On the Quotative Construction in English: a Minimalist Account

ON THE QUOTATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH: A MINIMALIST ACCOUNT

ISAMU GYODA

Tokyo Metropolitan University

This article attempts to provide an account of the Quotative Construc- tion, in which the quote is located in sentence-initial position. I argue that the complementizer of the matrix clause, which determines clause type, attracts the quote overtly to its specifier position. I maintain that since the matrix verb in this construction is semantically light, it is similar to the functional categories in syntactic behavior, which leads to overt verb raising in English. Various peculiar properties of this construction are explained under the analysis proposed here.*

Keywords: the Quotative Construction, the Quotative Inversion, semantically light verbs, clause type

1. Introduction

When one wants to report the exact or actual words of other people, several modes of expression are available, which are called direct speech. In some of them, "the quote," which represents what someone says or has said, is located in sentence-initial position, as in the following:1

*An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 16th National Conference of the English Linguistic Society of Japan held at Tohoku University on November 7, 1998, part of which has already appeared in JELS 16. I am deeply indebted to Heizo Nakajima, Ken-ichi Takami, Hiroshi Hasegawa, Kensuke Takonai, Hiroki Egashira, and two anonymous EL reviewers for invaluable comments and suggestions that I have received from them on earlier versions of this paper. I am also grateful to Chris Tancredi for some of the crucial example sentences in this paper. It goes without saying that any inadequacy in this paper is mine. 1 Several examples other than (1) are as follows: (i) SV"Q." (ii) "Q," S V "Q." (iii) "Q," V S "Q." S=subject, V=verb, "Q"=q uote All of these examples, including (1), can be called direct speech. However, (i) cannot be called QC, on account of the fact that the quote is not located in sentence-initial position.

(1) a. "We haven't had that spirit here since 1969," the captain said. b. "We haven't had that spirit here since 1969," said the captain. Following Branigan and Collins (1993), these sentences will be called the "Quotative Construction" (henceforth, QC). Especially, an example in which the matrix verb precedes the matrix subject, such as (1b) above, will be called the "Quotative Inversion" (henceforth, QI) (Bra- nigan and Collins (1993)). This article discusses these constructions in the framework of the Minimalist Program (MP) proposed by Chomsky (1995). Only a few studies have so far been made of QC and QI ex- cept by Collins and his colleagues (Branigan and Collins (1993), Collins and Branigan (1997), Collins (1997)). Among these previous analyses, Collins (1997) will be examined and his problems will be pointed out in this article. In what follows, the QC will be observed in detail, and an alternative analysis of the derivation and syntactic structure of QC will be proposed. Several consequences derived from the alternative analysis proposed here will be also considered, along with two constrains on QI; the quantifier float constraint and the transitivity constraint.

2. Proposal In this section, three principal constituents of QC, which are the subject, the verb and the quote, will be observed in detail. The main proposals are as follows:2 (2) a. The matrix subject in QC uniformly raises overtly to [Spec, T].

2 In non-inverted QC, where the matrix subject and verb are not inverted, such as (1a), I presuppose that the matrix subject overtly raises to [Spec, T], which Col- lins (1997) also does. Contrary to Collins, however, I look upon QI as a part of QC and both of their derivations are almost the same. In section 3, I will propose that the derivation of QI has one additional operation on verb, that is, overt verb raising from T to C. In 2.1.1, I will provide several evidence that motivates that the overt syntactic position of the matrix subject in QI is the same as the one in the non-inverted QC. ON THE QUOTATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH 277

b. The matrix verb in QC is "semantically light," and moves to T prior to Spell-Out. c. The quote in QC is located in [Spec, C] and the matrix complementizer C has a strong formal feature, [+ Quote]. The structural positions of these constituents in QCs are illustrated in (3) and (4):3 (3) "Q," SV

(4) "Q," VS

3 Though the derivation of QI, especially the syntactic position of the matrix verb, will be treated in section 3, I illustrate (4) for the convenience of the readers. 278 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 16, NO. 2 (1999)

The evidence that motivates these structures will be presented in turn.

2.1. The Subject 2.1.1. The Status of the Post-Verbal DP in QI To begin with, I would like to consider the properties of the post- verbal DP in QI. So far, the post-verbal DP has been treated as "subject." However, it is worth while seeing the property of this DP in order to confirm its syntactic status and determine the derivation and structural position of the matrix subject in QI. First, the overt realization of agreement for number and Case illus- trates several properties of the post-verbal DP in QI. Let us compare the following sentences: (5) a. "Well," says/*say John. b. "OK," said he/*him. (5a) shows that the post-verbal DP John must agree with the matrix finite verb in number.4 (5b) shows that the post-verbal DP must have nominative Case. These data illustrate that the post-verbal DP in QI can be regarded as the subject of the matrix clause. In English the matrix subject usually raises to [Spec, T] overtly in order to check off the EPP feature of the T. Accordingly, it seems natural that the post- verbal DP in QI raises overtly to [Spec, T]. Furthermore, there is other convincing evidence that shows the subjecthood of the DP at issue. Let us observe the cases where each post-verbal DP is the controller of the following participle phrase. (6) a. "I thought Y'all were going to wait," said the girl, fiddling with a package of cassette tapes she was hold- ing. (Bobbie Ann Mason Coyotes: 34) b. "Ah, Pam," said Sarah, waving her hand in disgust. (Alice Walker A Sudden Trip Home in the Spring: 17) The girl in (6a), and Sarah in (6b) are the controllers of the participle phrases fiddling and waving, respectively. Generally, in participial constructions, the controller of the participle is the subject of the matrix clause, and therefore the DPs in question are matrix subjects.

4 I will exclude what Jespersen (1924: 290) calls "dramatic present tense," such as says I instead of said I, which has an effect to express psychological state with the vivid imagination of the past. ON THE QUOTATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH 279

Moreover, these examples suggest that the overt structural position of the controller DP is at least higher than its c-commanding participle. Suppose that the participle phrase is adjoined to TP, then it is natural that its controller DP overtly raises to [Spec, T] and c-commands it. In addition to (5) and (6), the following coordinate structure sentences in (7) suggest the syntactic property of the post-verbal DP in QI. (7) a. "Very well, on this occasion," said Thomas, and lapsed into an understanding silence. (Angela Huth Last Love: 33) b. "Fiona's out," said the voice and gave a little breathless giggle. (John Wain Mort: 58) (7a) shows that the underlined post-verbal DP Thomas in the first conjunct behaves as the subject of the second conjunct. In (7b), the voice is also regarded as the subject of gave in the second conjunct. Gener- ally, in coordinate structures, the reduced item has the same syntactic status as that in the preceding sentence. This means that Thomas in (7a) and the voice in (7b) are the subject both in the first and the second conjunct, respectively. Supposing that and coordinates two verb phrases, it is more natural to explain that the underlined subject DP overtly raises higher than[Spec, ν], which is the base-generated position. These examples show that the post-verbal DP in QI is the matrix subject and motivate that it does not remain in Spec νP but undergoes overt-movement to [Spec, T]. Collins (1997), however, makes a different analysis of the DP at issue. In the followings, I will point out that his explanation includes several drawbacks.

2.1.2. Collins (1997) and His Problems Collins (1997: 33) proposes that in QI, the post-verbal matrix subject remains in [Spec, ν], and does not raise to [Spec, T].5 This proposal is motivated by the fact that QI is unacceptable with a floated quantifier, as shown in the following:

5 Although Collins (1997: 33) in fact assumes that the external argument (the matrix subject) is base-generated as the specifier of a head that he calls Tr (transitivity), instead of the specifier of ν, Collins (1997: 15) states clearly that Tr"is the same head identified as ν(light verb) by Chomsky (1995: chapter 4)." 280 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 16, NO. 2 (1999)

(8) a. *"We must do this again," declared the guests all to Tony. b. *"Do you have the time?" asked the bankers each. (Collins (1997: 33)) In (8a), the quantifier all is floated from the guests, and in (8b) each is floated from the bankers. These sentences show that QI is unacceptable with a floated quantifier. The principal argument that Collins offers is the following: in these sentences the matrix subject remains in

[Spec, ν], so that a quantifier could not be stranded by A-movement of the subject DP. Apparently, the data presented by Collins (1997) seem to be evi- deuce to maintain that in QI the matrix subject DP stays in[Spec, ν] after Spell-Out. However, it seems that this analysis is laden with several difficulties. First of all, the analysis of floated quantifiers is controversial. Not everyone is in agreement that floated quantifiers are associated with intermediate subject DP positions. The foremost alternative at present is one according to which the quantifier and the raised subject DP never form a syntactic constituent, but the quantifier has an essentially adverbial function, left-adjoined to some part of the verbal projection (Kayne (1984), McCawley (1988), McCloskey (1996) among others). According to Haegeman (1997), "Bobaljik (1995), for instance, proposes that floated quantifiers are adverbs." It thus follows that Collins' analysis of the data in question depends on the tenta- tive assumption, and is subject to change. 6,7

6 Furthermore, there are several data that cast doubt on the relationship between the quantifier floating and the VP-internal subject raising. Several examples are shown in the following pair: (i) a. All of the students came to the party. b. The students all came to the party. (Takami (1998: 149)) As Takami (1998: 149) points out, though a sentence which contains a floating quantifier and one which does not are equivalent in logical meaning, their informational statuses are slightly different. Takami (1998: 149) explains that "when the speaker uses the latter sentence pattern, it seems that he/she emphasizes the number (or quantity) that the quantifier represents." Accordingly, while (ia) "is roughly equivalent to 'All the students came to the party,'" (ib) "can roughly be para- phrased as 'There was no student who didn't come to the party' or as 'Contrary to our expectation, it was all the students that came to the party.'" 7 Notice that though I am not dubious about the validity of the Internal Subject Hypothesis, I am skeptical about the analysis that the quantifier floating should ON THE QUOTATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH 281

Secondly, even though it is admitted that the quantifier and the raised subject DP form a syntactic constituent at some stage of the derivation, Collins' argumentation of the matrix subject position is not correct from a logical viewpoint. Since Sportiche (1988) the phenomenon of quantifier float has been connected with the Internal Sub- ject Hypothesis, and the following assumption has been made: (9) In a sentence, if a quantifier is separated from the subject which it quantifies, then the subject DP has raised to some higher position from the base-generated VP-internal position, where the quantifier occupies. It seems that Collins also assumes this proposition in concluding the overt subject DP position. However, what he assumes is not this proposition but the following proposition: (10) In a sentence, if a quantifier is not separated from the subject which it quantifies, then the subject DP has not raised to some higher position from the base-generated VP-internal position, where the quantifier occupies. In fact, (10) is not logically equivalent to proposition (9). Therefore, (10) is not always true, even though (9) is true. 8 There exist several counterexamples to (10) in fact. Let us consider the following sentence: (11) *The students have arrived all t. All is a quantifier floated from the subject the students in (11). Since the quantifier all cannot be separated from the subject the students in (11), (10) predicts that the subject the students has not raised to some higher position from the base-generated position, that is, the sentence final position. Following the argumentation of Collins (1997) it would be concluded that the subject DP remains in the base-generated posi-

always be caused by raising the subject from VP-internal position. I consider the distinction should be made between the "quantifier floating," where the quantifier behaves like an adverb, and the "quantifier stranding," where the quantifier is stranded by the subject raising. I will not argue this topic further here. 8 In logic, if a proposition A (P⊃Q) is true, then its contraposition B (-Q⊃-P) is also true. However, its reverse C (-P⊃-Q) is not always true. Suppose that (9) is a proposition A, then (10) is logically equivalent to the reverse C, and therefore (10) is not always true. 282 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 16, NO. 2 (1999) tion in this type of sentence. Notice, however, that in (11) the main verb arrive is an unaccusative verb. It is generally assumed that the subject of an unaccusative verb is base-generated at Complement of V, and raises overtly to [Spec, T] (See Chomsky (1995: 376) among others). This is called the "Unaccusative Hypothesis" (Perlmutter (1978), Burzio (1986), Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995) among others). Following the Unaccusative Hypothesis, the subject DP the students raises overtly to [Spec, T] from the sentence-final position in (11). On the other hand, following (10), the subject DP does not raise from the base-generated position in (11), contrary to the Unaccusative Hypothesis. This means that the generalization which Collins (1997) presupposes would contradict the Unaccusative Hypothesis. Insofar as the Unaccusative Hypothesis is correct, we must admit that (11) is a counterexample to (10). It thus follows as a logical consequence that (10) cannot be maintained. Hence, Collins' argumentation is unten- able. From the observation so far, just from the fact that the quantifier float is prohibited in QI, it does not follow that the matrix subject DP does not raise in QI. From the observations so far, it seems clear that the argumentation and the claim of Collins (1997) are implausible. On the ground of this problematic analysis, he determines the syntactic position of the post- verbal subject DP in QI. To make the matter worse, quantifier float is the chief evidence that Collins provides for the motivation of his proposal. Contrary to Collins (1997), I have proposed that the DP at issue does not stay in situ but raises higher than νP, and that the matrix subject in QC overtly raises to [Spec, T], regardless of QI. In the remainder of this section, an alternative analysis of QC, including the syntactic position of the matrix verb and the quote will be made.

2.2. The Verb Chomsky (1995: 198) maintains that the raising of the English auxiliaries have and be "reflects their semantic vacuity; they are placehold- ers for certain constructions, at most 'very light' verbs." When verbs are semantically vacuous, they have to move overtly before Spell-Out. Nakajima (1996: 20) also argues that verbs in Locative Inversion (LI) raise to T overtly because they are also semantically light (cf. Levin and Rappaport Hovav (1995)). According to Nakajima, in English the head T(ense) in a finite clause has the feature of strength and the strong feature [Aux]. In order for the derivation to converge, an ele- ON THE QUOTATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH 283

ment with [Aux] feature must overtly raise to T and check off the strong feature of T. If the motivation to raise modal auxiliaries and verbs in LI to T overtly is their semantic vacuity as Chomsky and Nakajima maintain, then we can anticipate that the matrix verbs in QC also overtly raise to T because they are also semantically light. In QC the sentence always begins with the quote. Especially, the quotation marks convey, or make it easy to guess, that the central meaning of the following matrix verb is "say." Then we can say that the quote located in the sentence- initial position conveys a part of the meaning of the matrix verb which it expresses. Consequently, the meaning of the verb is reduced by the preceding quote and becomes the lighter for it. This means that the semantic part which the verb in QC plays is reduced, while the role played by the category is something like the functional one. Analyzing have and be raising, Roberts (1998: 113) proposes that "auxiliaries are just collections of formal features whereas main verbs have intrinsic content in addition to their formal features." Adapting Chomsky (1995: 269-270), he maintains that if a feature F of a category enters into a checking relation as a result of the movement, then all formal features of F's category raises along with F. Assuming that both T and auxiliaries have V-features in English, and that these features are checked prior to Spell-Out, Roberts proposes that auxiliaries are spelled out in T because they are nothing but formal features. I will theoretically re-interpret "semantically light" as "without intrinsic content" and propose that the matrix verb in QC are just collections of formal features.9 Following Roberts, I will assume that both T and the matrix verb in QC have V-features, and that these features must be checked prior to Spell-Out for the derivations to converge. If this V- feature of the verb in QC moves to T for checking, all formal features of the verb raises along with the V-feature. Since the verb at issue is nothing but formal features, the entire verb, that is, the category V containing these features, is spelled out in T. Because the content of

9 Being without intrinsic content or being just collections of formal features does not necessarily mean that these verbs have no semantic interpretation. Roberts (1998: 119) points out that some of the features in the collections are Interpretable at LF. See also Roberts (1998: 116). 284 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 16, NO. 2 (1999) the semantically light verb is exhausted by formal features, the matrix verb in QC behaves like auxiliaries and raises overtly to T.

2.3. The Quote In this subsection the empirical data of QC will be observed and it will be proposed that the quote is located in Spec CP of the matrix clause. It will also be proposed that the quote is attracted by the strong formal feature [+Quote] in C of the matrix clause. Conceptual arguments in favor of these proposals will be made in the last part of this subsection.

2.3.1. Some Empirical Evidence Given that the syntactic positions of the other two main elements, the matrix subject and verb, have been determined, we can proceed to isolate the location of the quote in a clause. There are several pieces of convincing evidence which show the parallelism between a wh-phrase and the quote in QC and that the quote is located in Spec CP of the matrix clause. First of all, let us consider the following sentences, cited from Branigan and Collins (1993: 6): (12) a. "I am so happy," Mary thought t without actually saying. b. ?"I am so happy," thought Mary t without actually saying. (12a) shows that if a quote is fronted, it can license a parasitic gap, that is, the object of saying. (12b) shows that the parasitic gap is also available even in QI. Since parasitic gaps are only licensed by an element in an A'-position (Chomsky (1982, 1986)), it follows that the quote is moved into an A'-position in QC. This means that the quote is located in Spec CP of the matrix clause in (12). The examples in (13)-(15) further suggest the parallelism between a wh-phrase and the quote. Observe the following sentences: (13) a. Who said, "The sun rises in the west."? b. *"The sun rises in the west," who said? c. *Who, "The sun rises in the west," said? (14) a. To Mary, what did John give? b. *John, what did give to Mary? c. ?To Mary, "I love you," John said. d. *John, "I love you," said to Mary. (15) a. *"I love you," [Topicto Mary, I said.] ON THE QUOTATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH 285

b. [Topic To Mary, "I love you," I said.] While it is perfectly possible to use a wh-phrase and a quote in one and the same clause, as (13a) shows, the quote cannot be moved into the sentence-initial position in a wh-question, as (13b) shows. Furth- ermore, (13c) shows that a wh-phrase cannot be preposed in QC. This example anticipates the following account: (13b) and (13c) are not allowed because the wh-phrase who and the quote "The sun rises in the west" are moved into the same landing site. Hence cooccurrence of a wh-phrase and a quote in a sentence-initial position is always prohibited. On the other hand, (13a) is accepted because the quote is not preposed, and therefore the wh-phrase and the quote do not conflict.10

10 An anonymous EL reviewer has pointed out that the following contrast poses a serious problem to my explanation made above if it is considered as the same phenomenon as (13): (i) No one said, "The sun rises in the west." (ii) *"The sun rises in the west," no one said. However, the unacceptability of (ii) is not attributable to the syntactic reason that has made (13b) unacceptable, but to a semantic restriction which interacts with negativity. Observe the following sentences: (iii) "Let's eat," John didn't say just once. (Collins (1997: 34)) (iv) John didn't say, "Let's eat." (v) *"Let's eat," John didn't say. As Collins (1997: 34) points out, the use of negation in QC is "most acceptable when the negation is interpreted as negating the adverb (not just once)." (iii) conveys how often John said the quote, and therefore presupposes that the quote is narrated anyway. Notice that without the adverb just once, (iii) is not acceptable, as (v) shows. This shows that in QC the quote is incompatible with the negation of its existence. Usually, using the form of QC presupposes that some types of sounds are narrated, while the other direct speech whose quote is not located in sentence-initial position, such as (iv), does not. If the existence of the quote is not negated, the use of the negation is possible in QC, as the following sentence shows. (vi) "I am so happy," Mary didn't deny. (Branigan and Collins (1993: 8)) Though the negation is used, (vi) is acceptable. This is because it is warranted that the quote is said by Mary. The semantic restriction mentioned here seems to be related to the analysis of slifting by Ross (1972), which points out the fact that though the use of the negation in parentheticals is restricted, doubly negative parentheticals are possible. The contrast between (iv) and (v) can be attributed to the semantic restriction that bans negating the existence of the quote in QC. The same explanation holds true of (i) and (ii). On account of the semantic restriction, (ii) is unacceptable, and therefore the contrast in question does not undermine my explanation of (13). 286 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 16, NO. 2 (1999)

The explanation given above receives independent support from the data on topicalization in (14a, b). Note the fact that in a wh-question the object topicalization of to Mary is acceptable, as shown in (14a), while subject topicalization of John is unacceptable, as shown in (14b). The same tendency holds true of QC, as shown in (14c, d). In (14d) subject topicalization of John is completely prohibited. On the other hand, complement topicalization of to Mary in (14c) is acceptable or marginal. This is another piece of evidence which shows that a quote in QC has some parallels with a wh-phrase. (15) is an example in which the quote is extracted from Topic island. (15a) is unacceptable because the movement of the quote violates the Topic island constraint, which bans extraction of an element across a topic constituent. On the other hand, (15b) shows that preposing a quote is acceptable as far as it does not cross the Topic island. The observation from (12) to (15) reveals that a quote in QC is located in an A'-position, and that it behaves in the same way as a wh- phrase. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that when a quote is preposed, it is moved into [Spec, C] of the matrix clause, which is the same landing site that a wh-phrase moves into. (13a) shows that when the quote is not in the sentence-initial position, the wh-phrase can raise to [Spec, C]. Since the cooccurrence of QC and wh-movement is not allowed, it is appropriate to consider that in QC the formal feature that matrix complementizer C contains is different from the formal feature [+wh]. Suppose, then, that in QC there is a strong formal feature such as [+Quote] in C and attracts a quote overtly to [Spec, C]. (cf. Collins (1997)) When a wh-phrase raises overtly in QC, for example in (13b, c), the derivation crashes. This is because no feature attracts the wh-phrase, hence, the violation of Last Resort. In fact, the analysis that the quote in QC is located in [Spec, C] has further consequences. Observe the following: (16) a. Did John say, "Giants won five games in a row?" b. *Did "Giants won five games in a row," say John? c. *Did "Giants won five games in a row," John say? (17) a. Do you remember how John said, "I know that!"? b. *Do you remember how "I know that!" John said? c. *Do you remember how "I know that!" said John? (18) a. That's what won him the support of Keillor, who said, "It's a measure of the man when he's courageous when it's not absolutely required of him." ON THE QUOTATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH 287

(September 4, 1992 Chicago Tribune) b. *That's what won him the support of Keillor, who "It's a measure of the man when he's courageous when it's not absolutely required of him," said. While interrogative direct speech is perfectly accepted as (16a) shows, subject auxiliary inversion is not allowed in QC as (16b) and (16c) show. Furthermore, (17) represents that the cooccurrence of overt wh-movement and QC is also prohibited in a subordinate clause. (18) shows that the relativization in QC is disallowed. The unacceptabili- ties of these sentences can be explained as follows; suppose that the matrix C has a strong formal feature [+Quote] in the unacceptable sentences above. (16a, b) are unacceptable because the matrix C is not allowed to have other strong formal feature [+Question]. (17b, c) and (18b) are unacceptable because it is impossible to attract a constituent which does not have a formal feature [+Quote] to [Spec, C].

2.3.2. Conceptual Motivation of C with [+Quote] What I have proposed so far is that the quote is located in [Spec, C]. Let us now consider this proposal from some theoretical viewpoints. I will begin by. considering the status of the functional category C (complementizer) first of all. Rizzi (1996) proposes the complementizer "as the interface between a propositional content" and "the superordinate structure (a higher clause or, possibly, the articulation of discourse)." And the information expressed by complementizers is stated as follows: (19) Complementizers express the fact that a sentence is a question, a declarative, an exclamative, a relative, a comparative, an adverbial of a certain kind, etc., and can be selected as such by a higher selector. (Rizzi (1996: 283)) Chomsky (1995: 289) also maintains that the functional category C determines clause type and considers, for example, the relation between the interrogative clause and the feature Q(uestion) in C. This is compatible with the analysis given here that the formal feature [+Quote] of matrix C determines that this is a special case of direct speech. Next let us examine the validity of admitting the formal feature [+Quote] itself. This means whether a proposal which admits a distinctive clause type "Quotative" has a firm basis. It will be observed that QC has several distinctiveness which makes it as a unique clause type. For example, sentences in (1), which are called direct speech, have the following characteristics different from indirect speech: (a) a 288 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 16, NO. 2 (1999) subordinating conjunction (e.g. that) cannot introduce the quote; (b) the verbs of the quote do not undergo a sequence of tenses rule, that the tense of a verb in a matrix clause place constrains on the tense of a finite verb in a subordinate clause; (c) the personal pronouns with the same referent in the matrix and subordinate clauses of indirect speech is identical; (d) the deictic elements which refer to the time or place or the demonstratives of the quoted speech act does not change according with the matrix clause; and (e) the quote is a root sentence and it is possible to quote anything that someone says-statements, questions, orders, suggestions, and exclamations. Several types of sentences can appear as subordinate clauses in direct speech but not in indirect speech (Banfield (1973: 6-9)). Furthermore, there is a peculiarity of QC which is often pointed out by previous analyses, such as Quirk et al. (1985). In QC, the quote, which originally bears a subordinate function, can be interpreted as a dominant matrix clause. On the other hand, the syntactic matrix clause subject and verb seem to function like a sentential adverbial expression. The following is quoted from Quirk et al. (1985: 1023): (20)... we can view the reporting clause as subordinate function- ing as an adverbial.... Moreover, the direct speech clause behaves like a main clause in that it can, for example, be a question or a directive. More interestingly, there exists difference in acceptability among direct speech sentences made up of the same lexical items. The crucial difference is whether it is QC. Observe the following sentences: (21) a. "I often wonder," smiled Edward. b. *Edward smiled, "I often wonder." The sentences in (21) are direct speech. (21a), which is QC, is acceptable, while (21b), which is not QC, is unacceptable. This shows that the syntactic position of the quote is a decisive factor in the acceptability. The next section will ponder over these examples further. From the consideration given so far, it is reasonable to regard QC as a distinctive clause type "Quotative," and therefore admitting the formal feature [+Quote] is valid. The observed peculiar characteristics in QC can be explained as follows in accordance with the analyses developed so far: the complementizer (or the formal feature in C) determines the clause type of the sentence. In QC, the complementizer is occupied by the [+Quote] feature. Therefore, the feature [+Quote] in the functional category C determines those various peculiarities of QC. ON THE QUOTATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH 289

Furthermore, informational consideration will support the analyses proposed so far. According to Birner (1992: 34-35), in QC "the post- posed NP denoting the speaker very often represents familiar information (in extended dialogues, for example), while the information in the preposed quotation represents new information." It is well known that the newest information in a clause is the focus of the sentence. Since a preposed wh-phrase in an interrogative sentence is also located in focus position, my proposal that the quote and the wh-phrase are located in the same position, Spec CP, is adequate. Notice that the quote cannot be a topic because it represents newer information than the reporting clause. Therefore, we can say that the movement of the quote is essentially different from topicalization. Another conceivable alternative account is that the quote is moved to the same position as the prepositional phrase (PP) in Locative Inversion (LI). This will be refuted, however. As I have pointed out, both QC and LI share the property that the matrix verbs are semantically light. However, the quote in QC represents new information, whereas PP in LI represents familiar information (Nakajima (1996)). Taking into consideration each informational status, it is strange to assume that these two constituents are derived in the same position. Following Nakajima (1996), I will assume that PP in LI moves to the outer Spec of TP, which has multiple-specifiers. From the informational viewpoint, this analysis of LI is compatible with my proposal that the quote is located in Spec CP, because those two elements are located in the different syntactic positions.

3. Some Consequences 3.1. Zwicky's Observation So far, I have proposed that in QC the quote is located in Spec CP of the matrix clause. This section will show that this analysis can explain a variety of data in QC adequately. First of all, let us ponder over a problem which was first pointed out by Zwicky (1971). Accord- ing to Zwicky (1971), several verbs show the following tendency; used in QC, they are entirely acceptable. However, when the quote is not in sentence-initial position, they are less acceptable. Observe the following sentences cited from Zwicky (1971: 231): "I disagree with you." (22) a. ?The umpire |lectured, uttered,| 290 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 16, NO. 2 (1999)

b. "I disagree with you," the umpire lectured. c. "I disagree with you," uttered the umpire. (22a) shows that if the quote is not located in the sentence-initial position, verbs, such as lecture and utter, are less acceptable. On the other hand, (22b, c) show that as far as the quote is preposed, these verbs are completely acceptable regardless of QI. In addition to the verbs in (22), Zwicky (1971: 231) further points out several verbs which show this tendency (e.g. insist, report, indicate, reveal, concede, contend). However, these judgments of acceptability are very subtle and Zwicky (1971) does not explain why this discrepancy exists in direct speech. In the following, I will point out that there are several verbs which show far more obvious judgments and will explain them in accordance with the proposal developed in the previous sections. First of all, let us compare (23) with (24): (23) a. "I often wonder," smiled Edward. (Somerset Maugham The Fall of Edward Barnard: 61) b. "That was a good joke about the road," laughed the trader. (Somerset Maugham Mackintosh: 164) c. "There's Mrs Lanoline, too," Helen yawned. (E. M. Foster Howards End: 136) d. "I'm sure I don't want to intrude," began Leonard, in answer to Margaret's question. (E. M. Foster Howards End: 224) e. "She always was highly strung," pursued Henry, leaning back in the car as it shot past the church. (E. M. Foster Howards End: 282) (24) a. *Edward smiled, "I often wonder." b. *The trader laughed, "That was a good joke about the road." c. *Helen yawned, "There's Mrs Lanoline, too." d. *Leonard began, in answer to Margaret's question, "I'm sure I don't want to intrude." e. *Henry pursued, leaning back in the car as it shot past the church, "She always was highly strung." Though the underlined verbs in (24) can be used in direct speech as (23) shows, all the sentences in (24) are ungrammatical in spite of direct speech. In (23) the quote is preposed in sentence-initial position, whereas in (24) it is not. The contrast between (23) and (24) shows that the syntactic position of the quote is directly related to the ON THE QUOTATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH 291

acceptabilities of the sentences. Furthermore, these verbs are not allowed in indirect speech, which is without the quote. Observe the following sentences: (25) a. *Edward smiled that he often wondered. b. *The trader laughed (that) that was a good joke about the road. c. *Helen yawned that there's Mrs Lanoline, too. d. *Leonard began that he was sure he didn't want to intrude. e. *Henry pursued that she always was highly strung. The unacceptability in (25) shows that since these verbs are not originally manner-of-speaking verbs, they are not allowed in indirect speech. Let us consider the verb smile as an example. Since this verb originally does not entail "say," it cannot be used in indirect speech, as in (25a). (24) reveals that the existence of the quote is the necessary condition but cannot be the sufficient condition. Only when the quote is located in sentence-initial position can the verb smile be regarded as a verbal communication verb. These facts can be explained as follows: As I have pointed out, when a verb which originally does not im- ply verbal communication is used in direct speech, the syntactic position of the quote is crucial to the acceptability of the sentence. Sup- pose that when the quote is located in the sentence-initial position, the complementizer C of the matrix clause has a strong formal feature [+ Quote] and attracts the quote overtly. This feature of C determines that the clause type is the quotative construction and that the central meaning of the matrix verb is "say." It thus follows that the matrix verb can be regarded as a verbal communication verb and the acceptabilities of the sentences in (23) result. On the other hand, since the quote is not raised to [Spec, C] overtly in (24), C does not have the strong feature [+Quote], and the matrix verb cannot be regarded as a verbal communication verb. Hence the contrast between (23) and (24) results. How about the verbs which originally entail verbal communication senses, such as growl, offer, apologize, echo, and sing? Compare the following pairs: (26) a. "The game is up," growled Trent. b. *Trent growled that the game was up. (Leech and Svartvik (1994: 134)) 292 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL.16, NO. 2 (1999)

(27) a. "We could take it for you," offered Dolly. b. *Dolly offered that they could take it for me. (28) a. "Sorry I haven't called you yet," Beynon apologized. b. *Beynon apologized that he had not called me yet. (29) a. "Yes, you must-do," echoed Margaret. (E. M. Foster Ho wards End: 128) b. *Margaret echoed that I must do /show her a picture up- stairs. (30) a. "Oranges and Lemons said the bells of St Clements," sang the engines. (Roald Dahl A Piece of Cake: 105) b. *The engines sang that Oranges and Lemons said the bells of St Clements. Even though these verbs entail verbal communication senses, they are not allowed in indirect speech, as the (b) sentences in (26)-(30) show. What is of interest here is the fact that if the quote is not located in sentence-initial position in each direct speech in question, it becomes less acceptable than the (a) sentences in (26)-(30), as shown below: (31) a. ??Trent growled, "The game is up." b. ??Dolly offered, "We could take it for you." c. ??Beynon apologized, "Sorry I haven't called you yet." d. ??Margaret echoed, "Yes, you must-do." e. ??The engines sang, "Oranges and Lemons said the bells of St Clements." From the observation so far, it seems clear that even the verbs in question are difficult to be regarded as communication verbs in direct speech without a strong [+Quote] feature. Since the quote is not overtly raised to [Spec, C] in (31), no strong [+Quote] exists in the Numeration. On the other hand, since each of the quote is located in sentence-initial position in the (a) sentences in (26)-(30), each C has the strong feature [+Quote]. Hence the contrast between them results. The same holds true of the data presented by Zwicky (1971).

3.2. The Derivation of QI Lastly, I will consider the relation between overt verb raising and the derivation of QI. As I have already proposed in the previous section, in QC the matrix verb overtly raises to the head T. I will propose that the word order of QI ("Q" V S) will be derived if the matrix verb which has moved to the head T further raises to the head C of the matrix clause. Let us suppose that the matrix verb in QI has a formal ON THE QUOTATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH 293 feature [+Quote], and that the complementizer C of the matrix clause has another strong [+Quote]V feature in addition to the strong feature [+Quotej which is checked off by the quote overtly. Since strong features must be deleted overtly for convergence, the matrix verb which has raised to T must raise further to the head C to check off the [+Quote]V feature. Thus the matrix verb precedes the matrix subject, and the word order of QI results. (32) shows the derivation and structure of QI. 11 (32) "Q," VS

11 An anonymous EL reviewer has pointed out that according to my claim made above, it will be anticipated that the manner adverb is adjoined to C' in the following example: (i) "Pass the pepper, please," politely requested Anna. (Collins and Branigan (1997: 9)) The judgment of acceptability on this type of sentence, however, is very subtle as illustrated in the following sentences: (ii) ?"I finally quit this job," happily murmured John. (Branigan and Collins (1993: 7)) (iii) ?"what is the exchange rate?" abruptly asked Bill of Mary. (Branigan and Collins (1993: 12)) (iv) ?"I am leaving," abruptly shouted John. (Collins (1997: 36)) Collins (1997: 37-38) leaves open the position of the adverb. Following McCawley (1998), I assume that modification is transparent with regard to category, that is, "a modifier yields an expression of the same category as what it modifies." (McCawley (1998: 14)) Thus, in (i), in which the adverb modifies the verb, the adverb politely is not adjoined to C' but to the head V, and politely requested is a V and not a V'. 294 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL.16, NO. 2 (1999)

According to the proposal under discussion, we can account for the following fact; that is, QI is prohibited when an overt auxiliary verb exists in a sentence. Observe the following sentences: (33) a. John might have said, "You did a good job." b. "You did a good job," John might have said. c. *"You did a good job," might have said John. (34) a. "I wonder why he fainted," Miss Gray was saying. (Somerset Maugham The Happy Couple: 242) b. *"I wonder why he fainted," was saying Miss Gray. (35) a. "Let's eat," John didn't say just once. b. *"Let's eat," didn't John say just once. (Collins (1997: 34)) The auxiliary verb might can be used both in (33a) and (33b). How- ever, QI is not allowed as (33c) shows. The same observation applies to the progressive sentence as shown in (34), the negative sentence with do-support as shown in (35). From the observation above, it is obvious that auxiliary verbs are not allowed in QI. The proposal here makes it possible to account for this fact. In each inadequate sentence in (33)-(35), the head T is occupied by an auxiliary verb, and the movement of a main verb from the head V to the head C is blocked by this auxiliary verb, and therefore the unacceptability results. Let us consider a stage of a derivation, where the category T is formed in (33c) for instance. Since the head T is already occupied by an auxiliary verb might have, the main verb said cannot raise to the head T overtly. If the main verb said does not move to the head C, which has a strong feature [+Quote]V, but stays in the head V (or head ν), then this derivation crashes because the feature of C remains unchecked. The only conceivable movement which results in the checking of the feature in C by the main verb is V-to-C movement in one step. However, this is a violation of the HMC (Head Movement Constraint), which defines that a head can only move from the head position in one phrase to the head position in the immediately containing (i.e. next highest) phrase in the structure (Travis (1984)). It thus follows that whenever both an auxiliary verb and C with a strong [+Quote]V feature coexist in Numeration, the derivation crashes after all. ON THE QUOTATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH 295

4. Other Problems This section deals with two interesting restrictions on QI observed by Collins (1997); the "quantifier float constraint" (QI is unacceptable with a floated quantifier) and the "transitivity constraint" (QI is not allowed in the double object construction).

4.1. The Quantifier Float Constraint 4.1.1. Quantifier Float and Secondary Predication As we have already seen in section 2, Collins (1997) points out the fact that QI is unacceptable with a floated quantifier. Observe the following sentences, repeated from (8): (36) a. "We must do this again," declared the guests all to Tony. b. *"Do you have the time?" asked the bankers each. The explanation for this fact provided by Collins (1997: 33) is that the subject DP in QC does not move to [Spec, T] but remains in [Spec, ν], so that a quantifier could not be stranded by A-movement. Having shown the invalidity of his argumentation in section 2, I need to seek for a valid account for this phenomenon. Taking it into consideration that the matrix subject DP in QI does raise from a VP-internal position, the unacceptability of the quantifier floating in (36) cannot be attributable to the subject-raising but to the stranded quantifier per se. In this subsection the problems on quantifier float in QI will be viewed from a different angle. I will point out that the analysis of quantifier float proposed by Takami (1998) can explain the phenomenon in question successfully. Before proceeding to advance an alternative analysis, I will briefly introduce Takami (1998). Takami considers the quantifier float in terms of the predication relation. For example, he claims that the following quantifier floated sentence has double predication re- lations: (37) The students all [came to the party].

(Takami (1998: 150)) In addition to the primary predication relation between the subject DP the students and the predicate VP came to the party, there is another predication relation (so-called secondary predication) between the quantifier all and the VP came to the party. Based on the assumption that a floated quantifier is a (secondary) subject, Takami (1998: 155) 296 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 16, NO. 2 (1999) proposes the following constraint on quantifier float: (38) The Predication Constraint on Floated Quantifiers: Since floated quantifiers function as (secondary) subjects, they must be followed by their (semantically appropriate) predicates. When a quantifier is floated from its modifying DP, it needs to have a predicate that states something about it, and therefore it needs to form a secondary predication relation. Let us consider the following pairs of contrast in order to see how effectively this constraint works: (39) a. The guests have all arrived.

b. *The guests have arrived all. (Takami (1998: 152)) The line in (39a) shows the secondary predication relation. In (39a) the floated quantifier all is followed by its appropriate predicate arrived. Hence, the acceptability of the sentence results. On the other hand, in (39b), the sentence-final quantifier all has nothing to be followed. Accordingly, the quantifier floated from the subject DP the guests is left stranded, without being followed by any element that is predicated of it, and the unacceptability results in violation of the Pre- dication Condition Constraint on Floated Quantifiers.

4.1.2. An Alternative Analysis It is now time to observe the quantifier float in QI. Let us consider the sentences cited from Collins (1997) again in terms of the secondary predication. (40) a. "We must do this again," the guests all declared to Tony.

b. *"We must do this again," declared the guests all to Tony. (41) a. "Do you have the time?" the bankers each asked.

b. *"Do you have the time?" asked the bankers each. The underlined quantifiers in the sentences above are floated from the subject DPs of the main clauses. As illustrated by the lines, the floated quantifiers all in (40a) and each in (41a) are followed by the appropriate predicates declared and asked, respectively, and therefore can establish properly the secondary predication relation between the floated quantifier and the following matrix verb. Hence, the acceptability of the sentence results. On the other hand, in (40b) and (41b), ON THE QUOTATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH 297 since the matrix verb and the subject is inverted, the predicates declared and asked precede to (or are structurally higher positioned than) the underlined quantifiers all and each, respectively. Therefore, the quantifiers floated from the subjects are left stranded, without being followed by any elements that are predicated of them. This is the violation of the Predication Condition Constraint on Floated Quan- tifiers in (38), and the unacceptability results. It is for this reason that the quantifier float is prohibited in QI. This explanation does not conflict with my proposal. In section 2 I have proposed that the subject DP always raises to [Spec, T] in QC whether the subject and the verb is inverted or not. I have also proposed that the matrix verb raises to C in QI. In (40b) and (41b), the verb raises across the quantifier to C, and thus the secondary predication relation between the floated quantifier and the raised verb cannot be properly established. Since (40b) and (41b) are QI, it is proper to describe this fact as a generalization: The quantifier floating is unacceptable in QI. I have no objection against Collins (1997) on this point. As it is approved of, if the quantifier float is acceptable in a sentence, we can relate the fact with the hypothesis that the subject of the clause is originally in a VP- internal position (See Sportiche (1988), Koopman and Sportiche (1991) among others). However, failure of quantifier floating does not necessarily and unequivocally mean the non-application of subject raising. I have pointed out that the argumentation on those data by Collins (1997) is not borne out from theoretical and logical viewpoints in section 2. Furthermore, I have shown that the phenomenon in question is unacceptable because of the violation of the Predication Condition Constraint on Floated Quantifiers proposed by Takami (1998). Thus, the data shown by Collins (1997) can neither motivate the structural position of the matrix subject in QI, nor counterexemplify my claim made in section 2 that the subject DP moves overtly to [Spec, T] in QI.

4.2. The Transitivity Constraint In this subsection I will consider the "transitivity constraint" of QI, observed by Collins (1997). According to this constraint, QI never occurs in the double object constructions, as illustrated in the following examples: (42) a. "I am so happy," Mary told John. b. *"I am so happy," told Mary John. (Collins (1997: 50)) (43) a. "What is the exchange rate?" Mary asked of John. 298 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 16, NO. 2 (1999)

b. "What is the exchange rate?" asked Mary of John. (Collins (1997: 50)) (44) a. "What is the exchange rate?" Mary asked John. b. "What is the exchange rate?" asked Mary John. (Collins (1997: 50)) Apparently, (42) and (43) seem to show that the verb tell does not allow QI while the verb ask allows QI. However, the contrast between (43) and (44) shows that the unacceptability of (42b) is related with the double object construction. The most relevant difference between (43) and (44) is that the former is the dative construction, while the latter is the double object construction. In (43), QI is allowed when the verb ask is used in the dative construction. On the other hand, as shown in (44), QI is not allowed when the verb ask is used in the double object construction. The same observation holds true of (42).12 Since the transitivity constraint is closely related to the unique- ness of the double object construction, it is desirable to reduce this constraint to a more general constraint on the double object construction. In the current literature, it is well known that the double object construction is unique in that the indirect object (or the dative object) is strictly restricted against A'-moving from the base-generated position. Observe the following sentences: (45) *Whom did John give a book? (Jackendoff and Culicover (1971: 399)) (46) *Harry, John wrote the song. (Hornstein and Weinberg (1981: 77)) (47) *Nobody who I send an email message ever replies. (Hudson (1992: 258)) (48) *John wants the name of whoever Sam wrote a song. (Hornstein and Weinberg (1981: 77)) (49) *It's Harry (that) John wrote a song. (Hornstein and Weinberg (1981: 77))

12 Based on the revised analysis of the double object construction by Collins and Thrainsson (1993, 1995), Collins (1997: 58-61) accounts for this constraint by Mini- mality. ON THE QUOTATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH 299

(50) *Anne gave a present [the person she liked most of all]. (Hudson (1992: 256)) (45) shows that the indirect object cannot be moved from its base- generated position by wh-movement, (46) Topicalization, (47) Relati- vization and (48) Free Relativization. In addition to this, as (49) shows, to focalize the indirect object in a Cleft sentence is not allowed, either. Furthermore, the restriction of the indirect object movement is observed not only in the leftward movement but in the rightward movement. (50) shows that the Heavy NP Shift of the bracketed indirect object is prohibited. It is often claimed that because English is relatively morphologically poor in Case agreement, overt linear order makes up for the deficiency of this, and therefore that the overt displacement of an element is greatly restricted. Suppose that in the double object construction the indirect object DP has a PF feature [+clitic], which must be checked by the matrix verb after Spell-Out in PF for convergence." In general, cliticization is subject to an adjacency condition; "the clitic must be immediately adjacent to its host in order for cliticization to be possible (Radoford (1997: 222))." Therefore, the indirect object must always be adjacent to the matrix verb in the double object construction. In QI the matrix verb overtly raises to C and then the subject DP intervenes between the verb and the indirect object, and therefore the indirect object cannot be adjacent to the matrix verb. The PF feature [+clitic] left unchecked, and the unacceptability results. The same explanation holds true of the examples in (45)-(50).

5. Conclusion This article has been concerned with both theoretical and empirical aspects of QC in English. I have argued against Collins (1997) and proposed that the matrix subject of QC overtly raises to the specifier position of T, regardless of QI. Sufficient evidence and argumenta- tions have been presented here to make a strong case that in the quotative construction the quote occupies the specifier position of com-

13 I am deeply indebted to Heizo Nakajima (personal communication)for this analysis. 300 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 16, NO. 2 (1999) plementizer in the matrix clause, and that the matrix verb moves into the head position of the complementizer in QI. The displacement of these elements is a morphologically-driven obligatory operation. In addition, it has also been demonstrated that the matrix verb in QC is semantically light on account of the quote in sentence-initial position. The more semantically vacuous the verbs are, the more similar they are to the functional categories in syntactic behavior. From this viewpoint, one may say that the matrix verb in QC is a semi-auxiliary, and therefore that the syntactic position which it occupies is the same as auxiliaries. Hence, the inverted word order ("Q," VS) is acceptable in addition to the canonical one ("Q," SV).

REFERENCES

Banfield, Ann (1973)“Narrative Style and the Grammar of Direct Speech,” Foundations of Language 10, 1-39. Birner, Betty (1992) The Discourse Function of Inversion in English, Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University. Bobaljik, Jonathan (1995) Morphosyntax: The Syntax of Verbal Inflection, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Burzio, Luigi (1986) Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach, Reidel, Dordrecht. Branigan, Phil and Chris Collins (1993)“Verb Movement and the Quotative Construction in English,”MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 18, 1-13. Chomsky, Noam (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Chomsky, Noam (1986) Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Chomsky, Noam (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Collins, Chris (1997) Local Economy, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Collins, Chris and Phil Branigan (1997)“Quotative Inversion,”Natural Lan- guage & Linguistic Theory 15, 1-41. Collins, Chris and Hoskuldur Thrainsson (1993)“Object Shift in Double Ob-

jest Constructions and the Theory of Case,”MIT Working Papers in Lin- guistics 19, 131-174. Collins, Chris and Hoskuldur Thrainsson (1996)“VP-Internal Structure and Object Shift in Islandic,”Linguistic Inquiry 27, 391-444. Green, Georgia (1980)“Some Whereforces of English Inversions,”Language 56, 582-601. Haegeman, Liliane eds. (1996) Elements of Grammar: Hand Book of Genera- tive Syntax, Kluwer, Dordrecht. Hornstein, Norbert and Amy Weinberg (1981)“Case Theory and Preposition ON THE QUOTATIVE CONSTRUCTION IN ENGLISH 301

Stranding,”Linguistic Inquiry 12, 55-91. Hudson, Richard (1992)“So-called‘Double Objects’and Grammatical Rela- tions,”Language 68, 251-276. Jackendoff, Ray and Peter Culicover (1971)“A Reconsideration of Dative Movements,”Foundations of Language 7, 397-412. Jespersen, Otto (1924) The Philosophy of Grammar, George Allen & Unwin, London. Kayne, Richard (1984) Connectedness and Binary Branching, Foris, Dordrecht. Koopman, Hilda and Dominique Sportiche (1991)“The Position of Subjects,” Lingua 85, 211-258. Leech, Geoffrey and Jan Svartvik (1994) A Communicative Grammar of Eng- lish, Longman, London. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (1995) Unaccusativity: At the Syntax- Lexical Semantics Interface, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. McCawley, James (1998) The Syntactic Phenomena of English, 2nd ed., Uni- versity of Chicago Press, Chicago. McCloskey, James (1996)“Subjecthood and Subject Positions,”in Haegeman, Liliane eds. (1996), 197-235. Nakajima, Heizo (1995)“Tajyuushugo toshiteno Bashyoku Touchi (Locative Inversion as Multiple Subject),”Eigo Seinen 162. No. 1, 18-22. Partee, Barbara Hall (1973)“The Syntax and Semantics of Quotation,”A Fest- schrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Stephen Anderson and Paul Kiparsky, 410-418, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Perlmutter, David (1978)“Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypoth- esis,”BLS 4, 157-189. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman, London. Radford, Andrew (1997) Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A Mini- malist Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rizzi, Luigi (1996)“The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery,”in Haegeman, Lilianeeds. (1996),281-337. Roberts, Ian (1998)“Have/Be Raising, Move F, and Procrastinate,”Linguistic Inquiry 29, 113-125. Ross, John (1973)“Slifting,”The Formal Analysis of Natural Languages, Pro- ceedings of the First Internal Conference, ed. by Maurice Gross, Morris Halle and Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger, 133-169, Mouton, The Hague.

Sportiche, Dominique(1988)“A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corol-

laries for Constituent Structure,”Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425-449.

Takami, Ken-ichi (1998)“Passivization, Tough-Movement and Quantifier

Float: A Functional Analysis Based on Predication Relation,”English Linguistics 15, 139-166. Travis, Lisa (1984) Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation, Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Zwicky, Arnold (1971)“In a Manner of Speaking,”Linguistic Inquiry 2, 223- 302 ENGLISH LINGUISTICS, VOL. 16, NO. 2 (1999)

232.

SOURCES OF EXAMPLES

Dahl, Roald“A Piece of Cake,”Stories by Roald Dahl, ed. by Alan Turney (1996), 94-111, Longman Asia ELT, Hong Kong. Foster, Edward Morgan (1910) Howards End, Penguin Books, London. Huth, Angela“Last Love,”Meetings and Partings, ed. by Michael Marland (1984), 27-40, Nan'nu-do, Tokyo. Mason, Bobbie Ann“Coyotes,”American Minimalism: Four Short Stories, ed. by Torahide Koh and Tokiya Nakajima (1997), 26-52, Asahi Press, Tokyo. Maugham, Somerset“Mackintosh,”Collected Short Stories: Volume 1 (1963), 144-174, Penguin Books, London. Maugham, Somerset“The Fall of Edward Barnard,”Collected Short Stories: Volume 1 (1963), 46-74, Penguin Books, London. Maugham, Somerset“The Happy Couple,”Collected Short Stories: Volume 1 (1963), 235-247, Penguin Books, London. Wain, John“Mort,”Meetings and Partings, ed. by Michael Marland (1984), 40-65, Nan'nu-do, Tokyo. Walker, Alice“A Sudden Trip Home in the Spring,”Stories by Alice Walker, ed. by Alan Turney (1997), 14-31, Longman Asia ELT, Hong Kong.

3875 Kamihongo Matsudo-shi Chiba 271-0064