Download GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

CAS LX 522
Syntax I
Week 14b. Bonus section:
Articulating the tree
Using the microscope
CP

We started
off with a
relatively
simple
structure,
with a CP,
an IP, a VP.
DPj
what
C
Ii+C
IP
did
DPk
I
Pat
I
VP
ti
DP
V
tk
V
DP
eat
tj
Using the microscope
CP

As we
DPj
looked
what
closer, we
had reason
to think that
the “VP” was
more
complicated,
involving a
“little v”.
C
Ii+C
IP
did
DPk
I
Pat
I
ti
DP
tk
vP
v
Vm+v
eat
VP
V
tm
DP
tj
Using the microscope
CP

But for many
DPj
purposes, we
what
don’t need to
focus on the
minute details of
the VP. In those
situations, you’ll
find that people
still write VPs like
this, with the
understanding
that the vP is
there.
C
Ii+C
IP
did
DPk
I
Pat
I
VP
ti
DP
V
tk
V
DP
eat
tj
Using the microscope
CP

What we’re going
DPj
to do now is put
what
“IP” under the
microscope,
where we’ll find it
is more
complicated. For
most purposes,
we can continue
to think about it as
“IP”, but this is a
preview of where
syntax can go
from here.
C
Ii+C
IP
did
DPk
I
Pat
I
VP
ti
DP
V
tk
V
DP
eat
tj
Let’s go back to French…

Jean mange souvent des pommes.
Jean eats often of.the apples
‘Jean often eat apples.’
DPj
Jean
*Jean souvent mange des pommes.

Recall that this was one of our
early examples showing verbmovement to I. French and
English differ in whether they
move finite main verbs to I.
IP
I
Vi+I VP
mange
tj
V
AdvP
V
souvent
ti
PP
des pommes
French negation


This happens with respect to
negation too—the finite verb
move to the left of negative
pas…
Jean ne mange pas des pommes.
Jean NE eat NEG of.the apples
‘J doesn’t eat apples.’
*Jean pas ne mange des pommes.

But fortunately or unfortunately,
things are more complex that
this…
IP
DPk
I
[Neg+Vi]j+I NegP
ne mange
pas Neg
tj
VP
tk
V
ti
PP
French and a problem…

Finite verbs (main verbs and auxiliaries) in French precede
adverbs and precede negative pas—they must move to I.

Now let’s look at infinitives, first the auxiliaries…



N’être pas invité, c’est triste.
NE beinf NEG invited, it’s sad
‘Not to be invited is sad.’
Ne pas être invité, c’est triste.
NE NEG beinf invited, it’s sad
‘Not to be invited is sad.’
Nonfinite auxiliaries can either move past pas (to I) or not, it
appears to be optional.
French and a problem…

+Fin aux: V Adv, V neg : Moves to I.
+Fin verb: V Adv, V neg : Moves to I.
–Fin aux: (V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V): (Opt.) Moves to I.

Nonfinite main verbs…and adverbs…





Souvent paraître triste pendant son voyage de noce, c’est rare.
Often appearinf sad during one’s honeymoon, it’s rare
‘To often look sad during one’s honeymoon is rare.’
Paraître souvent triste pendant son voyage de noce, c’est rare.
Appearinf often sad during one’s honeymoon, it’s rare
‘To often look sad during one’s honeymoon is rare.’
Nonfinite main verbs can either move past adverbs or not;
optional like with auxiliaries.
French and a problem…

+Fin aux:
+Fin verb:
–Fin aux:
–Fin verb:

Nonfinite main verbs…and negation…






V Adv, V neg : Moves to I.
V Adv, V neg : Moves to I.
(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V): (Opt.) Moves to I.
(V) Adv (V), …
Ne pas sembler heureux est une condition pour écrire des romans.
NE NEG seeminf happy is a prerequisite for writeinf of.the novels
‘Not to seem happy is a prerequisite for writing novels.’
*Ne sembler pas heureux est une condition pour écrire des romans.
NE seeminf NEG happy is a prerequisite for writeinf of.the novels
‘Not to seem happy is a prerequisite for writing novels.’
Nonfinite main verbs can not move past negation.
French and a problem…




+Fin aux/verb:
V Adv, V neg
Moves to I.
–Fin aux:
(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V)
(Opt.) Moves to I.
–Fin verb:
(V) Adv (V), neg V
Moves over adv not neg??
So we have the whole pattern—
and we didn’t predict it. Where
could the verb be moving? A head
can’t adjoin to an XP, it has to be
moving to a head. (Must remain
X-bar compliant)
IP
I
I
NegP
pas Neg
Neg VP
ne
DPk
V
AdvP V
souvent
V
PP
French and a problem…



+Fin aux/verb:
V Adv, V neg
Moves to I.
–Fin aux:
(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V)
(Opt.) Moves to I.
–Fin verb:
(V) Adv (V), neg V
Moves over adv not neg??

We need there to be a head here in the
tree for the verb to move to…

That means we need to insert a whole
phrase (heads always head
something)…
IP
I
I
NegP
pas Neg
Neg VP
ne
DPk
V
AdvP V
souvent
V
PP
IP
A new FP




+Fin aux/verb:
V Adv, V neg
Moves to (F, then to) I.
–Fin aux:
(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V)
(Opt.) Moves to (F, then to) I.
–Fin verb:
(V) Adv (V), neg V
(Opt.) Moves to F
I
I
Now we have a place for nonfinite main
verbs to move, past adverbs but under
negation. They can move to F.
NegP
pas Neg
Neg
ne
FP
F
F
VP
DPk
V
AdvP V
souvent
V
PP
What is FP?

Vous avez pris les pommes.
you have taken the apples

3MSG 3FPL
3MSG 3FSG
‘You took the apples.’

Vous les avez prises.
you them have taken
3PL
‘You took the apple.’

3FPL
Quelles pommes avez-vous
prises?
Which apples
have you taken
3FPL
3FPL
‘Which apples did you take?’
Vous l’avez prise.
you it have taken
3SG
‘You took them (3fpl).’

Vous avez pris la pomme.
you have taken the apple
3FSG
‘You took it (3fsg).’

Quelle pomme avez-vous prise?
Which apple
have you taken
3FSG
3FSG
‘Which apple did you take?’
A new FP



As the verb and the
object make their way
up the tree, assuming
the object moves to
SpecFP, there is a
point where the verb
and object are in a
Spec-head
configuration.
This is how the verb
would check its object
agreement features.
Based on this, FP is
generally called AgrOP.
Object agreement
phrase.
CP
DPi
C
C
IP
DPk
I
I
FP
t i
F
F
VP
tk
V
V
ti
AgrOP



AgrOP, Object agreement
phrase.
As the verb moves up to I, it
has to stop off in AgrOP (the
Head Movement Constraint
requires it), forming
successively more complex
heads.
 V
 AgrO+V
 I+[AgrO+V]
But why does the object have
to move to SpecAgrOP?
CP
DPi
C
C
IP
DPk
I
I
AgrOP
t i
AgrO
AgrO
VP
tk
V
V
ti
AgrOP





Why does the object have to
move to SpecAgrOP?
What makes DPs move? We
know the subject moves. Partly
for the EPP, but partly to get
Case.
The subject gets Case in
SpecIP, so we know Case can
be assigned to a specifier.
What if we revise our notion of
how objects get Case and say
that they too get Case in a
specifier, of AgrOP? Then it
would have to move.
Plus, it’s pleasingly symmetrical
CP
DPi
C
C
IP
DPk
I
I
AgrOP
t i
AgrO
AgrO
VP
tk
V
V
ti
ECM



…
AgrOP can solve a
IP
serious problem we had
in English too…
DPi
I
Here’s the current way we Bill
I
VP
analyzed ECM sentences,
where me gets Case from
ti
V
want because me is in the
“government radius” of
V
IP
want.
wants
The thing is, the embedded
DPk I
1sg
subject actually acts like it’s
I
VP
in the matrix clause
to
somewhere.
tk
V
leave
ECM v. BT





Mary wants her to leave.
Bill considers himself to be a genius.
Before we said that the binding domain for
anaphors and pronouns was a clause (say, IP).
Her and himself above act like they are in the
higher clause with the matrix subject.
Our options are basically to


complicate the definition of binding domain in Binding Theory
suppose the object has really moved out of the embedded
clause.
IP
ECM



There is an AgrOP
and
Normal objects
generally go there
and
ECM subjects act
like objects
Then

I
I
If


DPi
Bill
We can suppose
that ECM subjects
move there.
AgrOP
DPk
AgrO
1sg
AgrO VP
ti
V
V
IP
wants
I
tk
I
to
VP
tk
V
leave
IP
ECM



DPi
Bill
Great! Except…
But this isn’t the
surface word order.
 *Bill me wants to
leave.
Where is BT checked?
When is it important that
pronouns be free and
anaphors be bound?
I
I
AgrOP
DPk
AgrO
1sg
AgrO VP
ti
V
V
IP
wants
I
tk
I
to
VP
tk
V
leave
IP
ECM





What’s special about ECM
subjects?
Case!
All accusative objects
move to SpecAgrOP
(covertly in English if they
don’t need to move on) to
“check” Case. They
appear with a Case, but it
needs to be verified by
AgrO at LF.
This is the standard
interpretation of AgrOP.
Also another example of
“covert” movement between
Spellout and LF.
DPi
Bill
I
I
AgrOP
DPk
AgrO
1sg
AgrO VP
ti
V
V
IP
wants
I
tk
I
to
VP
tk
V
V
leave
A moment of silence for Case
under government


Let’s take stock here for a second.
French told us:



Why do they have to stop in AgrOP?


There needs to be an FP between NegP and VP.
Objects that move past FP have to stop there (inducing object
agreement)—so FP is AgrOP.
They need Case. So AgrOP is what’s responsible for accusative Case.
But V used to be responsible for that!



Yet now we have a more symmetrical solution; Case is always assigned
in the specifier of a functional projection. (just about, anyway)
And we have no more need for the “government radius” in Case
assignment now that ECM is taken care of too.
Plus, we have evidence from binding theory that objects do seem to
move by LF to someplace outside the clause in ECM constructions.
A moment of silence for Case
under government





This is a step forward.
We have a simpler theory (Case is assigned in only one way,
we don’t need the strange-looking construct of “government
radius”).
We have an account for why ECM subjects act like they’re in
the higher clause by LF.
Moreover, we have yet another reason to think that there is an
LF level.
So what does it mean for a verb to “assign accusative case”?


Sadly, this is one place where we pay for the elegance elsewhere—”verb
that assigns accusative case” is now another name for “verb that has an
AgrOP above it.”
In Syntax II, we’ll see a potential solution to even this apparent
inelegance, but for now we just assume that transitive verbs are those
with an AgrOP above them.
An AgrO you can see?


Recall from earlier this semester that Irish is VSO, but yet
seems to be SVO underlyingly:

Phóg Máire an lucharachán.
kissed Mary the leprechaun
‘Mary kissed the leprechaun.’

Tá Máire ag-pógáil an lucharachán.
Is Mary ing-kiss the leprechaun
‘Mary is kissing the leprechaun.’
If an auxiliary occupies the verb slot at the beginning of
the sentence, the main verb appears between the subject
and verb. Otherwise, the verb moves to first position.
Northern Irish

So, basically everything points to Irish being a headinitial language except…

Ba mhaith liom [Seán an abairt
aL
scríobh]
C good with.1S S.ACC the sentence.ACC PRT write
‘I want S to write the sentence.’
S writing the sentence is good with us (lit.)
 (cf. also I want him to meet me)

Ba mhaith liom [Seán fanacht]
C good with.1S S.ACC wait
‘I want S to wait.’
Morphology on French verbs




Past, varying persons: je mange-ai-s
‘eat’
tu mange-ai-s
il mange-ai-t
Fut, varying persons: je mange-er-ai
‘eat’
tu mange-er-as
il mange-er-a
Tense morphology is inside and separate
from subject agreement morphology.
Kind of looks like after tense, another,
subject-agreeing morpheme is attached…
C
AgrSP?




AgrOP, Object
agreement phrase.
AgrSP, Subject
agreement phrase?
Pleasingly symmetrical!
Complex heads:
 V
 AgrO+V
 T+[AgrO+V]
 AgrS+[T+[AgrO+V]]
C
AgrSP
DPk AgrS
AgrS
TP
T
ti
T
AgrOP
DPk AgrO
AgrO
VP
tk
V
V
ti
C
Split-INFL

The assumption of this
structure is sometimes
referred to as the “SplitINFL” hypothesis; the
INFLectional nodes
have been “split” into
subject agreement,
tense, and object
agreement.
C
AgrSP
AgrS
AgrS
TP
T
T
AgrOP
AgrO
AgrO
VP
V
DP
V
DP
The EPP
& NOM





C
C
We said before the T needs a specifier,
that’s the essential content of the EPP.
Plus, we said before that this is where
NOM is assigned.
Now there is AgrSP as well.
AgrOP is responsible for ACC.
In a symmetrical world, seems like
AgrSP should be responsible for NOM.
So, now that (kind of mysterious) double
motivation for moving to SpecIP has
been clarified: The subject has to move
to both SpecTP and SpecAgrSP, but
each movement happens for a different
reason. T for EPP, AgrSP for NOM.
AgrSP
AgrS
AgrS
TP
T
T
AgrOP
AgrO
AgrO
VP
V
DP
V
DP
Adopting the Split-INFL
hypothesis

Lots of good syntax has been done both adopting the
Split-INFL hypothesis (trees contain AgrSP, TP, AgrOP)
or not (trees contain only IP).

For many things, it doesn’t matter which you choose—
analyses can be directly translated into a Split-INFL tree
or vice-versa.

Where it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter, but sometimes
it matters.
Adopting the Split-INFL
hypothesis

The general program is that every dissociable piece
of the structure should get its own place in the
lexicon, its own functional head…





Subject agreement is basically common across verbs, an
independent piece.
Tense too is an independent piece.
And object agreement
And… plural marking… and progressive -ing,
aspectual -en, …
In Syntax II, we’ll spend a lot of the semester looking
at places in the tree where functional projections
need to be added.
Split-INFL

CP
C
In recent literature, almost
everything you read will
C
AgrSP
make this assumption, that
cross-linguistically, the
AgrS
clause is minimally
constructed of these
AgrS TP
projections, generally in
this order:
T





CP
AgrSP
TP
AgrOP
VP
T
AgrOP
AgrO
AgrO
VP
CP
Split-INFL

C
Another line of thought
(described by Radford in ch. 9)
puts them in a different order
(with AgrOP between vP and
VP), but the same idea:







CP
AgrSP
TP
vP
AgrOP
VP
There are various empirical
and theoretical advantages
and disadvantages to this
order; they jury’s still out.
C
AgrSP
AgrS
AgrS
TP
T
T
vP
v
v AgrOP
AgrO
AgrO VP









