Locative Inversion and Economy:

Here I presuppose that the reader is familiar with Collins’s (1997) argument for local economy and against global economy on the basis of Locative Inversion (LI). I consider the following three questions concerning LI. (A) Are a sentence involving LI (LI sentence) and the corresponding sentence with an ordinary word order (non-LI sentence) based on the same Numeration (N)? (B) If the answer to (A) is negative, is it possible to derive from the N for a non-LI sentence a sentence with an inverted order (“pseudo LI” sentence)? (C) If the answer to (B) is negative, what blocks the “pseudo LI” sentence? A negative answer to (A) entails that an LI sentence and its non-LI counterpart do not compete for economy considerations, which in turn entails that the possibility of LI does not undermine global economy. Furthermore, I show the necessity of global economy by tackling the questions (B) and (C). Let us begin by considering the question (A). Here I propose the following. (1) a. The preverbal PP in LI is first moved to [Spec, T] to check off the EPP-feature. b. The preverbal PP is moved further to the clause-initial topic position. c. The postverbal DP remains in its VP-internal "base-generated" position. d. The postverbal DP is interpreted as the focus. Let us show the evidence for (1a). First, the preverbal PP can undergo Raising-to-Subject (On the hill appears to be located the cathedral.). Second, like a negative element contained in a subject but unlike one contained in a topic, a negative element contained in the preverbal PP can license a negative polarity item (2). This shows that, although it finally moves to the topic position, the PP moves through [Spec, T]. Third, (1a) helps explain the impossibility of unergative verbs in LI (*Onto the ground spit the man), though the details are not shown here. (2) a. Fathers of few children have any fun. b. *Into none of the classrooms any of the students walked. c. Into none of the classrooms walked any of the students. Let us now turn to (1b), on the assumption that the topic position is the A’-specifier position of a functional category (F) taking a finite TP as its complement. First, like an ordinary topic, the preverbal PP in LI induces an island effect (3). This is explained in terms of Relativized Minimality, because [Spec, F] is an A’-position by assumption. Second, like topicalization (*I want [, this book, to read]), LI is impossible in non-finite clauses (4). Third, like a topic, the preverbal PP cannot be crossed by I-to-C movement (5). (3) a. *How do you think that, [FP this problem F , John solved twh]? b. *In which park did you say that [FP in the foliage fluttered a number of birds twh]? (4) *I believe through the hole to have run the rat. (5) a. *Did (,) this problem (,) John solve? b. *Did into the room walk John?