Pollock's Verb Movement Diagnostics #
@cite{pollock-1989}
Connects the Minimalist verb movement parameter
(Theories/Syntax/Minimalism/Formal/HeadMovement/VerbMovement.lean) to the
theory-neutral verb movement and do-support data in SubjectAuxInversion.lean.
Structure #
§1 Pollock diagnostics: Each of Pollock's 12 examples is paired
with the theory's prediction via verbPrecedesDiagnostic. French examples
(V raises) are grammatical when V precedes the diagnostic; English examples
(V in situ) are ungrammatical in the same configuration.
§2 Do-support: Each do-support datum is paired with
needsDoSupport. Lexical verb contexts that need do-support are grammatical
when do-support is used and ungrammatical without it.
§3 Convergence: All four diagnostics agree for any parameter setting.
§4 Anticorrelation: Do-support and verb raising are complementary.
Each theorem pairs the datum's acceptability judgment with the verb
movement theory's prediction. French examples have french (= .raises),
English lexical verb examples have englishLexical (= .inSitu).
ex_p01 "Aime-t-il Marie?" — French lexical V inverts (V raises to C via T)
ex_p02 "*Likes he Mary?" — English lexical V cannot invert (V in situ)
ex_p03 "Jean embrasse souvent Marie" — French V raises past adverb
ex_p04 "*John kisses often Mary" — English V cannot raise past adverb
ex_p06 "*Jean souvent embrasse Marie" — French adverb cannot precede V (V must raise, so Adv > V order is ungrammatical)
ex_p07 "Jean n'aime pas Marie" — French V raises past negation
ex_p08 "*John likes not Mary" — English V cannot raise past negation
ex_p09 "Mes amis aiment tous Marie" — French V raises past FQ
ex_p10 "*My friends love all Mary" — English V cannot raise past FQ
ex_p11 "John has often eaten pizza" — English auxiliary raises past adverb, patterning with French lexical verbs
Each do-support datum is paired with needsDoSupport. Grammatical
do-support examples confirm that English lexical verbs need it; ungrammatical
examples confirm that auxiliaries do not.
ex27 "Where does Sue eat fish?" — do-support in question (lexical verb needs it)
ex28 "*Eats John pizza?" — lexical verb cannot invert directly
ex29 "What did Mary buy?" — do-support in wh-question
ex30 "Where is Sue eating fish?" — auxiliary inverts directly (raises)
ex31 "*Where does Sue be eating fish?" — do-support with auxiliary is ungrammatical
ex32 "Sue does not eat fish" — do-support in negation (lexical verb)
ex33 "*Sue not eats fish" — lexical verb cannot raise past negation
ex34 "Sue is not eating fish" — auxiliary raises past negation directly
ex35 "*Sue does not be eating fish" — do-support with auxiliary blocked
ex36 "She likes him, doesn't she?" — tag question with do-support
ex37 "*She likes him, likesn't she?" — tag without do-support blocked
ex38 "She runs faster than he does" — VP ellipsis with do-support
ex39 "Sue DOES eat fish" — verum focus with do-support (lexical verb)
ex40 "She IS eating fish" — verum focus, auxiliary raises directly
ex41 "*She DOES be eating fish" — do-support with auxiliary blocked in verum
All four diagnostics agree for any parameter setting. This is the core of Pollock's argument: the four tests are not independent observations but consequences of a single parameter (V-raises vs. V-in-situ).
For any parameter setting, all four diagnostics give the same answer.
Do-support and verb raising are complementary: a parameter setting that raises V never needs do-support, and a setting that keeps V in situ always needs it. This follows from the theory: do-support exists because V cannot raise.
Do-support is needed iff V does not raise past negation.