* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory
Ukrainian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Malay grammar wikipedia , lookup
Germanic weak verb wikipedia , lookup
Modern Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Lithuanian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Scottish Gaelic grammar wikipedia , lookup
American Sign Language grammar wikipedia , lookup
Esperanto grammar wikipedia , lookup
Germanic strong verb wikipedia , lookup
Old Irish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Udmurt grammar wikipedia , lookup
Macedonian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Modern Hebrew grammar wikipedia , lookup
French grammar wikipedia , lookup
Navajo grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old English grammar wikipedia , lookup
Swedish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Portuguese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Polish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Kannada grammar wikipedia , lookup
Chinese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Turkish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Russian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
English clause syntax wikipedia , lookup
Hungarian verbs wikipedia , lookup
Kagoshima verb conjugations wikipedia , lookup
Lexical semantics wikipedia , lookup
Spanish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Latin syntax wikipedia , lookup
Yiddish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Georgian grammar wikipedia , lookup
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