* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download 89012103
Survey
Document related concepts
Junction Grammar wikipedia , lookup
Georgian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Semantic holism wikipedia , lookup
Chinese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Antisymmetry wikipedia , lookup
Focus (linguistics) wikipedia , lookup
Latin syntax wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive semantics wikipedia , lookup
Modern Hebrew grammar wikipedia , lookup
PRO (linguistics) wikipedia , lookup
Transformational grammar wikipedia , lookup
Sentence spacing wikipedia , lookup
Pipil grammar wikipedia , lookup
Japanese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Lexical semantics wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Exercise 7.1 89012103 First, identify the chains, both trivial and non-trivial, in each of the sentences in (i-v). Secondly, classify each chain as to whether it is an A-chain or an A’-chain. Thirdly, explain how each chain is consistent with the θ-Criterion: (i) The match seems to have stopped. The matchi seems [ ti to have stopped] 1. As shown in the sentence above, the match, the external argument of the embedded predicate, is moved to the Spec, IP and leaves a trace behind. Since the argument undergoes a movement, the match and its trace form a non-trivial chain. A chain which consists of more than one member is called a non-trivial chain. 2. The argument is moved to an A-position (Spec,IP), this chain is an A-chain. 3. The verb ‘seem’ takes one argument called a one-place predicate. Here in this sentence, only one θ-role and only one argument is included in the chain which is transmitted from the embedded clause to the root clause, so the chain is consistent with the θ-Criterion. (ii) Who appears to be likely to win the match? [ CP Who t4 [IP t3 appears [t2 to be likely [t1 to win the match ]]]] 1. The external argument ‘Who’ and its traces form three non-trivial chains. 2. The external argument’s moving from t1 to t2 and from t2 to t3 forms two A-chain, because the two landing sites are A-positions. Meanwhile, it forms an A’-chain when the argument who is moved to the Spec,CP from Spec,IP. 3. The landing site, Spec,CP is a θ’-position. And the other traces are all at θ’-positions. The chains are consistent with the θ-Criterion. 1 (iii) Has Bill seen John? 1. There is no movement, so there is a trivial chain between Bill and John. 2. The predicate ‘seen’ assigns two -roles. Every -role is assigned to a single argument and every argument is assigned a single -role vice versa. (iv) Who was arrested? [ CP Who [IP t’ was arrested t] ] 1. Who and its traces form a non-trivial chain. 2. Moving who from object position of arrested to Spec, IP is an A-chain. Moving who from Spec, IP to Spec, CP is an A’chain. 3. Who receives a θ-role from arrested and the positions it moved are θ’-positions. (v) Mary placed the file into the drawer. 1. Mary, the file, and the drawer are three trivial chains, because each chain consists of only one member. 2. Mary receives agent θ-role from place; the file, theme θ-role from place. Place also assigns a location θ-role to the PP-complement, and the preposition transmits the location θ-role to the NP-complement, the drawer. Every -role is assigned to a single argument and every argument is assigned a single -role vice versa. Exercise 7.2 Explain how the sentences in (i-iii) are excluded in the context of the discussion in this chapter: i) *John appears that Mary will see the play. Appear is a raising predicative, It only assign a -role to the proposition but no one to the external argument. That is, the external argument should be an expletive, it. In this sentence, John is not paired with any θ-role, so this sentence is excluded by 2 θ-Criterion. ii) *There thinks that the audience will like the play. The subject of the root sentence ‘there’ is an expletive pleonastic. The verb ‘Think’ is a two- place predicate. It assigns a proposition as a θ-role, but it has no external argument, because ‘there’ is a non-argument without a θ-role, ‘there’ is not a θ-role but it is posited in a θ-position. This violates the Criterion. iii) *John believes [t to have seen the play]. ‘See’ is a two-place predicate, which assigns a theme θ-role to ‘the play’ and agent-θ-role to the trace. The trace subsequently transmits the θ-role to John. Nevertheless, ‘Believe’ is also a two-place predicate, which assigns an agent-θ-role to ‘John’ and a proposition.. This makes two θ-roles in the θ-position where ‘John’ is posited, so this sentence is excluded. Exercise 7.3 The θ-Criterion is said to exclude a raising analysis for the Control sentences in (i-iii). A raising analysis would involve movement of the root subject from the embedded subject position in (i) (Subject Control) and movement of the root direct object from the embedded subject position in (ii) (Object Control). Explain why the θ-Criterion rules out such an analysis, and explain how example (iii) fits into the picture: i) Bill tried to leave. ii) John persuaded Bill to leave. iii) It is difficult to leave (in these circumstances). Based on the raising analysis, the sentences (i-iii), can be parsed as: 1. Billi [VP tried [IP(PRO) ti to leave ]] The PRO is raised to the root subject and transmits the θ-role there. Since 3 the verb ‘try’ is a two-place predicate, it assigns both internal and external arguments. Namely, the chain which consists of Bill and its trace receives two θ-roles. If so, this sentence obviously violates the -criterion. 2. John [VP persuaded Billi [IP(PRO) ti to leave ]] Similar to the sentence (i), The raising of PRO makes the position where ‘Bill’ posited receives two -role. 3. It is difficult [IP (PRO) to leave (in these circumstances)] i Different from the sentence (i) and (ii), in (iii), the PRO is not the trace of the subject ‘It’. Furthermore, the expletive, ‘it’, is neither a non-argument nor a co-indexed with the subject of the embedded clause. That is, though this is an A-chain, ‘it’ is only posited to be an expletive pleonastic without a -role. In terms of the above analysis, we object to this raising analysis for the Control sentences, because we cannot neglect the PRO as a covert agent. According to the Control Theory, PRO is counted an argument which is defined as a referring expression. In (i), the PRO refers to the subject Bill (Subject Control); in (ii), the object Bill (Object Control). But does the analysis accounts for the sentence (iii)? Sentence (iii) can be elaborated as It is difficult for one to leave (in these circumstances) (Arbitrary Control). What it differs from the proceeding two sentences is that the PRO and the expletive pleonastic ‘it’ are not co-indexes and they share different -roles. In fact, ‘it’ has no -role. Exercise 7.4 Explain how the ambiguity of sentences with multiple quantifications such as (i) is explained in the framework outlined in this chapter. Once you have done that, explain whether the analysis predicts the fact that sentence (ii) is not ambiguous. Sentence (ii) has only the reading whereby the wh-phrase has scope over everyone. Depending on the conclusion you reach with respect to (ii), explain whether the fact that sentence (iii) 4 is ambiguous raises any problems. Sentence (iii) can either have the reading whereby the wh-phrase has scope over everyone or the reading whereby everyone has scope over the wh-phrase: (i) Everyone bought some present. (ii) What did John buy everyone? Answer: John bought everyone a tie. (iii) What did everyone buy John? Answer: Everyone bought John a tie. Answer: Mary bought John a tie, Bill bought John a CD, Jane bought John a book…etc. Sentence (i) is said to have two readings: (a) Pair reading: [IP everyone ti [IP some present tj [IP ti bought tj] ] ] “Everyone” has scope over “some present.” The meaning is that each person bought a different present. Such as Mary bought watch, Bill bought a book, etc. (b) Specific reading: [IP some present ti [IP everyone tj [IP ti bought tj] ] ] ‘‘Some present” has scope over “everyone.” The meaning is that everyone bought the same thing as present. For this exercise, we are trying to improve that sentence (iii) is ambiguous, while (ii) is not. That is, the scope structure in (ii) is definite but there could be two or more than two structures for sentence (iii). In (ii), What did John buy everyone? what has scope over everyone as SS: [CP what ti did [IP John buy everyone ti ] ]. CP 5 C’ Spec whati C did IP John buy everyone ti Therefore, (ii) can only have specific reading as (b): John bought the same thing to everyone. In the contrast, in (iii) What did everyone buy John? The LF structure coud be different from the SS and DS. In SS: [CP what ti did [IP every buy John ti ] ]. CP C’ Spec whati C did IP everyone buy John ti Here in this DS structure, ‘everyone’ is scope over ‘what.’ That means everyone bought the same thing for John. Meanwhile, ‘everyone’ can be regarded as adjunct of IP and ‘what’ is raised to Spec,CP, so ‘what’ should have scope over ‘everyone’ as [CP what did [IP everyone [IP teveryone buy John twhat ] ] ]. CP 6 C’ Spec whati C did IP1 NP IP2 everyonej John buy tj ti The Spec, CP, ‘what’, thereby C-commands ‘everyone.’ That is, it can be a many-to-one reading. We therefore conclude that (iii) can have two readings so that it is ambiguous Exercise 7.5 Sentences such as (i-iv) include so-called secondary predicates, angry in (i), exhausted in (ii), flat in (iii) and raw in (iv). Like all predicates, secondary predicates have a θ-role to assign. Such sentences have been argued to require a relaxation of the uniqueness requirement incorporated into the θ-Criterion such that an argument can receive more than one θ-role. Explain why. If you have reasons to believe that the uniqueness requirement should not be relaxed, try to think of an analysis for (i-iv) which makes them consistent with the θ-Criterion: i) John left the room angry. (cf. John is angry.) ii) Bill reached the finish line exhausted. (cf. Bill is exhausted). iii) Mary hammered the nail flat. (cf. The nail is flat.) iv) John ate the fish raw. (cf. The fish is raw.) At the first glance, these sentences seem to cause a violation of θ-Criterion because the secondary predicates, such as angry and exhausted in (i&ii) assign their external arguments experiencer or theme θ-roles, as shown in (1). 7 John left the room angry. θ θ From this perspective, it seems that we have to relax our θ-Criterion to accommodate an argument with two θ-roles under the situation of secondary predicates. However, relaxation criterion is not preferable to linguists, because it might trigger more rules, constraints, or relaxations. To look for some other alternatives, we have to carefully examine the secondary predicates, and we find that there are some subjects or objects deleted. The sentences can be reconstructed as followings. The first predicate assign the first -role in each sentence; the secondary predicate assign the second -role to the PRO in each sentence. And we also find the PROs are co-index with their antecedents. In sentence (1) and (2), the PROs and the agents form A-chains; in sentence (3) and (4), the PROs and the themes do. No matter the PROs are the co-indexes of agents or themes, the chains they form are A-chain, and the chain coincide the -criterion. In addition, based on sentence (1) to (4) we believe that θ-Criterion is applied before the deletion. In conclusion, there is no need for us to relax the θ-Criterion. (1) Johni left the room [IP PROi angry]. A-chain (2) Billi reached the finish line [IP PROi exhausted]. (3) Mary hammered the naili [IP PROi flat]. (4) John ate the fishi [IP PROi raw]. Exercise 7.6 One of the consequences of the θ-Criterion is that expletives can only appear in non-θ-marked positions. The set of non-θ-marked positions excludes the complement positions. As pointed out in this chapter, complement positions are θ-marked by definition. Bearing this in mind, explain whether the sentences in (i-iv) are problematic: 8 i) They mentioned it to him that he was not shortlisted for the job. ii) John resents it very much that Bill is always late. iii) John would hate it for Bill to resign. iv) They require it of all students that they should attend regularly. The root verbs in theses four sentences are two-place predicates as demonstrated below. These verbs as subcategorized to have both internal and external θ-roles so that these sentences are said to be problematic for the reason of “it” as their internal arguments, which is non-argument obtains a θ-role in each sentence. 1. mention: agent <theme, (goal)> 2. resent: agent <theme> 3. hate: agent <theme> 4. require: agent <theme, (source)> We find that “it” in these sentences receives a theme role and each of these sentences has an additional clause at the rightmost of the sentence. Moreover, this clause can serve as the referent of it. To prove this claim, we can substitute the clauses for it. (i). They mentioned (that he was not shortlisted for the job) to him. (ii). John resents (that Bill is always late very much.) (iii). John would hate (for Bill to resign.) (iv). They require (that all students should attend regularly.) The above data demonstrate that in fact, “it” in these sentences is not expletive but referential. They do not move, and they are not traces, either. They are posited only due to predicates need an internal θ-role. Furthermore, on the LF level, they are co-indexes with the clauses and receive the θ-roles from the verbs then transmit to the clauses. Their existence is to help the clauses gain the θ-roles. If so, (i-iv) are not excluded by θ-Criterion. Exercise 7.7 9 Discuss the argument structure of the verbs in each of the pairs of sentences in (i-iii). Among other things, discuss whether the verbs in each pair should be derivationally related, and if so how: i)a. The horse jumped (over the fence). i)b. The rider jumped the horse (over the fence). ii)a. The dog walked (to the park). ii)b. Mary walked the dog (to the park). iii)a. The horse raced across the barn. iii)b. Mary raced the horse across the barn. The verbs in (ia), (iia), and (iiia) are intransitive; the verbs in (ib), (iib), and (iiib) are transitive. The agents in (ia), (iia), and (iiia) are the themes in (ib), (iib), and (iiib). We find sentences (b) have causativization reading, as: 1. The rider caused the horse jump (over the fence). 2. Mary caused the dog walk (to the park). 3. Mary caused the horse race across the barn. If we parse the sentences based on the VP-shell structure, we can vividly see that they are derived from sentences of (a) by adding an agent, internalizing the original external argument, and assigning it theme θ-role. In this way, we believe that the pair sentences are derivationally related. I’ I vP Spec v’ v VP 10 the horsei Spec cause + jumpj V’ V (PP) ti tj 11 (over the fence)