Download LEL 1 - Linguistics and English Language

LEL 1
Syntax 7: Auxiliaries in English and sentence
structure
Outline
• Sentences cannot always be equated with VPs. Sentences
with an auxiliary verb must contain more structure.
• Auxiliary verbs and main verbs in English are in different
positions in the sentence structure.
• Embedded clauses must contain even more structure.
• Main clauses in which the finite verb precedes the subject
must contain the same amount of structure as embedded
clauses.
Sentence structure revisited
Recap: It is possible to analyse simple sentences like Jane saw
Mary or The man read a book as VPs.
In accordance with X-bar theory, V is the head of the sentence in
that case, the subject is the specifier of the VP and the object
is the complement.
VP (= S)
V’
Subj
V
Obj
Sentences with an auxiliary verb
Can sentences with an auxiliary verb be analysed just as VPs as
well?
Pauline can sing the most difficult songs.
The doctor will see the patient tomorrow.
The weather may turn bad.
Gerald has read that book seven times.
They could if the auxiliary and the main verb formed one
complex verb together, a compound.
But that is extremely unlikely.
Why main verb and auxiliary do not
form a compound
Main verb and auxiliary can be split by other syntactic material:
Can Pauline sing that song properly?
The doctor will probably not see the patient tomorrow.
A true Verb-Verb compound such as stir-fry can never be split in
this way:
*Stir will Pauline fry those vegetables.
*Pauline fried the vegetables stir again.
Why main verb and auxiliary do not
form a compound (cont’d)
In an auxiliary verb – main verb sequence, it is the left-hand verb (the
auxiliary) that can be inflected for tense:
Pauline has to sing those songs.
*Pauline to have sings those songs.
The patient is seen by the doctor.
*The patient been sees by the doctor.
In a Verb-Verb compound, it is the right-hand verb that can be inflected
for tense:
Pauline stir-fried the vegetables yesterday.
*Pauline stirred-fry the vegetables yesterday.
She stir-fries too much for my liking.
*She stirs-fry too much for my liking.
Properties of English modal
auxiliaries
An analysis for sentences with auxiliaries suggests itself when
we look more closely at some of the properties of English
modal auxiliaries in particular.
First, modals can only appear in forms carrying finite inflection.
They do not occur as non-tensed forms, such as infinitives,
past participles or present participles.
*To can build a house is a great asset.
*The sun seems to will shine.
*Paul has never could do such a thing.
*John’s maying to go to America is surprising.
Properties of English modal
auxiliaries (cont’d)
A second property of English modals is that they must occupy a
position in the sentence that is somewhat further to the left
than the position occupied by main verbs.
Iris will paint the door.
Iris will not paint the door.
*Iris not will paint the door
*Iris paints not the door.
Iris does not paint the door.
Arthur could quickly open the tin.
*Arthur opened quickly the tin.
Arthur quickly opened the tin
The I-position and the IP
On the basis of these properties of modals, let us assume that
sentences with a finite auxiliary contain an extra position to the left
of the VP: the Infl-position, commonly abbreviated to I-position.
In accordance with the X-bar theory for phrase structure, this position is
the head of an Infl Phrase, commonly abbreviated to IP. The VP is
in the complement position of this IP.
IP
I’
spec
I
VP
V’
spec
V
compl
Subject movement
If sentences are IPs, and finite auxiliaries are in the I-position,
then the subject in English must be in the specifier position of
the IP, as it usually precedes the finite auxiliary:
Iris will not paint the door.
Arthur could quickly open the tin.
But semantically speaking, the subject appears to act as the
specifier of the Verb Phrase: it expresses the element that the
Verb Phrase predicate says something about.
So there is a paradox: the subject appears in the specifier of the
IP, but it is interpreted as the specifier-of-the-VP.
Subject movement (cont’d)
Paradox: the subject appears in the specifier of the IP, but it is
interpreted as the specifier-of-the-VP.
Why not have our cake and eat it as well? Let’s claim that there
are actually two instances of the subject in a sentence, one in
spec-IP and one in spec-VP. The only difference between the
two instances is that the first one is pronounced, while the
second one is not.
Another way of describing this situation is to say that the subject
moves from spec-VP to spec-IP, and that such movement
leaves a trace which is identical to the moved element except
for being silent.
The full IP
Thus, the full structure of a sentence like Iris will paint the door is
as follows, where tIris stands for ‘the trace of Iris’.
IP
I’
NP
Iris
I
will
VP
V’
tIris
V
paint
NP
the door
Where’s the verb?
If finite auxiliaries are in the I-position, not the V-position, then
what about sentences without an auxiliary, where the main
verb is finite? Is this in the I-position, then?
Not in English. In English, main verbs always remain in the Vposition, even when they are finite:
Mary will often read a book in the evening. [will in I]
*Mary reads often a book in the morning. [*reads in I]
Mary often reads a book in the morning.
[reads in V]
Do-support
In English, in sentences containing the negator not the I-position
must be filled.
The reluctance of main verbs to go into the I-position is so strong
that, if there is no other auxiliary in a negated sentence, a
dummy auxiliary is used to fill up the I-position.
Mary has not read a book this morning.
[auxiliary verb in I]
*Mary reads not a book in the morning.
[*main verb in I]
Mary does not read a book in the morning. [dummy do in I]
V-to-I movement in French
French looks like English in having finite auxiliaries in the I-position and
non-finite main verbs in the V-position:
Jean a
souvent
donné ses livres à Marie.
John has
often
given his books to Mary
John has often given his books to Mary.
But in sentences without an auxiliary in French, the main verb does go
into the I-position:
Jean donne souvent
ses livres à Marie.
John gives often
his books to Mary
John often gives his books to Mary.
*Jean souvent donne ses livres à Marie.
More than one auxiliary
Sentences can contain more than one auxiliary verb:
Mary has been working.
Jane has been overlooked.
Garry will be cycling.
I could have cried.
This will have to be considered.
John should have been working.
His resignation might have been accepted.
The tramline was to have been completed years ago.
More than one auxiliary (cont’d)
For sentences with more than one auxiliary, we will assume that
there is VP-recursion below the IP, as there is no clear
evidence that non-finite auxiliaries occur in a distinct clausal
position such as the I-position.
Mary has not been seen for a while.
*Mary has been not seen for a while.
Garry will not be cycling to Birmingham.
*Garry will be not cycling to Birmingham.
Complementizers
Embedded clauses can be introduced by a word that links them
to the main clause: a complementizer.
Thomas knew [that Betty would never go to Peru].
Corinne asked [if she could stay in Argentina a bit longer].
Stella did not know what to make of the film [since she had not
read the book].
To accommodate complementizers in a sentence’s structure, we
need another head position in front of the entire IP: the Cposition.
In accordance with X-bar theory, C is the head of a phrase CP
that contains a specifier position and a complement position.
The complement position contains the IP.
The full CP
CP
C’
spec
C
IP
I’
spec
I
VP
V’
spec
V
compl
Subject-verb inversion
In English interrogative sentences (questions), the finite verb
must appear in front of the subject (unless the subject itself is
questioned).
Deborah has finished her work already.
Has Deborah finished her work already?
Paul will read the newspaper tonight.
Will Paul read the newspaper tonight?
Two hypotheses possible:
A. The subject is lower in interrogatives than in declaratives.
B. The finite verb is higher in interrogatives than in declaratives.
Subject-verb inversion (cont’d)
Hypothesis A: The subject is lower in interrogatives.
Perhaps the subject stays in spec-VP in questions, rather than
moving to spec-IP?
No: the subject still precedes those elements that appear in
between the I-position and the VP, such as often:
Has John often done that?
*Has often John done that?
Subject-verb inversion (cont’d)
Hypothesis B: the finite verb is higher in interrogatives.
In declaratives the finite auxiliary is in I. Which higher position is
available for the finite auxiliary in interrogatives?
Answer: the finite verb is in C in interrogatives!
Bonus of this assumption: it explains why there is never subjectverb inversion, even in interrogative clauses, if a
complementizer already occupies C.
I wonder [if Deborah has finished her work already].
*I wonder [if has Deborah finished her work already].
Do-support in interrogatives
We have seen that
1. The finite verb in interrogative clauses (without a complementizer)
must go into the C-position.
2. Main verbs in English never leave the V-position.
Given this it is no surprise that in interrogatives without an auxiliary,
dummy do appears again, this time to fill up the C-position:
Frances likes sticky toffee pudding best.
*Likes Frances sticky toffee best?
Does Frances like sticky toffee pudding best?
Some other languages allow main verbs to appear in C:
Fietst Karel vaak langs de gracht?
Dutch
cycles Carl
often along the canal
Does Carl often cycle along the canal?