Download CAS LX 522 Syntax I

CAS LX 522
Syntax I
Small clauses
n
Last time we talked about “small clauses” like:
n
I find [Bill intolerable].
I consider [Bill incompetent].
I want [Bill off this ship]. (Immediately!)
n
Week 10b. VP shells
n
n
Let’s talk about a few more aspects of small
clauses and infinitival complements that might
make the discussion more convincing.
Small clauses vs.
infinitival complements
n
All of the small clause examples from last time seem to
be able to be paraphrased as examples with infinitival (to
be) complements as well.
n
I find [ AP Bill intolerable].
I find [ IP Bill to be intolerable].
n
n
To be or not to be
n
Suggestive against the idea that small clauses are
really camouflaged IPs, it turns out that there’s a
difference in meaning between the “small
clauses” and “infinitival complements”.
n
n
n
So, we might wonder if small clauses are really just
infinitival complements with a “silent” to be.
n
n
n
To be or not to be
n
n
n
I found the chair comfortable.
I found the table three-legged.
The semantic distinction is very subtle, but
it feels like I found DP AP means that the
only evidence for DP being AP is a
subjective judgment, not independently
determinable. Still, there is a difference.
I found the table to be three-legged.
I found the table three-legged.
I found him to be 6-feet tall.
I found him 6-feet tall.
I found her to be amused by cartoons.
I found her amused by cartoons.
Small clauses
n
Also, not all small clauses are of this sort,
though. Consider:
I saw [him fall].
I saw [them upset].
n I saw [her in the garden].
n
n
n
There’s no to be missing in any of these.
1
Small clauses
n
So, I saw her in the garden
would look like this.
ECM
n
IP
Bill finds me to be
intolerable.
DP j
I¢
I
I
VP
[past]
V¢
DP
tj
V PP
see
P¢
DP
her
DP
P
in the garden
IP
DP j
I¢
Bill
I
VP
[pres]
V¢
DP
tj
IP
V
find
I¢
DP i
me
I
VP
to
AP
V
be
DP
A
intolerable ti
IP
ECM
n
Bill wants for me to
eat cake.
DP j
I¢
Bill
I
VP
[pres]
V¢
DP
tj
CP
V
want
IP
C
for
I¢
DP i
me
I
VP
to
V¢
DP
ti
DP
V
eat cake
Passives again
n
Another thing that argues in
favor of the “ECM” analysis of
how embedded subjects of
small clauses and infinitival
subjects check Case features:
DP
n
Recall how the active sentence
Bill ate the sandwich relates to
the passive sentence The
sandwich was eaten.
The sandwich was eaten.
n
In the passive, the verb has
had its external q-role
removed (and with it, the
ability to check objective
Case), so the Theme
argument moves into SpecIP,
satisfying the EPP (and
checking Case).
And, speaking
of dolphins…
n
I consider them to
be intelligent.
n
Consider assigns two
q-roles, the external
Experiencer q-role,
and the internal
Proposition q-role.
I checks Nom Case
with the subject,
consider checks Obj
Case with them.
IP
DP j
I¢
the
Vi+I
sandwich was
VP
V
ti
VP
V q DP
eaten tj
Bill
I¢
I
VP
[past]
q V q DP
eat
the
sandwich
Passives again
n
IP
n
IP
DP j
I¢
I
I
VP
[pres]
V¢
DP
tj
IP
V
consider
DP i
them
I
to
I¢
VP
V
be
AP
A
intelligent
DP
ti
2
And, speaking
of dolphins…
n
They are considered
to be intelligent.
n
Passivizing consider
removes the external
Experiencer q-role,
and the ability to
check Obj Case.
IP
T
DP j
I¢
they
Vj+I VP
are
VP
V
tj
IP
V
considered
T
T
T
T
I¢
DP
t i¢
I
to
T
T
AP
A
intelligent
DP
ti
Giving trees to ditransitives
n
n
n
Giving trees to ditransitives
You may recall our
discussion of q-theory,
where we triumphantly
classified verbs as
coming in three types:
n
n
You may also recall that we
believe that trees are binary
branching, where:
n
n
Intransitive (1 q-role)
Transitive (2 q-roles)
Ditransitive (3 q-roles)
n
Theta roles go to
obligatory arguments,
not to adjuncts.
n
n
Fantastic, except that these
things just don’t fit
together.
We know what to do with
transitive verbs.
But what do we do with
ditransitive verbs? We’re
out of space!
Problems continue…
n
n
VP
SUB
V
Syntactic objects are formed
by Merge.
There’s just one complement
and one specifier.
And our discovery that
subjects should start out
within the projection of their
predicate, so that q-role
assignment is strictly local
(assigned to either a
complement or a specifier).
Giving trees to ditransitives
n
T
T
VP
V
be
n
T
n
V¢
n
I showed Mary to herself.
*I showed herself to Mary.
I introduced nobody to anybody.
*I introduced anybody to nobody.
OBJ
n
This tells us something about the
relationship between the direct and
indirect object in the structure. (What?)
3
Problems continue…
Some clues from idioms
n
n
The OBJ c-commands the PP.
But how could we draw a tree
like that?
n
Even if we allowed adjuncts to
get q-roles, the most natural
structure would be to make the
PP an adjunct, like this, but that
doesn’t meet the c-command
requirements.
n
VP
*
Often idiomatic meanings are associated
with the verb+object complex—the
meaning derives both from the verb and
the object together.
We take this as due to the fact that the
verb and object are sisters at DS.
n
SUB
V¢
V¢
V
n
n
PP
OBJ
Idioms in ditransitives
n
Bill threw a baseball.
Bill threw his support behind the candidate.
Bill threw the boxing match.
So V and PP are sisters…
In ditransitives, it seems like this happens
with the PP.
n
Beethoven gave the Fifth Symphony to the world.
n Beethoven gave the Fifth Symphony to his patron.
n Lasorda sent his starting pitcher to the showers.
n Lasorda sent his starting pitcher to Amsterdam.
n Mary took Felix to task.
n Mary took Felix to the cleaners.
n Mary took Felix to his doctor’s appointment.
n
n
Larson (1988) took this as evidence that
the V is a sister to the PP at DS.
Yet, we see that on the surface the OBJ
comes between the verb and the PP.
n
n
Mary sent a letter to Bill.
Where is the OBJ? It must c-command the
PP, remember. Why is the V to the left of
the OBJ at SS?
V¢
V
Where’s the V? Where’s the OBJ?
Where’s the V? Where’s the OBJ?
n
n
n
We already know how to deal with this
kind of question if what we’re talking
about is the verb coming before the
subject in Irish, or the verb coming before
adverbs in French…
The answer: The verb moves over the OBJ.
But to where?
V¢
V
PP
PP
n
n
Larson’s answer to this is obvious,
in retrospect. If we’re going to have
binary branching and three
positions for argument XPs (SUB,
OBJ, PP), we need to have another
vP
XP above the VP.
Since the subject is in the specifier
v¢
SUB
of the higher XP, that must be a VP
too.
VP
v
Ditransitive verbs really come in two
parts. They are in a “VP shell”
OBJ V¢
structure.
V
PP
4
Where’s the V? Where’s the OBJ?
n
The higher verb is a “light verb” (we’ll write it
as vP to signify that)—its contribution is to
assign the q-role to the subject. The lower verb
assigns the q-roles to the OBJ and the PP.
n
Bill gave a book to Mary and a record to Sue.
n
Bill gavei [VP a book ti to Mary]
and [ VP a record ti to Sue].
vP
SUB
Sending a letter to Bill
n
So that covers Mary sent a letter to Bill, by saying
there are two VPs, send head-moves from the
lower one to the upper one, over the OBJ:
n
Mary senti a letter ti to Bill.
v¢
n
VP
v
OBJ
V¢
V
PP
little v…
n
Unaccusatives vs. unergatives
So this is the structure that we came up
with to get the word order right in a
binary-branching tree.
n
n
John gave a book to Mary.
vP
n
n
We determined there must be a “little v”,
a light verb, to which the V moves. This
little v assigns the Agent q-role. So
English has a v in its lexicon that assigns
the Agent q-role.
SUB
v¢
n
n
OBJ
V¢
V q DP
fall
Finite I can
check Case
Bill
Unaccusative
V cannot
check Case
Walk, dance, laugh
PP
VP shells
DP i
VP
Unergatives: Have one, external q-role.
n
n
Let’s go back and consider VP shells a bit in connection
with unaccusatives.
n
The ice melted.
The boat sank.
The door closed.
IP
Bill
(Sometimes called “ergative” too)
Fall, sink, break, close
VP
v
Last week’s tree
for “Bill fell”
I
[past]
Recall from a week ago that there are two types of
single-argument (intransitive) verbs in terms of their
theta grid with respect to whether they have an
external q-role to assign or not.
Unaccusatives: Have one, internal q-role.
n
V
IP
Note: You can also say Mary sent Bill a letter, which is
one of the major things Larson was concerned about.
Radford provides an analysis of this in the book, we’ll
come back to it.
I¢
I
[past]
V
fall
n
VP
n
ti
n
VP
V
melt
DP
the ice
The ice, the boat, the door are all Themes, suggesting that the
verbs are unaccusative—the argument starts in object
position.
5
VP shells
n
n
VP
V
melt
n
n
So far, so good.
Now, Bill melted the ice.
The ice is still Theme. The verb is still melt.
DP
the ice n Uniform Theta Assignment Hypothesis
(UTAH): Two arguments which fulfill the
same thematic function with respect to a
given predicate must occupy the same
underlying position in the syntax.
n
VP shells
n
VP
V
melt
n
DP
the ice
So the ice must still be a complement of
the verb underlyingly.
n
In Bill melted the ice what have we done?
We’ve added a causer, an agent.
Bill caused [the ice to melt].
“Bill was the agent of an ice-melting.”
n
We’ve already supposed that the light
verb v assigns the Agent q-role in
ditransitives…
n
It isn’t much of a jump to think of v as
actually having a contribution to the
meaning, something like CAUSE.
VP shells
vP
v¢
DP
Bill
v
VP
n
Bill melted the ice.
n
So, something like this, where the
main verb moves up to the light
verb (which we had evidence for in
ditransitives).
n
V
melt
DP
the ice
n
Later, Bill will move to SpecIP, to
check Case and satisfy the EPP.
Why does V move to v? We’ll assume
that it does this for a reason
analogous to why V moves to I (for
French verbs, say). Might be
universal, actually. “v needs a V to
move to it”.
VP shells
n
Note. Even though v may carry a “causative”
meaning, this does not mean that it is synonymous
with the English word “cause”. There is a
difference in the “directness” of the causal
connection. What it really seems closest to is
“Agent”.
The water boiled.
Bill boiled the water
n
Bill caused the water to boil
n
n
n
n
Billi I ti v+boil the water
Bill cause TP
Avoiding redundancy
n
So, we have v, which assigns an Agent q-role.
n
We have Agent q-roles in clauses other than Bill
sank the boat and Bill gave a boat to Edward.
We also have an Agent q-role in sentences like Bill
ate the sandwich.
n
n
n
n
Are there two ways to assign the Agent q-role?
What if v is the way the Agent q-role is assigned?
What would Bill ate the sandwich look like?
Bill ate the sandwich
vP
n
Well, we already saw essentially
what it would look like. It looks
just like Bill melted the ice.
n
v assigns Agent to Bill, V (eat)
assigns Theme to the sandwich.
v¢
DP
Bill
v
VP
V
eat
DP
the
sandwich n Also note: The subject is still in
“SpecVP” except that we’ve
sharpened our picture of what
“VP” is. A “VP” with an Agent is
really a vP and a VP.
6
Bill lied.
n
In fact, things get weirder…
Consider Bill lied.
That’s got an Agent, so it’s got a v.
n
So, it could look like this.
n
But lie is really (also?) a noun, right?
Is this a coincidence?
n
vP
n
v¢
DP
Bill
v
VP
lie
Bill lied?
n
vP
v
Radford rolling the
ball down the hill
n
n
V
roll
n
If we allow the ball to get
the Theme q-role in the
complement of V in The
ball rolled and the specifier
of VP in The ball rolled
down the hill, then we
have to think about about
what UTAH is really
supposed to mean.
ti
That is, we would have v+N, which
would come out to mean
something like ‘Bill was the agent
of a lie.’
n
If that’s right, it means v really is its
own thing, and moreover, it’s
responsible for giving these verbs
their verby nature.
For The ball rolled down the
hill, we need to add a PP,
which Radford does this
way.
The ball is still getting the
only q-role that roll has.
n
But note that it is now in the
specifier of VP.
IP
DP i
I¢
The ball I
[past]
VP
DP
ti
V¢
V
PP
roll down
the hill
Radford rolling the
ball down the hill
n
IP
DP i
n
n
Radford rolling the
ball down the hill
n
NP
lie
Radford rolling the
ball down the hill
Radford introduces the idea
IP
of v with the sentences We
rolled the ball down the hill
DP i
I¢
and The ball rolled down the
The ball I
VP
hill.
[past]
Roll is an unaccusative verb
in The ball rolled. Like The ice
melted or Bill fell.
One proposal out there about this
kind of verb is that it really is built
from the noun.
v¢
DP
Bill
(How about Bill danced, Bill walked,
Bill sneezed, …)
n
I¢
The ball I
[past]
VP
n
DP
ti
V
roll
V¢
PP
down
the hill
Let’s think of it this way:
For a V that assigns a
Theme q-role, the first DP
Merged with it gets the
Theme q-role.
The PP down the hill is
Merged before the ball,
but it isn’t a DP.
IP
DP i
I¢
The ball I
[past]
VP
DP
ti
V
roll
V¢
PP
down
the hill
7
UTAH?
n
n
In fact, we also supposed that the
Theme q-role was assigned to the
specifier of VP in Bill gave a book
to Mary.
The limited evidence we have so
far seems to suggest that PP’s are
Merged first if there is a PP to be
Merged. (Notice too that in Bill
gave a book to Mary, the PP is
getting a q-role, but it is still
Merged first)
UTAH…
n
(UTAH): Two arguments which fulfill the
same thematic function with respect to a
given predicate must occupy the same
underlying position in the syntax.
vP
SUB
v¢
n
v
Uniform Theta Assignment Hypothesis
VP
OBJ
V¢
V
So, the “same underlying position in the syntax”
is really to be understood as being the same
from the perspective of Merge— e.g., the first
DP Merged with the predicate.
PP
T
Giving Mary a book
n
In this connection, we might now
be able to understand a little bit
about Bill gave Mary a book.
n
Notice that here, there’s no PP,
vP
and the order of the arguments
appears to be reversed. But maybe SUB v¢
it still satisfies the UTAH with
respect to the Theme q-role, since
VP
v
the Theme is still the first DP
Merged with V.
V¢
IO
n
(What to say about the Goal is less
clear—not the first DP?)
T
T
T
V
T
T
T
T
T
T
OBJ
8