. it; Th. hem. 413. Th. Ff. byrde; F. bride; H. bridde. 415. H. om. 2nd him. 416. F. H. om. 2nd him. 419. Th. farther. 420. F. H. sett lesse. 422. F. H. Ff. of; Th. for. 424. F. H. of all; Th. Ff. om. of. 425. Th. wote; F. H. wytt. 429-716. Misarranged in F. H.; Th. Ff. follow the right order. 429. (Th.) = 669 (F. H.). F. om. 2nd by. 431. F. There-of. F. H. shulde; Th. shal. 432. Th. him that cometh and goth. 433. Th. holdeth. 434. Th. as to; F. H. Ff. om. as. 435. F. H. wolde; Th. Ff. wyl. 436. Th. desyringe (!). 438. Th. To; F. H. With. F. H. best and tendyrly; Th. Ff. om. best and. 440. F. H. om. no. F. H. Ff. yift; Th. gyftes. 442. F. Wheryn hym. 443. F. H. Ff. constreynte. 444. F. H. Ff. may not; Th. can neuer. F. H. ne; Th. Ff. nor. 445. H. seche; F. beseche. 446. F. H. om. it. 450. Th. a curtyse; Ff. a corteys; F. H. curteysy. 456. Th. om. al. 460. H. loste (for left). 461. F. H. Ff. neuer formed (fourmed); Th. founded neuer. 467. Th. no (for non). F. eeyn; H. yeen. 468. H. That ne alle ar. 472. F. feoffeth. 474. Th. be (for he). 475. F. H. om. his. 477-524. Follows 572 in F. H. 477 (Th.) = 525 (F. H.). 478. Th. Ff. so; H. sum;
  • 77. F. some. 479. H. sowndith. 481. H. Ff. thus; Th. this. 486. F. om. ye. H. F. your sesoun spende not. 488. H. Ff. foly; Th. folly. 489. Th. H. herte. H. F. folyly; Th. follyly. 492. H. F. And; Th. om. Th. to fal. 493. H. Th. faire. 494. H. Ff. had (for hath). H. F. your; Th. Ff. his. 495. F. H. I neuer; Th. Ff. It neuer. 496. F. H. whiles. 500. H. F. not; Ff. nought; Th. neyther. 501. Th. gyfte; H. yifte. 502. Th. om. that. 503. Th. a gifte; H. F. Ff. om. a. 505. H. F. om. an. H. hurte ful fele (!). 506. H. F. Ff. in; Th. to. 508. H. F. neuer; Th. neyther. 509. H. F. Who; Th. Ff. He. 512. F. om. the. Th. reproveable. 513. F. H. feyled; Th. fayned. 514. Th. I mystoke; H. F. Ff. me mystoke. 515. F. entrepris. 516. H. F. goten. 517. H. Th. liste. 518. F. H. Secheth; Th. Seche a. 519. Th. preuayle. 523. H. hosithe (for leseth). 525-572. Follows 716 in F. H. 528. H. hoole; Th. hole. 529. H. F. it; Th. I. H. F. om. ne. 530. H. soundyng. 531. H. F. it ar; Th. I se be. Th. Ff. fantasise; F. fantasyse; H. fantaisise. 533. H. F. Ff. folily; Th. no foly (!). 534. H. Th. parte. 536. F. condyte. 538. Th. Ff. sute; H. F. suerte. H. F. in; Th. in to. 539. Th. om. which. H. F. om. that. 540. H. F. Ff. left as; Th. lost and. F. dethe (!). 542. H. Ff. Whils; Th. Whyles. Th. om. may. 544. Th. Than; H. F. Ff. That. H. not; Th. F. om. 545. Ff. full; rest om. Th. H. harde. 546. H. triew; Th. true. H. grete; Th. great. F. Ff. om. a. 547. F. H. om. the; read mochel less? 550. H. F. nyl; Th. wyl. H. Th. harde. 551. Th. no man (for nor maner). 555. Th. cast me not. 556. H. F. ther-to; Th. therof. 558. H. F. beth. 559. H. trewe; Th. true. Ff. devoyr; H. duetes; F. dewtis; Th. honour. 560. Th. gotten. H. F. due; Th. dewe. 562. H. grete; Th. great. H. Th. -forte. 564. H. F. oo; Ff. on; Th. one. H. Th. -porte. 565. Ff. H. cases; rest causes. 566. H. F. Which; Th. Ff. That. 567. H. F. Ff. entre; Th. auenture (!). 570. Th. Where I ne wyl make suche. 571. Th. but a; H. F. om. a. 573-620. Follows 668 in H. F. 573. F. matere; Th. mater. 574. Th. fantasyse; F. fantasise; H. fantesye. 576. F. Ff. avyse; Th. H. aduyse. 577. H. Ff. prefe; F. preue; Th.
  • 78. prise. 578. H. trouthe; Th. truthe. 579. H. Th. trewe. 581. H. Th. trewe. 583. H. Ff. deserue; Th. discerne (!). H. Th. knewe. 585. H. Ff. sueth; F. seweth; Th. swereth. 587. Th. geten; H. F. getith. 588. H. F. Ff. it haue; Th. haue it. 590. Th. H. shewe; fynde. 593. H. F. a slepe; Th. on slepe. 595. Th. H. comforte. 596. Ff. Shuld; H. F. Shulde; Th. Shal. 599. Th. sycke; H. F. seke. F. om. his. H. F. Ff. al awaye; Th. alway. 600. H. Ff. fele; Th. felen. H. sorwe; F. Ff. sorowe; Th. sore. 602. Th. om. right. Th. hindraunce. 604. H. Ff. so; Th. ful; F. om. 605. H. Th. defende. H. F. haueles; Th. harmlesse (!). 607. Th. om. the. 608. Th. gyfte; H. yifte. 609. Th. Ff. vouchesafe; H. vouchith sauf. 610. H. F. cherissh; Th. Ff. cherissheth. 611. H. Th. defaute. 613. H. F. of; Th. on. H. Th. suche. 614. H. one; F. ōn; Th. loue. 615. H. Th. One. 616. H. Th. none. 617. H. Th. her; see 618. Th. course; H. corse. Th. H. one; F. a. 618. H. F. euere newe; Th. Ff. euermore. Ff. their; Th. theyr; H. there; F. thair. 619. Th. Ff. their great; H. F. om. great. H. F. subtilite; Th. subtelte; Ff. sotelte. 621-668. Follows 524 in F. H. 621. F. oone; H. on; Th. one. Th. dothe; great. 622. H. F. Ff. be; Th. is. H. F. Ff. Iuyse; Th. iustyse. 625. So H. F. Ff.; Th. And al euer sayd god wyl. 626. Th. om. so. 627. Ff. highe; H. F. her; Th. his. H. F. shal; Th. Ff. may. 629. Th. great; F. H. om. Th. dayse; H. daies. 631. H. preys; Th. prayse. 632. F. H. Ff. for; Th. in. 633. Th. F. Theyr; H. There. 637. Th. one; H. on; Ff. won. 638. H. Ff. which (for as). 643. So F. H.; Th. As for my partie that. 644. Th. Whyle; H. F. Ff. Whils that. 645. F. H. ye; Th. it. 647. Th. H. foule. H. F. deceyued; Th. disceyued. 648. H. F. lightly; Th. light. 649. H. F. this; Th. Ff. your. 650. H. Ff. sumwhat haue; Th. haue some. 651. All Moche. H. sonner; F. sunner; Th. Ff. better. Th. to abide. Ff. fole; rest foly. Th. simplenes; rest simplesse. 653. F. Ff. avyse; Th. H. aduyse. 656. Th. as a; H. F. Ff. om. a. 657. H. There. Th. H. one; Ff. won. 659. Th. Ff. as (rightly); H. F. is. Th. H. none. 660. Th. H. bonde. 661. H. Ff. Who loueth; F. Who love; Th. Ye loue. H. F. hym-; Th. your-. H. F. he be; Th. ye be. 662.
  • 79. So H. F. Ff.; Th. That in loue stande. 664. Th. bileue ye; rest om. ye. 665. H. F. beth; Th. be. Th. as in; rest om. as. 666. Th. alway; H. F. alwaies. Th. one; Ff. on; H. an. 667. F. H. trusteth; Th. trust. 668. Th. H. take. 669-716. Follows 428 in F. H. 670. Th. lacke; H. F. Ff. faile. 673. H. faileth. 674. F. H. Ff. then she to; Th. thoughe she do. 675. Th. my; F. H. Ff. the. H. surtee; F. seurte. 677. H. purpos; Th. pupose. 678. Th. For the lenger ye. H. F. Ff. thus; Th. is. 680. H. F. Ff. ye; Th. you. 684. Th. om. That. H. ther; Th. her. 686. Th. great. 688. F. H. Ff. felt; Th. fele. Th. great. 691. H. F. semeth; Th. semed. 694. H. F. of; Th. do no. 696. F. damage; H. dammage; Th. Ff. domage. 697. H. F. om. wil. 699. H. dispetous. 700. Th. suche; H. F. Ff. the. 702. Th. H. harme. H. F. Ff. worship; Th. comforte. 703. H. F. Ff. bere an; Th. haue a. Th. H. suche. 704. H. F. Ff. om. And. All fayre. H. F. Ff. body; Th. lady (!). H. formed to; F. Ff. y-formed to; Th. I must affirme (!). 710. H. F. Ff. that; Th. wel. 712. H. noght; Th. not. 714. H. F. Ff. manerles; Th. mercylesse. 717. Here H. F. agree with Th. again. Ff. marbre. Th. H. harde. 720. H. F. Ff. vaileth; Th. auayleth. Th. great. 721. H. F. Please; Th. Pleaseth. Th. H. dye. 722. Th. H. dysporte. 723. H. F. Ff. or; Th. and. 724. Th. H. dethe. H. F. that; Th. whiche. 725. Th. H. disease. 726. H. F. Ff. shake; Th. slake. 728. Th. heale. 729. H. F. Ff. nyl; Th. wyl. H. F. Ff. hate myn herte; Th. hurte my selfe. 730. Th. they I; H. F. Ff. this I. 731. H. F. wel to: Th. wyl I. 732. H. F. you; Th. hem. 733. H. noo; Th. nat. H. F. Ff. song; Th. loue. Th. alone. 735. H. F. Ff. I; Th. ye. Th. H. wote. Th. none. 737. Th. One; H. On. 739. Th. H. a vauntour; cf. l. 735. 741. Th. great. 744. H. F. Ff. to boste; Th. best. 745. H. wil wele; F. Ff. wille wel; Th. ywis. H. F. Ff. that; Th. yet. 746. H. F. on; Th. in. F. Th. partyse; Ff. partyes; H. party. 747. H. F. Ff. what; Th. whan so. Th. say (for pray). 748. H. F. shal; Ff. schuld; Th. shulde. 750. Th. H. suche. Th. Ff. erth; H. F. dethe. H. F. Ff. it is not; Th. is not al. 751. H. F. preve; Th. profe. 752. Th. great villony. 753. F. Ff. Is it; Th. H. It is. Th. H. one. 755. H. F. refuse. 756. Th. renomed; H.
  • 80. renommeed. F. H. her (for their). 757. Th. here; H. herde. 758. Th. H. eche. 759. H. purposen; F. porposyn; Th. pursuen. 760. So H. F. Ff.; Th. Wyl not set by none il d. 761. Th. in euery; H. F. om. euery. 763. Ff. thair; F. ther; H. theym; Th. the. F. H. om. hertes. 764. Th. faithe. Th. Ff. softe and fayre; H. faire and softe. 766. F. H. Though; Th. Ff. If. All one. 768. H. banshid. 769. H. F. oo; Th. one. 770. Th. the (for 1st and); H. F. and. Ff. eke; rest eke the. 771. H. Ff. shal; Th. such. 772. H. F. ben; Ff. beth; Th. lyue. 777. F. H. Ff. visage; Th. face (!). 778. H. F. Ff. the; Th. these. Th. H. Ff. a wayte. 779. F. H. Ff. yf that we wil; Th. if we wyl here. 780. Th. H. conceyte. 781. F. H. oo; Th. a. Th. worde. H. F. Ff. allone; Th. nat one. 782. F. H. not; Th. nowe. Th. kepte. 783. H. F. Ff. pele; Th. appele. All mone (read moon). 785. H. Ff. pleyne me; F. pleyn me; Th. complayne. 786. Th. H. forgate. 787. H. elles. 788. Ff. H. F. he so sone put; Th. so sone am put. 789. Th. H. forfeyte. 791. So H. F. Ff.; Th. Nothing hurteth you but your owne conceyte. 792. H. shal ye. 793. H. F. Ones for; Th. Thus. 794. So H. Ff.; so F. (with the for ye); Th. That your desyre shal neuer recouered be. 796. Th. ynoughe. Title; in H. 797. Th. rose; H. rosse. H. F. al in; Th. Ff. in al. 798. Ff. partyd; rest departed. 799. Th. to-brast; H. F. Ff. it brest. 800. H. forth walkyng; Th. Ff. walkynge forth. 801. Th. om. Now. 803. Th. Ff. shorter; H. shorte; F. short. 805. H. Ff. whider; Th. whither. 806. F. party. F. Ff. drow; H. drowh; Th. drewe. 809. Th. Ff. thus; H. it; F. om. 811. Th. great. Title; in Th. 813. H. F. Ff. Ye; Th. The. F. trew; H. trewe; Th. true. Th. thus; H. Ff. this. 814. Ff. aventours; rest aventures (see note). Th. flie; H. F. fle. 816. Th. great. 817. Th. omits this line; from H. F. Ff. H. F. made. H. F. Ff. flaterise. 821. Th. H. estate; Ff. astate. 822. H. F. Ff. In; Th. Of. 824. Ff. haue; F. hath; H. om. Th. omits the line. 825. H. folwe ye not; F. folowe ye not; Ff. folowe not; Th. foule not. After 828, F. has— Explicit la bele dame sanz mercy; H. F. Verba translatoris. 829. Th. H. Ff. the. 833. H. F. om. al. All the. 834. Th. hir (for their). 835. Th. H. The.
  • 81. 837. Th. cace; H. caas. 838. H. elles. 840, 841. Th. her (for their). 843. Th. H. wote. 844. Th. om. and. 845. H. F. Wilde; Th. Ff. Lyke. 846. Ff. tabyde; Th. to abyde. 847. H. axe. 848. Th. Ff. were made; F. was made; H. made was. 850. H. F. Ff. processe; Th. prosses. 852. Th. H. trewe. 854. Th. done her; Ff. do thair; H. dothe here; F. doth thair. 855. Th. her (for their). After 856; Th. Explicit; H. Amen. XVII. THE TESTAMENT OF CRESSEID.
  • 82. Ane dooly sesoun to ane cairfull dyte Suld correspond, and be equivalent. Richt sa it wes quhen I began to wryte This tragedy; the wedder richt fervent, 5 Quhen Aries, in middis of the Lent, Shouris of haill can fra the north discend; That scantly fra the cauld I micht defend. Yit nevertheles, within myn orature I stude, quhen Tytan had his bemis bricht 10 Withdrawin doun and sylit under cure; And fair Venus, the bewty of the nicht, Uprais, and set unto the west full richt Hir goldin face, in oppositioun Of god Phebus direct discending doun. 15 Throwout the glas hir bemis brast sa fair That I micht see, on every syde me by, The northin wind had purifyit the air, And shed the misty cloudis fra the sky. The froist freisit, the blastis bitterly 20 Fra pole Artyk come quhisling loud and shill, And causit me remuf aganis my will. For I traistit that Venus, luifis quene, To quhom sum-tyme I hecht obedience, My faidit hart of luf sho wald mak grene; 25 And therupon, with humbil reverence, I thocht to pray hir hy magnificence; But for greit cald as than I lattit was,
  • 83. And in my chalmer to the fyr can pas. Thocht luf be hait, yit in ane man of age 30 It kendillis nocht sa sone as in youthheid, Of quhom the blude is flowing in ane rage; And in the auld the curage †douf and deid, Of quhilk the fyr outward is best remeid, To help be phisik quhair that nature failit; 35 I am expert, for baith I have assailit. I mend the fyr, and beikit me about, Than tuik ane drink my spreitis to comfort, And armit me weill fra the cauld thairout. To cut the winter-nicht, and mak it short, 40 I tuik ane quair, and left all uther sport, Writtin be worthy Chaucer glorious, Of fair Cresseid and lusty Troilus. And thair I fand, efter that Diomeid Ressavit had that lady bricht of hew, 45 How Troilus neir out of wit abraid, And weipit soir, with visage paill of hew; For quhilk wanhope his teiris can renew, Quhill †esperans rejoisit him agane: Thus quhyl in joy he levit, quhyl in pane. 50 Of hir behest he had greit comforting, Traisting to Troy that sho suld mak retour, Quhilk he desyrit maist of eirdly thing, For-quhy sho was his only paramour. Bot quhen he saw passit baith day and hour
  • 84. 55 Of hir gaincome, than sorrow can oppres His woful hart in cair and hevines. Of his distres me neidis nocht reheirs, For worthy Chaucer, in the samin buik, In guidly termis and in joly veirs 60 Compylit hes his cairis, quha will luik. To brek my sleip ane uther quair I tuik, In quilk I fand the fatall desteny Of fair Cresseid, that endit wretchitly. Quha wait gif all that Chauceir wrait was trew? 65 Nor I wait nocht gif this narratioun Be authoreist, or fenyeit of the new Be sum poeit, throw his inventioun, Maid to report the lamentatioun And woful end of this lusty Cresseid, 70 And quhat distres sho thoillit, and quhat deid. Quhen Diomed had all his appetyt, And mair, fulfillit of this fair lady, Upon ane uther he set his haill delyt, And send to hir ane lybel of répudy, 75 And hir excludit fra his company. Than desolait sho walkit up and doun, And, sum men sayis, into the court commoun. O fair Cresseid! the flour and A-per-se Of Troy and Grece, how was thou fortunait, 80 To change in filth all thy feminitee,
  • 85. And be with fleshly lust sa maculait, And go amang the Greikis air and lait Sa giglot-lyk, takand thy foull plesance! I have pity thee suld fall sic mischance! 85 Yit nevertheles, quhat-ever men deme or say In scornful langage of thy brukilnes, I sall excuse, als far-furth as I may, Thy womanheid, thy wisdom, and fairnes, The quilk Fortoun hes put to sic distres 90 As hir pleisit, and na-thing throw the gilt Of thee, throw wikkit langage to be spilt. This fair lady, in this wys destitut Of all comfort and consolatioun, Richt prively, but fellowship, on fut 95 Disgysit passit far out of the toun Ane myle or twa, unto ane mansioun Beildit full gay, quhair hir father Calchas, Quhilk than amang the Greikis dwelland was. Quhan he hir saw, the caus he can inquyr 100 Of hir cuming; sho said, syching full soir, 'Fra Diomeid had gottin his desyr He wox wery, and wald of me no moir!' Quod Calchas, 'Douchter, weip thow not thairfoir; Peraventure all cummis for the best; 105 Welcum to me; thow art full deir ane gest.' This auld Calchas, efter the law was tho, Wes keeper of the tempill, as ane preist,
  • 86. In quhilk Venus and hir son Cupido War honourit; and his chalmer was thaim neist; 110 To quhilk Cresseid, with baill aneuch in breist, Usit to pas, hir prayeris for to say; Quhill at the last, upon ane solempne day, As custom was, the pepill far and neir, Befoir the none, unto the tempill went 115 With sacrifys devoit in thair maneir. But still Cresseid, hevy in hir intent, In-to the kirk wald not hir-self present, For giving of the pepil ony deming Of hir expuls fra Diomeid the king: 120 But past into ane secreit orature Quhair sho micht weip hir wofull desteny. Behind hir bak sho cloisit fast the dure, And on hir knëis bair fell down in hy. Upon Venus and Cupid angerly 125 Sho cryit out, and said on this same wys, 'Allas! that ever I maid yow sacrifys! Ye gave me anis ane devyn responsaill That I suld be the flour of luif in Troy; Now am I maid an unworthy outwaill, 130 And all in cair translatit is my joy. Quha sall me gyde? quha sall me now convoy, Sen I fra Diomeid and nobill Troilus Am clene excludit, as abject odious? O fals Cupide, is nane to wyte bot thow
  • 87. 135 And thy mother, of luf the blind goddes! Ye causit me alwayis understand and trow The seid of luf was sawin in my face, And ay grew grene throw your supply and grace. But now, allas! that seid with froist is slane, 140 And I fra luifferis left, and all forlane!' Quhen this was said, doun in ane extasy, Ravishit in spreit, intill ane dream sho fell; And, be apperance, hard, quhair sho did ly, Cupid the king ringand ane silver bell, 145 Quhilk men micht heir fra hevin unto hell; At quhais sound befoir Cupide appeiris The sevin planetis, discending fra thair spheiris, Quhilk hes powèr of all thing generábill To reull and steir, be thair greit influence, 150 Wedder and wind and coursis variábill. And first of all Saturn gave his sentence, Quhilk gave to Cupid litill reverence, But as ane busteous churl, on his maneir, Com crabbitly, with auster luik and cheir. 155 His face fronsit, his lyr was lyk the leid His teith chatterit and cheverit with the chin His ene drowpit, how, sonkin in his heid Out of his nois the meldrop fast can rin With lippis bla, and cheikis leine and thin 160 The yse-shoklis that fra his hair doun hang Was wonder greit, and as ane speir als lang.
  • 88. Atour his belt his lyart lokkis lay Felterit unfair, ourfret with froistis hoir; His garmound and his †gyte full gay of gray; 165 His widderit weid fra him the wind out woir. Ane busteous bow within his hand he boir; Under his gyrdil ane flash of felloun flanis Fedderit with yse, and heidit with hail-stanis. Than Juppiter richt fair and amiábill, 170 God of the starnis in the firmament, And nureis to all thing[is] generábill, Fra his father Saturn far different, With burely face, and browis bricht and brent; Upon his heid ane garland wonder gay 175 Of flouris fair, as it had been in May. His voice was cleir, as cristal wer his ene; As goldin wyr sa glitterand was his hair; His garmound and his gyte full gay of grene, With goldin listis gilt on every gair; 180 Ane burely brand about his middill bair. In his right hand he had ane groundin speir, Of his father the wraith fra us to weir. Nixt efter him com Mars, the god of ire, Of stryf, debait, and all dissensioun; 185 To chyde and fecht, als feirs as ony fyr; In hard harnes, hewmound and habirgeoun, And on his hanche ane rousty fell fachioun: And in his hand he had ane rousty sword, Wrything his face with mony angry word.
  • 89. 190 Shaikand his sword, befoir Cupide he com With reid visage and grisly glowrand ene; And at his mouth ane bullar stude of fome, Lyk to ane bair quhetting his tuskis kene Richt tuilyour-lyk, but temperance in tene; 195 Ane horn he blew, with mony bosteous brag, Quhilk all this warld with weir hes maid to wag. Than fair Phebus, lanterne and lamp of licht Of man and beist, baith frute and flourishing, Tender nuréis, and banisher of nicht, 200 And of the warld causing, be his moving And influence, lyf in all eirdly thing; Without comfort of quhom, of force to nocht Must all ga dy, that in this warld is wrocht. As king royáll he raid upon his chair, 205 The quhilk Phaeton gydit sum-tyme unricht; The brichtnes of his face, quhen it was bair, Nane micht behald for peirsing of his sicht. This goldin cart with fyry bemes bricht Four yokkit steidis, full different of hew, 210 But bait or tyring throw the spheiris drew. The first was soyr, with mane als reid as rois, Callit Eöy, in-to the orient; The secund steid to name hecht Ethiös, Quhytly and paill, and sum-deill ascendent; 215 The thrid Peros, richt hait and richt fervent; The feird was blak, callit †Philegoney,
  • 90. Quhilk rollis Phebus down in-to the sey. Venus was thair present, that goddes gay, Hir sonnis querrel for to defend, and mak 220 Hir awin complaint, cled in ane nyce array, The ane half grene, the uther half sabill-blak; Quhyte hair as gold, kemmit and shed abak; But in hir face semit greit variance, Quhyles perfit treuth, and quhylës inconstance. 225 Under smyling sho was dissimulait, Provocative with blenkis amorous; And suddanly changit and alterait, Angry as ony serpent venemous, Richt pungitive with wordis odious. 230 Thus variant sho was, quha list tak keip, With ane eye lauch, and with the uther weip:— In taikning that all fleshly paramour, Quhilk Venus hes in reull and governance, Is sum-tyme sweit, sum-tyme bitter and sour, 235 Richt unstabill, and full of variance, Mingit with cairfull joy, and fals plesance; Now hait, now cauld; now blyth, now full of wo; Now grene as leif, now widderit and ago. With buik in hand than com Mercurius, 240 Richt eloquent and full of rethory; With pólite termis and delicious; With pen and ink to réport all redy; Setting sangis, and singand merily.
  • 91. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com