Linguistics 2016; 54(6): 1307–1354 Antonio Fábregas and Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández* Extraction from gerunds and the internal syntax of verbs DOI 10.1515/ling-2016-0029 Abstract: This paper provides an analysis of transparent gerunds in Spanish, as in ¿Qué llegó [silbando qué] Juan? ‘What arrived [whistling what] Juan?’, using a decomposition of Aktionsart in a series of syntactic heads. A traditional analysis of these secondary predicates as adjuncts would undermine well-established syntactic principles restricting movement and extraction. We argue that these transparent gerunds should be analyzed as syntactic constituents merged as part of the syntactic projections associated with Aktionsart. More precisely, they qualify as RhemePs – assuming Ramchand’s First Phase Syntax system – thus allowing their arguments to be extracted. Well-attested differences between Spanish and English gerunds will be explained in our analysis by proposing that the Spanish gerund projects as PathP (given it carries a path preposition), whereas English gerunds are simply RhemeP (lacking any sort of preposition). Keywords: Aktionsart, extraction, complex predicates, gerunds, process, Spanish 1 The decomposition of Aktionsart Aktionsart is one of the main criteria to classify lexical verbs in linguistic analysis. Throughout the years, it has become clear that rather than atomic notions, labels such as activity, accomplishment or achievement have to be decomposed at some level and treated as complex structures built with primi- tives like causation, become, etc. In Pustejovsky (1991), notions such as causa- tion and result are independent primitives in the lexical semantics of predicates (cf. Jackendoff 1983; Levin and Rappaport-Hovav 1995). Harley (1995) proposes different flavors of heads, differentiated by the semantic contribution of the events they express. Other authors equally decompose Aktionsart, but do it syntactically: Pesetsky (1995), Kempchinsky (2000) and Ramchand (2008), among others. Beyond the disagreement, however, we find the common *Corresponding author: Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández, Departamento de Filología Inglesa (Lengua Inglesa), C/ Palos de la Frontera s/n, 41004 Sevilla, Spain, E-mail: [email protected] Antonio Fábregas, Institute of Language and Culture, University of Tromsø-Norway’s Arctic University, 9037 Tromsø, Norway, E-mail: [email protected] 1308 Antonio Fábregas and Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández proposal that what we interpret as an event is in fact a structure with internal complexity. This article uses event-decomposition to analyze a pattern of data that presents difficulties for standard approaches to how movement is restricted: cases where gerunds in Spanish, such as the underlined constituents in (1), allow extraction of one of their constituents (Borgonovo and Neeleman 2000).1 (1) a. ¿Qué llegó [silbando qué] María? what arrived-3SG Whistling María? ‘What did María arrive whistling?’ b. ¿Qué entró [diciendo qué] Juan? what entered-3SG saying Juan? ‘What did John came in saying?’ These gerunds do not have an argumental nature, nor are they analyzable as forming periphrases with the main predicate. Analyzing them as adjuncts would seriously undermine well-established syntactic principles: at least since Huang’s (1982) Condition on Extraction Domains it has been established that adjuncts are islands, and the generalization seems to be robust in Spanish for true adjuncts (adverbial subordinate clauses):2 (2) *¿Qué entró Juan [para que María nos dijera qué]? what entered-3SG Juan so that María us told-3SG ‘What did John came in to say?’ 1 As Liliane Haegeman (p.c.) points out, infinitival clauses can also show the same properties of extraction as gerunds: What did you come back to do? We are not dealing with infinitive clauses in this work. However, our intuition is that this type of clauses with a preposition to and an infinitive is also integrated in one single structural space with the finite verb (presumably as an argument of the head denoting the process of the event), thereby allowing extraction. 2 The validity of CED has been called into question since it was proposed in the 80’s. See Haegeman et al. (2014) for an overview of the problems that the CED has to face and for a proposal based on the decomposition of the island constraint into different rules. Also, Ignacio Bosque (p.c.) points out to us that there are sentences like el juguetei que tu hija se pondrá muy contenta [si le compras ti] ‘the toyi that your daughter will be very happy [if you buy her ti]’, which are apparent extractions from a conditional clause. However, we disagree with this claim. Such constructions are ungrammatical if the alleged extraction involved a prepositionally marked constituent *el chico al que tu hija se pondrá muy contenta si le presentas ti, ‘the boy a-that your daughter will be very happy if you introduce her ti’. This suggests that here we have no movement and that the analysis should involve base-generation of the putative antecedent in a peripheral position. Extraction from gerunds 1309 Borgonovo and Neeleman (2000) treat cases like (1), and argue for an analysis where the gerund – which, following Borgonovo (1994), is always an adjunct in Spanish – is L-marked; this L-marking makes extraction possible. Other accounts, such as Demonte (1987), posit an operation of reanalysis (Zwart 1993; Stowell 1995) and use a modified definition of c-command to account for similar cases. Finally, Truswell (2007) has proposed that the pattern should receive a purely semantic analysis. Our account takes seriously the notion of event-decomposition and applies it to these cases to show that the gerund constituent is projected as one of the subevents in the verbal domain. In implementing this idea, we follow Ramchand’s (2008) syntactic account of event structure, where each subevent corresponds to one head. We argue that this treatment accounts for cases like (1) without operations like reanalysis, and captures the Aktionsart restrictions and the argument restrictions of these constructions without the need to postu- late independent (and additional) operations. This is the core of our proposal. Assume that the maximal amount of aspectual material that can be syntactically projected inside the verbal domain is [Init [Proc [Rheme [Res]]]] (as in John ran into the water), as Ramchand (2008) proposes. We will argue that the Spanish transparent gerunds in (1) project as Path Phrases in the rheme position of that syntactic sequence. In (3) the gerund occupies the position of Rheme Object – an entity whose internal parts are identified with those of the main predicate. (3) InitP DP Init Init ProcP DP Proc Proc RhemeP finite verb DP Rheme Rheme ... Gerund structure Morphophonologically, the gerund and the main verb look like two distinct verbs because there are two distinct lexical exponents, but as far as syntax is concerned, there is only one verbal structure. Thus, the gerund is not an adjunct 1310 Antonio Fábregas and Ángel L. Jiménez-Fernández and it is not an auxiliary verb – because it is not lexicalizing functional structure above the lexical verb –.3 Extraction of a constituent out of the gerund structure is allowed because it is movement of a constituent contained inside the struc- tural space of the only verbal structure in the clause. This is, in our account, the reason that there are transparent gerunds: the gerund can project as one of the members in the verbal sequence [Init [Proc [Rheme [Res]]]]. Language-specific differences depend on the nature of the gerund in each language. The Spanish gerund always involves a Path preposition, which only allows it to project as Rheme when integrated with the verb; the English gerund does not involve such preposition, so its distribution is more flexible. The paper is structured as follows: in Section 2, we describe transparent gerunds in Spanish in more detail, and highlight their differences with English. In Section 3, we review a purely semantic analysis of the phenomenon and point out the problems that it faces in Spanish. In Section 4, we start with the analysis, identifying the syntactic heads that are necessary to define lexical verbs and gerunds in the syntax; we also present the differences between the Spanish and the English gerund in Subsection 4.4. In Section 5, we put the pieces together and in Section 6 we show how the resulting configurations can explain, without further assumptions, the constraints noted in Section 2. 2 Empirical data: Extraction from gerunds and its restrictions in Spanish Let us concentrate on the structures in (1). In this section we show that the gerunds cannot be analyzed as part of a periphrasis or as arguments of the main verb. These gerunds do not behave in the expected way if they formed a peri- phrasis with the main verb. The gerund is not selected by the main predicate, since its absence does not trigger any change in meaning or ungrammaticality (compare 4 with 5). 3 Another potential option would be that the gerund is treated as a Cinquean verbal head allowing restructuring (Rizzi 1982). There are two reasons why we do not find this approach plausible for our data. The first one is that given the hierarchical ordering (Cinque 1999), the gerund would precede the main predicate; however, the order between main verb and gerund is rigidly Verb-Gerund. The second is that, from what we know from bona fide restructuring cases, this would force at least one of the two predicates to acquire a semi-auxiliary flavour, aspectual or modal; this is not the case in our examples, where both verbs keep their conceptual meaning and cannot be reanalysed as modal or aspectual heads. Extraction from gerunds 1311 (4) Juan está *(fregando los platos). Juan is-3SG washing the dishes ‘Juan is washing the dishes.’ (5) María llegó (silbando una canción). María arrived-3SG whistling a song ‘María arrived whistling a song.’ Note also that if the main verb was selecting the gerund as an argument, its optionality would come as a surprise.