Against construction-based parameters: the case of preposition stranding
Renato Lacerda, UConn ([email protected])
In this talk I will use preposition stranding (PS) as a case study to debate the nature of
parameters in the Principles & Parameters model, arguing against the view that they are
determined in terms of availability/absence of a given type of construction. PS is often claimed
to be the opposite of pied-piping in the setting of the Preposition Stranding Parameter (PSP),
which is here contested through the observation of data from Brazilian Portuguese (BP), where
both PS and piped-piping can be found in appropriate contexts. This in-between status shows
that a one-setting-per-language PSP renders BP unlearnable. I will show how two important
generalizations are challenged. First, Stowell (1981, 1982) proposes that PS is possible only in
languages that allow verb-particle constructions. In BP, however, what we find is an in-between
semi-productivity. V-particle constructions can be found (cf.(1)-(2)), but are not as productive
as in a true PS language like English. And PS is restricted to either complex prepositional
expressions (cf.(3)) or a contrastive reading on the preposition (cf.(4)). Importantly, functional
prepositions (cf.(5)) cannot be stranded. Problems for Stowell’s generalization: if (1) and (2)
are indeed V-particle constructions, why is PS not generalized? If (1) and (2) are not V-particle
constructions, how does the child learning BP ever get to (3) and (4), if V-particle is a necessary
condition for PS? Second, Kayne’s (1981) proposal is that prepositional complementizers (PC)
are possible only in PS languages (cf. (6)). In (a colloquial variety of) BP, however, PC
constructions are found (cf.(7)), which incorrectly predicts BP to be a generalized PS language.
Interestingly, the C-preposition in (7) cannot be stranded (cf.(5)). The BP data thus show that
there cannot be one single parameter unifying PS and V-particle or PC constructions.
Although constructions are useful for typological/descriptive purposes, they are not
entities of the grammar. Parameters are, and thus must be blind to constructions. In the
Minimalist Program, the tools of the grammar are operations and lexical items. It is
uncontroversial that languages differ in their lexicon, thus I will propose a lexicon-oriented
analysis of PS in BP, which dispenses with the (empirically inaccurate) PSP. I will assume
Bošković’s (2012) contextual approach to phases, in which “the highest projection in the
extended projection of a major (i.e. lexical) category functions as a phase”, having in mind the
conditions imposed on extraction by the PIC and anti-locality. I will also adopt my recent
(2012) proposal for the implementation of focus encoding, in which a focalized constituent in
BP is represented by the addition of one more layer on top of such constituent (say, an FP to
be checked against a Rizzi-style Foc0). In the contextual approach to phases, FP is now the
uppermost layer of the domain in (8): the extraction of YP thus occurs through Spec,FP,
complying with both the PIC and anti-locality. When no focus is present, XP is the phase and
the PIC/anti-locality conspiracy prevents YP from being extracted. In the acquisition process,
the child’s default hypothesis would be that no extra layer is present unless evidence for it is
seen, given that each layer is a lexical item to be learned and/or activated. In English, a PS
sentence reveals the extra (functional) layer (by necessity of the grammar). In BP, the extraction
of DP out of simple prepositions such as contra is clearly informationally marked, which allows
for the child to learn the role of FP. One-layered PPs only allow stranding in cases of contrastive
reading in BP, so it follows naturally why functional prepositions cannot be stranded: they have
no semantic content and hence cannot be contrasted. A borne out prediction is that complex
prepositions do not need an FP layer to allow stranding, as the DP is naturally far enough from
the top projection in that domain (cf.(3), no contrast required). The acquisition of PS and piedpiping in BP is thus predicted to go on a par with the acquisition of lexicon and pragmatics,
with no typological effort expected from the child, a welcome result in the MP. However
arguing specifically against the PSP, I hope to convey the idea that banning all constructionbased parameters from the grammar is a worthwhile enterprise.
1
(1)
O João jogou fora o livro.
the John threw out the book
‘John threw out the book’
(2)
O João pôs o time pra cima.
the John put the team to up
‘John cheered the team up’
(3)
Que oceano a Maria voou por cima?
which ocean the Mary flew through up
‘Which ocean did Mary fly over?’
(4)
a.
b.
Contra quem a Maria votou?
against who the Mary voted
Quem a Maria votou contra?
who the Mary voted against?
‘Who did Mary vote against?’
(5)
*Quem você deu o livro pra?
who you gave the book to
‘Who did you give the book to?’
(6)
John wants (for) Mary to leave.
(7)
a.
b.
(8)
Pied-piping
P-stranding
(With (b) presupposing someone Mary voted for)
[CP Pra mim fazer isso] é difícil.
for me to.do this is hard
‘For me to do this is hard’
A Maria pediu/falou [CP pra mim sair].
the Mary asked/spoke for me to.leave
‘Mary required/said that I (should) leave’
Foc0 …
[FP [XP [YP ] ] ]
2