Download PowerPoint

CAS LX 522
Syntax I
Week 11. Applied Syntax;
Split-INFL.
Moving away from English
• Recall that the model of language we’re working
with is one in which languages are for the most
part the same, but differ in the settings of certain
parameters, such as order between object and
verb. What are possible parameter settings?
English
UG
Japanese
Moving away from English
• We’ve seen a couple, but the only way to discover
what they are is to look at how other languages
differ.
– Recall, for example, the V-to-T parameter that
differentiated French from English.
English
UG
Japanese
Japanese
• Taroo-ga ano hon-o
kat-ta.
Taro-NOM that book-ACC buy-PAST
‘Taro bought that book.’
• Taroo-ga ano hon-o
kat-ta no?
Taro-NOM that book-ACC buy-PAST Q
‘Did Taro buy that book?’
• Hanako-ga [Taroo-ga ano hon-o
kat-ta to] omotteiru.
H.-NOM
T.-NOM that book-ACC buy-PAST that thinks
‘Hanako thinks that Taro bought that book.’
Japanese
• Japanese appears to be quite
strictly head-final. The head
of an XP comes after the
complement.
CP
C
C
to
TP
DPi
T
Taroo-ga VP
• We can draw the structure of a
Japanese tree like this, using
the same system, only with
head-final structures.
ti
T
-ta
V
DP
ano hon-o
V
kat
Japanese
• As in English, nominative
case (ga) is assigned to the DP
in the specifier of TP,
accusative case (o) is assigned
to the sister of V.
• Does the verb move to T?
Tough question. Notice that it
doesn’t have to to get the
word order right.
CP
C
C
to
TP
DPi
T
Taroo-ga VP
ti
T
-ta
V
DP
ano hon-o
V
kat
Japanese
• Taroo-ga ano hon-o
Taro-NOM that book-ACC
‘Taro bought that book.’
• ano hon-o
Taroo-ga
that book-ACC Taro-NOM
‘Taro bought that book.’
kat-ta.
buy-PAST
kat-ta.
buy-PAST
• How might this come about?
– The q-criterion dictates that the object ano hon-o
starts out as the sister of V. Like in What did I buy?
Japanese
CP
• ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta.
that book-ACC Taro-NOM buy-PAST
‘Taro bought that book.’
• This must start out the same way
as Taroo-ga ano hon-o katta.
• Thus ano hon-o must move to
where we see it. Scrambling.
• So where does it go?
C
C
TP
DPi
[-Q]
T
Taroo-ga VP
ti
T
-ta
V
DP
ano hon-o
V
kat
CP
Japanese
• ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta.
that book-ACC Taro-NOM buy-PAST
‘Taro bought that book.’
C
C
TP
DPj
[-Q]
TP
ano hon-o DPi
• The standard analysis of this is
that scrambled arguments move
to adjoin to TP—like quantifiers
do. Same kind of movement as
QR.
T
Taroo-ga VP
ti
T
-ta
V
tj
V
kat
CP
Japanese
• ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta.
that book-ACC Taro-NOM buy-PAST
‘Taro bought that book.’
• So languages also differ in
whether or not they allow
scrambling.
• A large majority of the
scrambling languages are also
SOV languages, although why
that would be remains unclear.
C
C
TP
DPj
[-Q]
TP
ano hon-o DPi
T
Taroo-ga VP
ti
T
-ta
V
tj
V
kat
Korean
• Korean is in many respects structurally very
similar to Japanese; strictly head-final, allows
scrambling, has Case marking.
• Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ess-ta.
Chelswu-NOM that book-ACC read-PAST-DECL
‘Chelswu read that book.’
Korean negation
• Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ess-ta.
Chelswu-NOM that book-ACC read-PAST-DECL
‘Chelswu read that book.’
• Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul an-ilk-ess-ta.
Chelswu-NOM that book-ACC NEG-read-PAST-DECL
‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’
• Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci
anh-ess-ta.
Chelswu-NOM that book-ACC read-CI NEG.do-PAST-DECL
‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’
CP
DS
Korean negation
C
C
-ta
TP
• Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul an-ilk-ess-ta.
Chelswu-NOM that book-ACC NEG-read-PAST-DECL
‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’
T
T
NegP -ess
• If this is the DS for the Korean “short
negation,” how do we get the right word
order?
Neg
Neg
an
VP
DP
C.-ka DP
V
V
ilk
ku chayk-ul
CP
SS
Korean negation
•
Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci
anh-ess-ta.
Chelswu-NOM that book-ACC read-CI NEG.do-PAST-DECL
‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’
C
-ta
TP
• Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul an-ilk-ess-ta.
Chelswu-NOM that book-ACC NEG-read-PAST-DECL
‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’
• If this is the DS for the Korean “short
negation,” how do we get the right word
order?
• We could head-move the verb up the tree to
Neg.
• So what’s happening in “long negation”?
C
DPj
T
T
C.-ka NegP -ess
Neg
Neg+Vi
an-ilk
VP
tj
V
DP
ti
ku chayk-ul
CP
DS
Korean negation
•
C
T
T
NegP -ess
• Suppose that the DS is the same, except
that we now have a special “nominalized”
form of the verb (cf. reading, perhaps).
Neg
Neg
an
VP
• Suppose that ilk-ci doesn’t move to Neg.
• See how we might analyze this?
C
-ta
TP
Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci
anh-ess-ta.
Chelswu-NOM that book-ACC read-CI NEG.do-PAST-DECL
‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’
DP
C.-ka DP
V
V
ilk-ci
ku chayk-ul
CP
SS
Korean negation
•
• But since ilk-ci didn’t move to an (and in
fact probably doesn’t count as a verb
anymore, but as a noun), there is no verb in
the area.
C
-ta
TP
Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci
anh-ess-ta.
Chelswu-NOM that book-ACC read-CI NEG.do-PAST-DECL
‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’
• At SS, we have a tense morpheme (-ess)
which needs to attach to a verb.
C
DPj
T
T
C.-ka NegP -ess
Neg
Neg
an
VP
tj
V
DP
V
ilk-ci
ku chayk-ul
CP
PF
Korean negation
•
• Actually, in more literary Korean it is also
possible to find an uncontracted form that
looks like …ilk-ci ani ha-ess-ta.
• Just like English…
C
-ta
TP
Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci
anh-ess-ta.
Chelswu-NOM that book-ACC read-CI NEG.do-PAST-DECL
‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’
• Hence we insert do (in Korean, ha), which
gets contracted as anh.
C
DPj
T
T
C.-ka NegP ha-ess
Neg
Neg
an
VP
tj
V
DP
V
ilk-ci
ku chayk-ul
Dutch
• Let’s shift gears a bit and look at some Germanic
languages. Like Dutch (this works for German
too). What’s the word order? Is it head-initial?
Head-final?
• Wim koopt het boek.
Wim buys the book
‘Wim buys the book.’
• …dat Wim het boek koopt.
…that Wim the book buys
‘…that Wim buys the book’
Dutch
• Dutch main clause sentences are not SVO…
• Dat boek kocht Wim gisteren.
that book bought Wim yesterday
‘That book Wim bought yesterday.’
• Gisteren kocht Wim dat boek.
yesterday bought Wim that book
‘Yesterday Wim bought that book.’
• …the are verb-second.
Dutch V2
• When there is an auxiliary, the auxiliary goes
second, and the verb goes last.
• Gisteren heeft Karel dat boek gekocht
Yesterday has Karel that book bought
‘Yesterday Karel bought that book.’
• and when embedded, they both go at the end…
• …dat Karel gisteren dat boek gekocht heeft.
…that Karel yesterday that book bought has
‘…that Karel bought that book yesterday.’
Dutch V2
• XP V S O
• XP Aux S O V
…C S O V
…C S O V Aux
• What’s happening here?
• Compare:
Has Bill gone to the movies?
I wonder if Bill has gone to the movies.
Dutch V2
• XP V S O
• XP Aux S O V
…C S O V
…C S O V Aux
• It appears that in main clauses the tensed
verb moves to C; in embedded clauses it
doesn’t.
• Like in English questions…
Dutch V2
• XP V S O
• XP Aux S O V
…C S O V
…C S O V Aux
• So, is Dutch head-initial or head-final?
• By now we should be able to tell what VP,
TP, and CP look like.
Dutch V2
CP
DPj
Wim
C
C+[Vi+T]k TP
koopt
t j
T
tk
VP
tj
V
DP
het boek
ti
• Dutch appears to be
head-final in VP and TP,
but head-initial in CP.
• The (finite) verb moves
from V to T and then to
C in matrix clauses
• Then something moves
into SpecCP. It could be
the subject…
Dutch V2
CP
DPk
C
het boek
C+[Vi+T]k TP
koopt
DPj
Wim
T
tk
VP
tj
V
tk
ti
• Dutch appears to be
head-final in VP and TP,
but head-initial in CP.
• The (finite) verb moves
from V to T and then to
C in matrix clauses
• Then something moves
into SpecCP. It could be
the object…
Dutch V2
CP
C
TP
C
dat
DPj
Wim
T
T+Vi
VP
tj
koopt
V
DP
het boek
ti
• When C is filled (in
an embedded clause,
with dat), the verb
moves only to T and
nothing moves to
SpecCP.
V2
• So another parameter of variation between
languages seems to be whether V moves to C
and requires SpecCP to be filled (“V2”).
• English has a little bit of what appears to be
“residual V2” with negatives.
– Never had I seen such a thing.
– Under no circumstances will I buy that book.
– There are complications with treating this like V2
in German and Dutch (can you think of them?)
which will be addressed in Syntax II
ECM vs. wh-movement
• Let’s go back to an issue that is leftover from an earlier discussion,
concerning where you find TPs and
CPs.
• Mary wants me to leave.
– But… consider
• Whati does Mary want me to buy ti ?
• What’s the problem?
VP
V
V
TP
T
DPk
T
…
ECM vs. wh-movement
• We need this TP to be transparent for whmovement—to not count as a Subjacency
violation.
• Later developments (particularly in the
Barriers framework, Chomsky 1986) take
basically TP and CP together to be a
bounding node (a barrier), but TP alone
(with no CP above it) is not.
ECM vs. wh-movement
• [CP Whati does [TP Mary want [TP me to buy ti ]]]?
VSO: Reminder about Irish
• Irish: VSO, Aux SVO.
– 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.’
• We might have also analyzed this as V-to-T-to-C (like
German but without the filled SpecCP), but for…
VSO order in Irish
• There seem to be cases when C is filled and the
order is still VSO—so the verb doesn’t move to C.
– An bhfaca tú an madra?
– Q See you the dog
– ‘Did you see the dog?’
– Duirt mé gur phóg Máire an lucharachán.
– Said I that kissed Mary the leprechaun
– ‘I said that Mary kissed the leprechaun.’
VSO order in Irish
• We had suggested that Irish leaves the
CP
SS
subject in VP-internal position.
C
• In essence, then, Irish seems to be a
V-to-T type language—but without
TP
C
the EPP.
• Note: Not everyone likes saying that
T
a language can choose not to obey the
EPP. However, if the alternative has
T+Vi VP
EPP universal and some languages
DP
V
can use proexp to satisfy it, the two
alternatives are not different.
ti
…
VSO in Std. Arabic
• Standard Arabic seems to be VSO like Irish, but
can provide clearer evidence for this idea that
VSO has the subject in VP-internal position.
• Std. Arabic: Allows both VSO and SVO orders.
– ra?a-a l-?awlaad-u Zayd-an
saw-3S the-boys-NOM Zayd-ACC
‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (VSO)
– l-?awlaad-u ra?a-w Zayd-an
the-boys-NOM saw-3PL Zayd-ACC
‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (SVO)
VSO in Std. Arabic
– ra?a-a l-?awlaad-u Zayd-an
saw-3S the-boys-NOM Zayd-ACC
‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (VSO)
– l-?awlaad-u ra?a-w Zayd-an
the-boys-NOM saw-3PL Zayd-ACC
‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (SVO)
• Notice that the verb agrees with the subject in
the SVO order—in the VSO order the verb just
carries 3sg agreement.
SVO/VSO order in Std. Arabic
• That is, there is
CP
SS
SS
agreement marking
where the subject is in
SVO
C VSO
C
SpecTP.
TP
C
TP
• Where there is nothing C
(or proexp) in SpecTP,
T
DPj
T
the agreement comes
out as (a default) 3sg.
T+Vi VP
T+Vi VP
• This looks like an
DP
V
example of Spec-head
tj
V
agreement. Features are
ti
… checked for identity.
ti
…
CP
SVO/VSO order in Std. Arabic
C
CP
SS
C
VSO
• This serves as support
CP
SS
for this analysis, since
we only expect to find
SVO
C
Spec-head agreement
between functional
TP
C
heads and their
DPj
T
specifiers, and T is so
far where agreement
T+Vi VP
has been assigned (e.g.,
in English).
TP
T
T+Vi
VP
DP
V
ti
tj
…
ti
V
…
SVO/VSO order in Std. Arabic
• Spec-head agreement is
CP SS
CP
usually considered to be
SS
responsible for agreement
VSO
SVO
C
C
between subject and verb (via
participation of T), but we
TP
C
TP
can also think of it as playing C
a role in wh-movement..
T
DPj
T
• C has [wh] feature which
needs to match with a feature
T+Vi VP
T+Vi VP
of its specifier.
• Spec-head agreement is often
DP
V
tj
V
taken to be, broadly speaking,
a kind of “feature sharing”
ti
… configuration.
ti
…
Let’s go back to French…
• Jean mange souvent des pommes.
Jean eats often of.the apples
‘Jean often eat apples.’
• *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 verbs to T.
TP
DPj
Jean
T
SS
Vi+T VP
mange
tj
V
AdvP
souvent
V
ti
PP
des pommes
French negation
• This happens with negation
too—the finite verb move to
the left of negation pas…
• Jean ne mange pas des pommes.
Jean NE eat NEG of.the apples
‘J doesn’t eat apples.’
• *Jean mange ne pas 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 (and auxiliaries) in French precede adverbs
and precede negative pas—they must move to T.
• Now let’s look at infinitives…
– 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: Adv V, neg V: Moves to T.
• +Fin verb: Adv V, neg V: 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:
Adv V, neg V: Moves to T.
Adv V, neg V: Moves to T.
(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V): (Opt.) Moves to T.
(V) Adv (V), …
• Nonfinite main verbs…and negation…
– 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 either not move past negation.
French and a problem…
• +Fin aux/verb:
Adv V, neg V
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:
Adv V, neg V
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
A new FP
TP
DS
T
T
• +Fin aux/verb:
Adv V, neg V
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
• 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?
• Jean a mis les pommes sur la table.
J. has put the apples on the table
3MSG 3FPL
‘J. put the apples on the table.’
• Jean les a mises sur la table.
J. them has put on the table
3FPL
3FPL
‘J put them on the table.’
• Combien de pommes Jean mises sur la table?
How.many of apples J.
put on the table
3FPL
3FPL
‘How many apples did J put on the table?’
A new FP
• As the verb and the
arguments make their way
up the tree, there is a point
where the verb and object
are in a Spec-head
configuration—in FP.
• This is how the verb
checks its object
agreement features when
it has them.
• Based on this, FP is
generally called AgrOP.
Object agreement phrase.
CP
DPi
SS
C
C
TP
DPk
T
T
FP
t i
F
F
VP
tk
V
V
ti
AgrOP
• AgrOP, Object agreement
phrase.
• Notice that as the verb
moves up to T, it has to
stop off in AgrOP (Head
Movement Constraint
Requires it), so it is
forming successively more
complex heads.
– V
– AgrO+V
– T+[AgrO+V]
CP
DPi
SS
C
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 domain” of
V
TP
wants
want.
T
DP
k
• The thing is, the
1sg
embedded subject actually
T
VP
to
acts like it’s in the matrix
V
t
clause somewhere.
k
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,
AgrSP—i.e. 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. Obviously this is not an option. But, now…
TP
ECM
DPi
Bill
• If
– There is an AgrOP
and
– Normal objects
generally go there
and
– ECM subjects act
like objects
• Then
– We can suppose that
ECM subjects move
there. No X-bar
problems.
T
T
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.
• But now we know that BT
is checked at LF, so the
move to SpecAgrOP might
be covert (between SS and
LF).
T
T
AgrOP
DPk
AgrO
1sg
AgrO VP
ti
V
V
TP
wants
T
tk
T
to
VP
tk
V
V
leave
TP
ECM
DPi
Bill
• So, why were we
concerned about moving
the embedded subject
into the matrix clause?
• The problem was that it
needed to get Case.
• But we seem to be
finding it outside of the
clause, we’re guessing,
in SpecAgrOP.
• Nominative Case is
assigned by T to its
specifier, right?
T
T
AgrOP
DPk
AgrO
1sg
AgrO VP
ti
V
V
TP
wants
T
tk
T
to
VP
tk
V
V
leave
TP
ECM
DPi
Bill
• So, what if AgrOP is
really there to assign
accusative Case?
• All accusative objects
move to SpecAgrOP
(covertly in English) to
“check” Case. They
appear with a Case, but
it needs to be verified by
AgrO.
• This is the standard
interpretation of AgrOP.
T
T
AgrOP
DPk
AgrO
1sg
AgrO VP
ti
V
V
TP
wants
T
tk
T
to
VP
tk
V
V
leave
Northern Irish
• Modern Irish is VSO, but appears to be underlyingly
SVO. Everything points to Irish being a head-initial
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.’
• Ba mhaith liom [Seán fanacht]
C good with.1S S.ACC wait
‘I want S to wait.’
Morphology on the French verb
• Past, varying persons:
‘eat’
je mange-ai-s
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, subjectagreeing 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
SS
DPk AgrS
AgrS
TP
T
t i
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
SS
AgrS
AgrS
TP
T
T
AgrOP
AgrO
AgrO
VP
V
DPk
V
DPk
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 subject 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 make
C
AgrSP
this assumption, that crosslinguistically, the clause is
AgrS
minimally constructed of
these projections, generally in
AgrS TP
that order:
–
–
–
–
–
CP
AgrSP
TP
AgrOP
VP
T
T
AgrOP
AgrO
AgrO
VP
PROarb giving Larson a look
• We know how to deal with transitive verbs
and intransitive verbs (both unaccusative
and unergative).
• But what about ditransitive verbs? There
aren’t many, but:
– John gave a book to Mary.
– *John gave a book.
– *John gave to Mary.
Ditransitive verbs
• We have a clear problem here.
– Both arguments are required (so we shouldn’t expect
either one to be an adjunct).
– Both need to be inside the VP.
– Structures cannot have ternary branches.
• Originally, both the direct and indirect object were
just sisters to the verb, but with X-bar theory that
analysis is no longer viable.
Larson (1988)
•
•
•
•
I showed Mary to herself.
*I showed herself to Mary.
I introduced nobody to anyone.
*I introduced anybody to noone.
• This tells us something about the
relationship between the direct and indirect
object in the structure. (What?)
Larson (1988)
• The DO c-commands the
IO. But how could we
draw a tree like that?
• The most natural
structure would be to
make the IO an adjunct,
like this, but that doesn’t
meet the c-command
requirements.
*
VP
SUB
V
V
V
IO
DO
Idioms
• Often idiomatic meanings are associated
with the verb+object complex (Marantz
1984)—the meaning derives both from the
verb and the object. This is claimed to
require a close DS relation (sisters).
– 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.
Mary took Felix to task
Mary carries such behavior to extremes.
Where’s the V? Where’s the DO?
• Larson took this as evidence that the V is
originally a sister to the IO, not the DO.
• Yet, we see that on the surface the DO comes
between the verb and the IO.
• 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 above the VP.
• Since the subject is in the specifier of
the higher XP, that must be a VP too.
• Ditransitive verbs really come in two
parts. They are in a “VP shell”
structure.
VP
SUB
V
V
VP
DO
V
V
IO
Where’s the V? Where’s the DO?
• The higher verb is a “light verb”—its
contribution is to assign the q-role to the
subject. The lower verb assigns the q-roles to
the DO and the IO.
VP
• ATB movement:
SUB
Whati did [TP Bill buy ti ] and [TP Mary eat ti ]?
• Bill gave a book to Mary and a record to Sue.
• Bill gavei [VP a book ti to Mary]
and [VP a record ti to Sue].
V
V
VP
DO
V
V
IO
PROarb sending Bill a letter
• 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.
• How about Mary sent Bill a letter?
Double objects
• Larson proposes to look at the
double-object construction as parallel
to the passive. (This is pre-AgrP)
• The lower verb loses its ability to
assign Case and its external q-role
(for the DO).
• The IO moves up to SpecVP,
receiving Case from V1+V2.
• The DO is an adjunct (like a byphrase), Larson has a proposal about
how it gets Case (from V).
VP
SUB
V
VP
V
V
V
V
DO
IO









