Download PowerPoint

CAS LX 522
Syntax I
Week 11. Articulating the tree
PROarb giving trees to
ditransitives

You may recall our
discussion of q-theory,
where we triumphantly
classified verbs as
coming in three types:




Intransitive (1 q-role)
Transitive (2 q-roles)
Ditransitive (3 q-roles)
Theta roles go to
obligatory arguments,
not to adjunct.
PROarb giving trees to
ditransitives

You may also recall our
happy transition to X-bar
theory, where:



All trees are binary branching.
There’s just one complement
and one specifier.
And our discovery that
subjects should start out in
the specifier of their
predicate, so that q-role
assignment is strictly local.
PROarb giving trees to
ditransitives
VP



Fantastic, except that the two
just don’t fit together.
We know what to do with
transitive verbs.
We know what to do with
intransitive verbs:



SUB
V
VP
SUB
Unergatives
Unaccusatives
But what do we do with
ditransitive verbs? We’re out of
space!
V
V
V
VP
V
OBJ
V
OBJ
Problems continue…





I showed Mary to herself.
*I showed herself to Mary.
I introduced nobody to anybody.
*I introduced anybody to nobody.
This tells us something about the
relationship between the direct and
indirect object in the structure. (What?)
Problems continue…

The DO c-commands the IO.
But how could we draw a tree
like that?

Even if we allowed adjuncts to
get q-roles, the most natural
structure would be to make
the IO an adjunct, like this,
but that doesn’t meet the ccommand requirements.
*
VP
SUB V
V
V
IO
DO
Some clues from idioms


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.
Bill threw a baseball.
 Bill threw his support behind the candidate.
 Bill threw the boxing match.

Idioms in ditransitives

In ditransitives, it seems like this happens
with the IO.
Beethoven gave the Fifth Symphony to the world.
 Beethoven gave the Fifth Symphony to his
patron.
 Lasorda sent his starting pitcher to the showers.
 Lasorda sent his starting pitcher to Amsterdam.
 Mary took Felix to task.
 Mary took Felix to the cleaners.
 Mary took Felix to his doctor’s appointment.

So V and IO are sisters…


Larson (1988) took this as evidence that
the V is a sister to the IO at DS.
Yet, we see that on the surface the DO
comes between the verb and the IO.


Mary sent a letter to Bill.
Where is the DO? It must c-command
the IO, remember. Why is the V to the
left of the DO at SS?
V
V
IO
Where’s the V? Where’s the DO?

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
DO. But to where?
V
V
IO
Where’s the V? Where’s the DO?



Larson’s answer to this is obvious,
in retrospect. If we’re going to
have binary branching and three
positions for XPs (SUB, IO, DO),
we need to have another XP
vP
above the VP.
Since the subject is in the
SUB v
specifier of the higher XP, that
must be a VP too.
VP
v
Ditransitive verbs really come in
DO V
two parts. They are in a “VP shell”
structure.
V
IO
Where’s the V? Where’s the DO?


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 DO and the
IO.
ATB movement:
Whati did [TP Bill buy ti ]
and [TP Mary eat ti ]?
vP
SUB
v


Bill gave a book to Mary and a record to
Sue.
Bill gavei [VP a book ti to Mary]
and [ a record t to Sue].
v
VP
DO
V
V
IO
PROarb sending a letter to Bill

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
DO:

Mary senti a letter ti to Bill.

Note: You can also say Mary sent Bill a letter, which
is one of the major things Larson was concerned
about. How this works is less well-settled, and will
be saved for Syntax II. (Cf. ?Mary sent me him/Mary
sent him to me)
And so it begins



The direction that syntactic theory has tended to
progress over the years is that as we learn more
about how sentences are structured, we begin
to zoom in on the trees, to see finer structure.
In a sense, the VP we had before was a good
first approximation, but as we look more closely
we see that even the VP has more internal
structure.
Bits of a sentence that have independent,
separable meanings are “factored out” into their
own phrases. In the ditransitives, we “factored
out” the light verb (assigning the Agent q-role),
for example. A similar fate awaits TP.
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 T. French and
English differ in whether they
move finite main verbs to T.
TP
T
SS
Vi+T 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…
TP
DPk
SS
T
[Neg+Vi]j+T 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 T.

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 T) or not,
it appears to be optional.
French and a problem…

+Fin aux: V Adv, V neg : Moves to T.
+Fin verb: V Adv, V neg : Moves to T.
–Fin aux: (V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V): (Opt.) Moves to T.

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 T.
V Adv, V neg : Moves to T.
(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V): (Opt.) Moves to T.
(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 T.
–Fin aux:
(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V)
(Opt.) Moves to T.
–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)
TP
DS
T
T
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 T.
–Fin aux:
(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V)
(Opt.) Moves to T.
–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)…
TP
DS
T
T
NegP
pas Neg
Neg VP
ne
DPk
V
AdvP V
souvent
V
PP
TP
A new FP




+Fin aux/verb:
V Adv, V neg
Moves to (F, then to) T.
–Fin aux:
(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V)
(Opt.) Moves to (F, then to) T.
–Fin verb:
(V) Adv (V), neg V
(Opt.) Moves to F
DS
T
T
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
SS
C
TP
DPk
T
T
FP
t i
F
F
VP
tk
V
V
ti
AgrOP



AgrOP, Object agreement
phrase.
As the verb moves up to
T, it has to stop off in
AgrOP (the Head
Movement Constraint
requires it), forming
successively more
complex heads.
 V
 AgrO+V
 T+[AgrO+V]
But why does the object
have to move to
SpecAgrOP?
CP
DPi
C
SS
C
TP
DPk
T
T
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
SpecTP, 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

(But see a problem? We’ll get
to it shortly…)
CP
DPi
C
SS
C
TP
DPk
T
T
AgrOP
t i
AgrO
AgrO
VP
tk
V
V
ti
ECM



…
SS
AgrOP can solve a
TP
serious problem we had
in English too…
DPi
T
Here’s the current way we Bill
T
VP
analyzed ECM sentences,
where me gets Case from
ti
V
want because me is in the
“government radius” of
V
TP
want.
wants
The thing is, the embedded
DPk T
1sg
subject actually acts like it’s
T
VP
in the matrix clause
to
somewhere.
V
tk
V
leave
ECM




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, TP—everything except CP).
Her and himself above act like they are in
the higher clause with the matrix subject.
ECM vs. BT

Our options are basically to

complicate the definition of binding domain in Binding
Theory



or to
suppose the object has really moved out of the
embedded clause.
The textbook had a ridiculous drawing at the end
of ch. 9 and again in ch. 10, taking the second
option and suggesting that we move the object
out of the embedded clause and make it a third
branch under the matrix V. This is not the way to
go—We like our X-bar theory. But, now…
TP
ECM



There is an AgrOP
and
Normal objects
generally go there
and
ECM subjects act
like objects
Then

T
T
If


DPi
Bill
We can suppose
that ECM subjects
move there. No Xbar problems.
AgrOP
DPk
AgrO
1sg
AgrO VP
ti
V
V
TP
wants
T
tk
T
to
VP
tk
V
V
leave
TP
ECM




DPi
Bill
Great! Except…
So, true, no X-bar
problems.
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?
T
T
AgrOP
DPk
AgrO
1sg
AgrO VP
ti
V
V
TP
wants
T
tk
T
to
VP
tk
V
V
leave
TP
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
SS and LF.
DPi
Bill
T
T
AgrOP
DPk
AgrO
1sg
AgrO VP
ti
V
V
TP
wants
T
tk
T
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 at DS:

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
AgrSP
AgrS
We said before the T needs a specifier
(at SS), that’s the essential content of
the EPP. Plus, we said before that this is AgrS TP
where NOM is assigned.
T
Now there is AgrSP as well.
AgrOP is responsible for ACC.
T AgrOP
In a symmetrical world, seems like
AgrSP should be responsible for NOM.
AgrO
So, now that (kind of mysterious) double
motivation for moving to SpecTP has
been clarified: The subject has to move
AgrO VP
to both SpecTP and SpecAgrSP, but
each movement happens for a different
DP
reason. T for EPP, AgrSP for NOM.
V
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 TP).

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
A word about the PP



Actually, there is one place where we haven’t unified
Case-assignment, namely the oblique Case that is
assigned to the complement of P.
For now (this whole semester), we’ll just leave it at that.
P can assign oblique Case to its sister, although V
cannot assign accusative Case to its sister.


So DPs that are objects of prepositions don’t need to go
anywhere, they’re fine where they are.
Sometimes the distinction is made between structural
and inherent Case:


Structural Case (NOM, ACC) is assigned by movement to
someplace in the structure (SpecAgrOP, SpecAgrSP).
Inherent Case is assigned in place, e.g., by P.
And back to little v…

John gave the book to Mary.

Recall that this is the structure that
we came up with to get the word
order right, and to comply with X-bar
theory.
We determined there must be a “little
v”, a light verb, to which the V moves
overtly. This little v assigns the Agent
q-role. So English has a v in its
lexicon that assigns the Agent q-role.


A somewhat radical idea occurs…
vP
SUB
v
v
VP
DO
V
V
IO
VP shells

Let’s go back and consider VP shells a bit in connection
with unaccusatives.
VP

The ice melted.
The boat sank.
The door closed.



V
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.
VP shells
VP
V
V
melt



DP
the ice 

So far, so good.
Now, Bill melted the ice.
The ice is still Theme. The verb is still
melt.
Uniform Theta Assignment Hypothesis
(UTAH) (Baker 1988): Two arguments
which fulfill the same thematic function
with respect to a given predicate must
occupy the same underlying (DS)
position in the syntax.
So the ice must still be a complement of
the verb at DS.
VP shells
VP

V

V
melt
DP
the ice

In Bill melted the ice what have we
done?
We’ve added a causer, an agent.
Bill caused [the ice to melt].

We’ve already supposed that the light
verb v assigns the Agent q-role in
ditransitives…

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
DP
Bill
v
v
VP
V
V
melt
DP
the ice

Bill melted the ice.

So, something like this, where the
main verb moves up to the light
verb (which we had evidence for
in ditransitives).

Later, Bill will move to SpecTP,
SpecAgrSP for Case and EPP
reasons.

Why does V move to v? We’ll
assume that it does this for a reason
analogous to why V moves to T (for
French verbs, say). Might be
universal, actually. “v needs a V to
move to it”.
VP shells



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


Billi T ti v+boil the water
Bill caused the water to boil

Bill cause TP
Back to the radical idea…






So, we have v, which assigns an Agent q-role.
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.
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
DP
Bill

Well, we already saw essentially
what it would look like. It looks
just like Bill melted the ice.

v assigns Agent to Bill, V (eat)
assigns Theme to the sandwich.
v
v
VP
V
V
eat
DP
the
 Also note: The subject is still in
sandwich
“SpecVP” except that we’ve
sharpened our picture of what
“VP” is. A “VP” with an Agent is
really a vP and a VP.
Bill lied.

In fact, things get weirder…
Consider Bill lied.
That’s got an Agent, so it’s got a v.

So, it could look like this.

But lie is really (also?) a noun,
right? Is this a coincidence?

vP

DP
Bill
v
v
VP
V
V
lie

(How about Bill danced, Bill walked,
Bill sneezed, …)
Bill lied?
vP
DP
Bill

One proposal out there about this
kind of verb is that it really is built
from the noun.

That is, we have v+N, which
would come out to mean
something like ‘Bill was the agent
of a lie.’

If that’s right, it means v really is
its own thing, and moreover, it’s
responsible for giving these verbs
their verby nature.
v
v
NP
N
N
lie
AgrOP
The sandwich was eaten

Let’s think about passives.

What happens in a passive?
AgrO
AgrO vP

DP
Bill
v
v

VP
V
The Agent q-role is suppressed.
Accusative Case is no longer
available to the object.
What does that mean in these
terms, considering v to be the
V
DP
thing that assigns Agent and
eat
the
sandwich AgrOP to be the thing that gives
Case?

The sandwich was eaten

Sure, no vP, no AgrOP.

Everything else follows as before:




VP
V
V
eat
DP
the
sandwich

The sandwich needs Case.
SpecTP needs to be filled.
The sandwich moves to SpecTP.
The sandwich moves to SpecAgrSP.
Burzio’s generalization is now that
there is an AgrOP if and only if
there is a vP. They come and go
together.
The sandwich was eaten
VP

V
V
be
So, we end up with something like
this, where AspP is where vP used
to be.
AspP

Asp
Asp
-en
VP
V
V
eat
DP
the
sandwich
(Since passive is actually a different
sort of thing from aspectual have
eaten and be eating, sometimes
people call this VoiceP)
And back to ditransitives

In the split-INFL system, we have
something like this:

The V moves to v, and eventually to
AgrO.
AgrO assigns Case, and it should
only be compatible with transitive
verbs, so v needs to get close
enough to verify that they match (we
can think of this as AgrO “pulling up”
the v). (Perhaps source of BG?)
The object moves to SpecAgrOP to
get/check Case.
The subject moves up to TP and
SpecAgrSP.



AgrOP
AgrO
AgrO vP
SUB
v
v
VP
DO
V
V
IO









