1.3.3. Aboh's refinements
Aboh (2009) doesn't deny the VP-shell approach to SVCs. He
rather argues for an extended VP-shell wherein the object merges as complement
of V2. Unlike Collins (1997, 2002) who stresses on control and posits the
argument sharing hypothesis (ASH) as a necessary condition on verb series, Aboh
puts forward object movement in SVCs.
In Clause structure and verb series, Aboh strongly
argues that the ASH is not a condition on verb series since it is freely
violated by series where V1 and V2 don't share an internal argument such as (8)
below. He therefore claims that object sharing doesn't and can't exist in
syntax.
(8) S?ìsiìnuì kuÌn
moìtoÌ ceÌ s?ì aÌdoì
Sesinu drive
car 1SG.POSS hit wall
«Sesinu drove my car hit the wall» ( Gungbe, Aboh
2009:5)
Aboh proposes an unified analysis for V1-XP-V2 and V1-V2-XP
series built from Kwa as well as Khoisan empirical data. He claims that the
space between V1 and V2 holds more syntactic positions than previously assumed
because in some serializing languages such as Edoì some constituents
namely middle-field adverbs appear between the object and V2 as in (9).
27
(9) OÌzoì duÌnmwuìn
èmaÌ [ gié!gié] khién Ozo V1-pound yam
quickly V2-sell
«Ozo pounded the yam and quickly sold it»
(Edoì, Stewart 1998:34)
From this rationale, Aboh, analyzing instrument and comitative
series in Kwa, noticed that V1 and V2 don't form a complex constituent neither
in syntax nor at the LF interface. There are some I-type functional projections
between the two verbs, V1 and V2 belong to two different fields of the clause
structure. This observation leads to the conclusion that V1 heads a projection
(AspP) in a higher functional zone, whereas V2 merges in the lexical field
within the VP-shell. The V1 being merged in a functional projection (AspP)
doesn't have an internal theta-role to assign but selects for complement within
which the object is being licensed. In the SVC with one internal argument
below, the V2 moves from its merged position to the lower Asp° and the EPP
feature under this head triggers the movement of the object as illustrated
below:
(10) a. AÌsiìbaì 4à
lésiÌ 4ù
Asiba cook/prepare/make rice eat
«Asiba cooked/prepared/made rice and eat» (Gungbe, Aboh
2009: 8)
b.
In the SVCs with two internal arguments, it is the first
internal argument which is introduced by vPAPPL that raises to the specifier
position of the lower AspP as shown below:
28
(11) a. Sésiìnuì kuÌn
moìtoÌ ceÌ s?ì aÌdoì
Sesinu drive car 1SG.POSS hit wall
«Sesinu drove my car hit the wall» ( Gungbe, Aboh
2009:5)
b.
From these empirical facts, Aboh claims that crosslinguistic
variation in SVCs derives from the interaction between object movement, which
is triggered by EPP licensing, and verb movement that leads to V1-XP-V2 or
V1-V2-XP series. Thus, he concludes that the serializing parameter deals with
the lexicon rather than with core syntax as it has been claimed by some
scholars.
After having given a brief presentation of approaches to SVCs,
the next section focuses on some literature on ICVs.
| 
