Download Pi-lan

Chapter 5
A:
1. Bill went to the theatre.
DS: [S Bill [Aux -ed] [VP go [PP to the theatre]]]
AH: [S Bill [Aux t]i [VP [V go [Tense]i ] [PP to the theatre]]]
SS: [S Bill [Aux t]i [VP went to the theatre]]
The sentence is derived by satisfying all the conditions of affix-hopping. Move Tense
(from Aux) to V, provided
i) Aux does not dominate a Modal or Neg
ii) V has the feature specification [-AUX]
iii) VP does not dominate a V with the feature specification [+AUX]
iv) Aux is adjacent to VP which dominates the targeted V
2. Mary did not see the play.
DS: [S Mary [Aux [Tense] [Neg not]] [VP see the play]]
DoS: [S Mary [Aux [Tense] [do] [Neg not]] [VP see the play]]
SS: [S Mary [Aux [Tense] [do] [Neg not]] [VP see the play]]
In this sentence, Affix-hopping is blocked from applying because of the presence of Neg
under Aux. That is, Tense is stranded with the main verb, and a piece of semantic junk
‘Do’ needs to be inserted into the relevant phrase marker in order to support dependent
Tense when it is stranded.
3. Has John organized a party?
DS: [S’ [+Q] [S John [Aux Tense] [VP [V have] [VP organize a party]]]]
VR: [S’ [+Q] [S John [Aux [have]i [Tense]] [VP [V t]i [VP organize a party]]]]
AR: [S’ [Aux [have]i [Tense]]j [S John [Aux t]j [VP [V t]i [VP organize a party]]]]
SS: [S’ [Aux [have]i [Tense]]j [S John [Aux t]j [VP [V t]i [VP organize a party]]]]
The interrogative is derived in terms of the predictable interaction of V-raising and
Aux-raising in the situation where all the relevant conditions are satisfied.
4. Did Bill know about the party?
DS: [S’ [+Q] [S Bill [Aux Tense] [VP know about the party]]]
AR: [S’ [Aux Tense]i [S Bill [Aux t]i [VP know about the party]]]
DoS: [S’ [Aux [Tense]i [do]] [S Bill [Aux t]i [VP know about the party]]]
SS: [S’ [Aux [Tense]i [do]] [S Bill [Aux t]i [VP know about the party]]]
The interrogative is derived in terms of first Aux-raising and then Do-support in the
situation where the targeted Comp is [+Q] and dependent Tense is stranded with the main
verb by Aux-raising. And Do-support serves as last resort to supporting Tense.
5. Should Bill have told John?
DS: [S’[+Q] [S Bill [Aux [Tense] [Modal should]] [VP have told John]]]
AR: [S’ [Aux [Tense] [Modal should]]i [S Bill [Aux t]i [VP have told John]]]
SS: [S’ [Aux [Tense] [Modal should]]i [S Bill [Aux t]i [VP have told John]]]
The interrogative is derived in terms of Aux-raising in the situation in which the targeted
Comp is [+Q] and is situated in a root clause.
B:
1. *Bill plays frequently football.
The sentence is excluded because the raising of the verb with the feature specification
[-AUX] leads to the situation in which the VP-adverb intervenes between the verb and its
object that violates PS rule on the relationship between VP and VP-adverb. That is,
VP-adverbs typically occur in the leftmost or rightmost positions of VP.
2. *John plays not football.
The sentence is excluded because the verb has the feature specification [-AUX] and
cannot be raised to Aux to support Tense.
3. *Did Bill be in the stadium?
The interrogative is excluded because Do-support is not needed in the situation where the
[+Q]-Comp is satisfied with the interaction of V-raising and Aux-raising. For the
interaction, the verb must have the feature specification [+AUX].
4. *Plays Bill football?
The interrogative is derived from the rule ordering V-raising first and Aux-raising then.
However, it is excluded not because of the rule ordering, but because of the lexical
properties of the V with the feature specification [-Aux]. For V with the feature
specification [-AUX], an interrogative is derived by Aux-raising first, and Do-support is
then triggered to support stranded Tense.
5. *Does Bill will see the match?
The interrogative is excluded because Do-support is not needed in the situation where the
[+Q]-Comp is satisfied with Aux-raising that the Aux dominates a Modal ‘will.’
C:
1. The argument for the rule ordering of V-raising first and Aux-raising then
Has John solved the problem?
DS: [S’ [+Q] [S John [Aux Tense] [VP [V have] the problem]]]
VR: [S’ [+Q] [S John [Aux [V have]i [Tense]] [VP [V t]i the problem]]]
AR: [S’ [Aux [V have]i [Tense]]j [S John [Aux t]j [VP [V t]i the problem]]]
SS: [S’ [Aux [V have]I [Tense]]j [S John [Aux t]j [VP [V t]i the problem]]]
The interrogative is derived in terms of the ordering; the first is V-raising because the
Aux does not dominate a Modal and the verb with the feature specification [+AUX] is
raised to Aux to support Tense; the second is Aux-raising that satisfies the [+Q]-Comp.
Finally, the surface structure emerges of the interrogative.
On the other hand, if the ordering is violated, the interrogative cannot be correctly
derived. For example, if the ordering is to first apply Aux-raising to satisfying the
targeted [+Q]-Comp, then it destroys the environment of V-raising for supporting
stranded Tense which has been raised to the targeted Comp, and there will be no category
to support stranding Tense just as the following interrogative is excluded.
*John have solved the problem?
DS: [S’ [+Q] [S John [Aux Tense] [VP [V have] [VP solved the problem]]]]
AR: [S’[Aux Tense]i [S John [Aux t]i [VP [V have] [VP solved the problem]]]]
VR: [S’ [Aux Tense]i [S John [Aux t [have]j]i [VP [V t]j [VP solved the problem]]]]
SS: [S’ [S John have solved the problem]]
2. The argument for the rule ordering of Aux-raising first and Do-support then
Did John solve the problem?
DS: [S’ [+Q] [S John [Aux Tense] [VP solve the problem]]]
AR: [S’ [Aux Tense]i [S John [Aux t]i [VP solve the problem]]]
DoS: [S’ [Aux [Tense]i [do]] [S John [Aux t]i [VP solve the problem]]]
SS: [S’ [Aux [Tense]i [do]] [S John [Aux t]i [VP solve the problem]]]
The interrogative is derived in terms of the ordering; the first is Aux-raising due to the
fact of [+Q]-Comp. Yet, that results in stranding Tense under Comp, thereby triggering
Do-support; the second is Do-support that supports Tense under Aux because the Aux
does not dominate a Modal and the verb has the feature specification [-Aux]. Finally, the
surface structure emerges of the interrogative.
On the contrary, Do-support is applied before Aux-raising is, the ordering is empirically
impossible. As a matter of fact, Do-support does not appear when Affix-hopping occurs
for positive sentences with VP that does not dominate V with the feature specification
[+Aux]. In other words, Tense would not become stranded somehow (i. e. supported by a
Modal or through Affix-hopping) in this situation, and does not need Do to support it. If
we attempt to apply Do-support first and Aux-raising then, the derived interrogative is
excluded.
*Do Bill solved the problem?
DS: [S’ [+Q] [S Bill [Aux Tense] [VP solve the problem]]]
AH: [S’ [+Q] [S Bill [Aux t]i [VP [V [solve] [Tense]i] the problem]]]
DoS: [S’ [+Q] [S Bill [Aux [t]i [do]] [VP [V [solve] [Tense]i the problem]]]
AR: [S’ [Aux [t]i [do]]j [S Bill [Aux t]j VP [V solve] [Tense]i the problem]]]
SS: *[S’ [do] [S Bill solved the problem]]
D:
i) Will John not go to the stadium?
ii) Was Mary not in the play?
iii) Did Bill not join the party?
iv) Won’t John go the stadium?
v) Wasn’t Mary in the play?
vi) Didn’t Bill join the party?
The negative questions in (i-iii) seem to violate the transformational rule Aux-raising.
However, they are still grammatical. The reason might be that Neg is regarded as a free
morpheme for the interrogatives in (i-iii) while being stranded with Modal, AUX verb, or
Do. In contrast, Neg is viewed as a bound morpheme while being attached with Modal,
AUX verb, or Do through contracted form under the targeted Comp after Aux-raising. It
seems that the lexical properties of Neg vary with a sentence context.
E:
i)
*Can John wonders if Bill fix the car?
ii)
*Can John thinks (that) Bill fix the car?
These two interrogatives are excluded by violating the condition that the targeted Comp
is situated in a root clause.
F:
i)a. John DOES like football.
i)b. The children DO like ice-cream.
ii)a. *John DOES have seen Bill.
ii)b. John HAS seen Bill.
When there is a focus under Aux, the focus also blocks Tense from hopping onto V inside
VP, just as the blocking function of Neg. For this moment, Do-support is triggered to
support both stranded Tense and focus reading. However, Do-support is not needed when
AUX verb can be raised to Aux to support both Tense and focus reading. That is why the
sentence in (iia) is excluded, and the sentence in (iib) is grammatical.
G:
i)a. John does not like football, but Bill does.
i)b. DS: John does not like football, but [S Bill [Aux Tense] [VP like football]]
i)c. SS: John does not like football, but Bill does.
ii)a. *John has not seen Mary, but Bill does (have).
ii)b. John has not seen Mary, but Bill has.
The sentence in (i) involves VP-deletion first and Do-support then. It is because
VP-deletion leads to stranded Tense that triggers the application of Do-support. Here,
Do-support is again proved to be last resort. If the ordering is reverse, the derived
sentence is excluded as follows:
*John does not like football, but Bill do (likes football).
However, the sentence in (iia) is excluded by the application of such an ordering. It
indicates that when V has the feature specification [+AUX], the ordering should be
V-raising first for supporting Tense, and then VP-deletion. That results in the grammatical
sentence in (iib).