ABSTRACT
In this chapter, we will investigate another peculiar property of complex predicate constructions: Long-distance head movement. The phenomenon of long-distance head movement that we primarily focus on is known as clitic climbing, in which a clitic is extracted out of an embedded clause (Kayne (1975), Rizzi (1982), Burzio (1986), Lujan (1980), among others). Consider the following Italian sentences:
(1) a. Mario vuole risolverlo da solo. Mario wants to-solve-it by himself 'Mario wants to solve it by himself
b. Mario 10 vuole risolvere da solo. Mario it wants to-solve by himself 'Mario wants to solve it by himself
(Rizzi (1982:4»
In (la), the clitic selected by the embedded verb appears adjacent to it. In (lb), on the other hand, the clitic is extracted out of the embedded clause, and appears adjacent to the matrix verb, rather than the embedded verb. 1 The process of clitic climbing, as in (l b), is not possible with most verbs. A clitic cannot be extracted out of tensed clauses, as shown in (2b); nor can it be extracted out of ordinary control complements, as shown in (3b):2
(2) a. Credo che Gianni la presentera a Francesco. believe that Gianni her will-introduce to Francesco 'I believe that Gianni will introduce her to Francesco'
b. *La credo che Gianni presentera a Francesco. her believe that Gianni will-introduce to Francesco
(3) a. Piero decidera di parlarti di parapsicologia. Piero will-decide to-speak-to you about parapsychology 'Piero will decide to speak to you about parapsychology'
b. *Piero ti decidera di parlare di parapsicologia. Piero you will-decide to-speak about parapsychology
(Rizzi (1982:3))
Kayne (1989a) convincingly argues that c1itics are heads, being adjoined to a functional head, by showing that intervening heads prevent clitic movement, which is expected as a "minimality" effect in the sense of Rizzi (1990). For example, clitic climbing is blocked by the presence of a complementizer, or negation, as shown in (4) and (5), respectively:
(4) a. Non so se farli NEG know if to-do-them 'I don't know whether to do them'
(Kayne (l989a:246), see also Rizzi (1982:47))
(5) a. Gianni vuole non vederli. Gianni wants NEG to-see-them 'Gianni wants not to see them'
b. *Gianni Ii voule non verdere. Gianni them wants NEG to-see 'Gianni wants not to see them'
(Kayne (1989a:243), see also Lujan (1980))
Kayne (1989a) argues that the ungrammaticality of (4b) can be naturally accounted for by assuming that se 'if occupies C position, which prevents the c1itic as a head from moving through that position on its way to the matrix INFL.3 As for the blocking effect of negation, Roberts (1993a) argues that this can be explained by a modified version of Relativized Minimality (Rizzi (1990)), assuming that both c1itics and NEG are the same type of head.4 These facts
Under this view of clitics, the phenomenon of clitic climbing presents a theoretical challenge: How can the apparent violation of locality, between a clitic and the position originally associated with it, be accounted for? This leads us to consider how the local nature of head movement is determined. It is well known that head movement is a strictly local process (Travis (1984), Koopman (1984), Chomsky (1986), Baker (1988a». Baker (1988a), for example, convincingly illustrates this point by investigating several syntactic phenomena involving head movement, such as Noun Incorporation. Baker shows that Noun Incorporation is a strictly local process, satisfying the Head Movement Constraint (HMC) of Travis (1984), a descriptive generalization which roughly states that a head must raise to the closest head.s Consider the following example from Southern Tiwa:
(6) Ti-seuan-p'akhu-kumwia-'am-ban wisi te-khaba-'i Is:A-man-bread-sell-CAUS-PAST two Is:C-bake-SUBORD 'I made the man sell the two breads that I baked'
(Allen, Gardiner, and Frantz (1984:306»
As Baker (1988a) notes, if long-distance Noun Incorporation were allowed, adjoining the lower object to the matrix verb, (6) could potentially be ambiguous, also meaning 'I made the bread sell the man ... ,' which apparently it does not. The unambiguous interpretation of (6) suggests that the lower object must be incorporated into the lower verb, but not the matrix verb.
