* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Head-movement
Esperanto grammar wikipedia , lookup
Lithuanian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Modern Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Swedish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Malay grammar wikipedia , lookup
Double negative wikipedia , lookup
Old English grammar wikipedia , lookup
Modern Hebrew grammar wikipedia , lookup
American Sign Language grammar wikipedia , lookup
Polish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Scottish Gaelic grammar wikipedia , lookup
Macedonian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Old Irish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek grammar wikipedia , lookup
Udmurt grammar wikipedia , lookup
Portuguese grammar wikipedia , lookup
French grammar wikipedia , lookup
Hungarian verbs wikipedia , lookup
Russian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Chinese grammar wikipedia , lookup
Navajo grammar wikipedia , lookup
English clause syntax wikipedia , lookup
Turkish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Latin syntax wikipedia , lookup
Kannada grammar wikipedia , lookup
Yiddish grammar wikipedia , lookup
Georgian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Kagoshima verb conjugations wikipedia , lookup
Lexical semantics wikipedia , lookup
Icelandic grammar wikipedia , lookup
Serbo-Croatian grammar wikipedia , lookup
Antisymmetry wikipedia , lookup
CAS LX 522 Syntax I Week 8b. Head-movement The puzzle so far. Head-order and specifier-order parameters can derive the some but not all types of language: Relative verb-adverb position, French v. English: SVO (spec-initial, head-initial) (English) SOV (spec-initial, head-final) (Japanese) VOS (spec-final, head-initial) (Malagasy) OVS (spec-final, head-final) (Hixkaryana) VSO (?) (Irish, Arabic) French: Je mange souvent des pommes. English: I often eat apples. Auxiliary inversion in English yes-no questions: Bill should eat his peas. Should Bill eat his peas? Movement We start with the question of where should is in: There is one position in our sentence structures so far that is to the left of the subject, the one where the complementizer that goes (C): Should Bill eat his peas? I said that Bill should eat his peas. This is not where we expect should to be, though. It is, after all, a modal, of category I. It is not a complementizer. Also notice that if we embed this question, should stays after the subject, and if is in C: I wonder if Bill should eat his peas. Movement All of this suggests that the way to look at this is that we start with the sentence… Bill should eat his peas …as usual, and if we’re forming a yes-no question, we follow this up by moving should to the position of C. If we can’t move it (in an embedded question, there’s already something in C: if), it stays put. French Jean mange souvent des IP pommes. Jean eats often of.the apples DP I ‘Jean often eat apples.’ If we suppose that the French Jean I VP sentence starts out just like the [PRES] English sentence, we have the VP AP underlying representation souvent PP V shown here. mange What needs to happen to get the correct surface word order? des pommes French Wait! But isn’t that inexcusably Anglocentric? If you (or Jean mange souvent des Chomsky) were a IP pommes. native speaker of Jean eats often of.the apples DP French, I would the ‘Jean often eat apples.’ French sentence If we suppose that the French Jean structure be I VPconsidered sentence starts out just like the [PRES] to be basic? English sentence, we have the VP AP underlying representation souvent PP V shown here. mange des What needs to happen to get pommes the correct surface word order? French Wait! But isn’t that inexcusably Anglocentric? If you (or Jean mange souvent des Chomsky) were a IP pommes. native speaker of Jean eats often of.the apples DP French, I would the ‘Jean often eat apples.’ French sentence If we suppose that the French Jean structure be I VPconsidered sentence starts out just like the [PRES] to be basic? English sentence, we have the VP AP Well, not necessarily. The verb eat (mange) needs to assign a underlying representation souvent q-role here. to the object apples (des pommes). It is easierV(the PP shown theory is more elegant) if the assignment of q-rolesmange happens between sisters (as a result of Merge). That leads us to the des What to happen to word get order is derived, thepommes sameneeds conclusion: the French English word word order is basic. the correct surface order? French Jean mange souvent des pommes. Jean eats often of.the apples ‘Jean often eat apples.’ Of course—the V (mange) moves up to the I position. This always happens in French with a tensed/agreeing verb. This generally doesn’t happen in English. Hence, the difference in “adverb position” (really, of course, it’s verb position) IP DP I Jean V+I VP mange+[PRES] VP AP souvent PP V mange des pommes What happens when V moves to I? To show that V attaches to I, but that I remains primary, this is drawn in the tree structure like this. IP DP I I We say that V head-adjoins (adjoins, head-to-head) to I. The head formed this way is sometimes called a complex head, (it’s an I with a V adjoined to it). Vi mange VP I [PRES] AP V ti VP PP What happens when V moves to I? We should also consider what happens to the VP from which the V moved. It is still a VP, it must still have a head. We notate the original location of the V by writing t (standing for “trace” left behind by the original V), and we co-index the V and trace to indicate their relationship. IP DP I I Vi mange VP I [PRES] AP V ti VP PP What happens when V moves to I? Since the VP is still a VP, it still gets a [V] category feature projected up from its head. So the trace is still a verb. In fact, there’s no reason to suppose that any of the features of the original verb have been removed given that [V] is still there. We write it as t, but its content has not changed. The trace t is really just another copy (or, well, the original) of the verb. IP DP I I Vi mange VP I [PRES] AP V ti VP PP What happens when V moves to I? What has changed is that the original verb is now related to a higher position in the tree, and for many purposes, the top copy in the tree is considered to be primary. What we have created by moving the verb is a chain of positions in the tree that the verb has occupied. IP DP I I Vi mange VP I [PRES] AP V ti VP PP What happens when V moves to I? When we think of moved elements in tree structures, we will often need to consider the chain of positions; this is usually written like: ( Vi , ti ) referring to the two positions held by Vi and ti in the structure here. IP DP I I Vi mange VP I [PRES] AP V ti VP PP What happens when V moves to I? Using indices like that is kind of reminiscent of what we did when talking about Binding Theory— and it’s not a coincidence. A fundamental property of movement is that the moved element must bind (c-command, and be coindexed with) the trace in the original position: Movement is only upwards. IP DP I I Vi mange VP I [PRES] AP V ti VP PP What happens when V moves to I? Great. So does Vi c-command ti? IP DP X c-commands Y iff: (i) X excludes Y, and (ii) Any node that dominates X also dominates Y. I I Vi mange VP I [PRES] AP V ti VP PP What happens when V excludes I. V moves to I? I is not i Great. So does Vi c-command ti? X c-commands Y iff: (i) X excludes Y, and (ii) Any node that dominates X also dominates Y. dominated by IP any segment of Vi. DP I I Vi mange VP I [PRES] AP V ti VP PP What happens when V moves to I? The only nodes that dominate Vi are I and IP. I does not dominate Vi because there is a segment of I that not dominate Vi. Both IP and I does Great. dominate ti as well. So any node that So does Vi c-command ti? dominates Vi also dominates ti. X c-commands Y iff: (i) X excludes Y, and (ii) Any node that dominates X also dominates Y. IP DP I I Vi mange VP I [PRES] AP V ti VP PP Auxiliaries English has two auxiliary (“helping”) verbs have and be, which cannot serve as the main verbs of a sentence but generally serve to indicate differences in verbal aspect (progressive, past perfect, …). The auxiliary verbs often appear in I. Radford has had us up until now drawing them as if they exemplify the category I. But really, these auxiliary verbs are verbs, they just have special properties. Among these properties: they can move to I. Auxiliary verbs The reason we can’t assume the auxiliaries have and be: I am not singing. I will not be singing. I will not have been singing. Rather, it looks like the topmost one moves to I, so long as nothing else is in I. A word on auxiliaries The underlying structure of a sentence with an auxiliary verb would be something like this, where the auxiliary verb heads a VP, and takes the main verb’s VP as its complement. IP DP I I -ed VP V have VP V eaten … A word on auxiliaries The underlying structure of a sentence with an auxiliary verb would be something like this, where the auxiliary verb heads a VP, and takes the main verb’s VP as its complement. IP DP I I Vi have VP I [PAST] V ti VP V eaten … Why does V move to I? If there is something in I already, like a modal, then even an auxiliary verb doesn’t move up to I. If there is more than one auxiliary, only the topmost one seems to be move to I. John might not be eating apples. John has not been eating apples. Only the auxiliaries that make it to I are inflected for tense (past, present). This all suggests that the view this movement happens to solve some problem that I has. If I needs something, auxiliaries can help by moving to I, but once the need is met, no other auxiliaries need to move. (We’ll come back to this) English yes-no questions Now, let’s go back and think about English yesno questions, which we took originally to be motivation that movement occurs. Bill will buy cheese. Will Bill buy cheese? What’s happening here? It is reasonable to think that the modal will, which starts out in I, moves to C in questions. Willi Bill ti buy cheese? English yes-no questions Why move I to C? CP Since it seems to happen in C IP questions and not in statements, and since C is often thought to Ii C DP I [+Q] Bill will be the part of the structure I VP where “clause type” (question, ti statement, imperative, etc.) is buy cheese recorded, this movement seems to be driven by the C we find in questions. We write this as C as being [+Q]. Ø+Q Incidentally, lots of languages have an audible question morpheme, which adds plausibility to our assumption that English has a question morpheme in C that is just null. Akira ga hon o kaimasita ka? (Japanese) Akira top book acc bought Q ‘Did Akira buy the book?’ English yes-no questions Also notice that if there is an overt question morpheme there in English (which happens in embedded questions), there is no need to move I to C: I asked if Bill will buy cheese. *I asked (if) will Bill buy cheese. Incidentally, if is also [+Q]—this indicates “interrogative”, and both Ø+Q and if mark interrogative clauses. But if doesn’t cause I to move to C. I to C In English, anything that would be in I moves to C. So, modals and auxiliaries all “invert” around the subject: Will Bill buy cheese? Is Bill buying cheese? Has Bill bought cheese? But main verbs never raise to I in English. Consider then: Did Bill buy cheese? I to C Did Bill buy cheese? Why is there a do there? Before, we only saw do in sentences with not, inserted because the tense affix couldn’t “reach” the verb, blocked by not. What seems to be the case is that if I moves to C (that is, the past tense suffix -ed in this case), it also gets too far away from the verb (now Bill is between the suffix and the verb), and Doinsertion is required for pronunciation. -edi Bill ti buy cheese? Negation We’ve used negation as a test to see if the verb/auxiliary appears before it or after it as an indication of whether the verb has raised or not. We’ve also used adverbs (like often) this way. Negation acts different from adverbs. For example, negation keeps the tense affix from being pronounced with a verb (in English), but adverbs don’t: Bill did not buy cheese. Bill never buys cheese. Bill quickly bought cheese. Yet, both come between I and V in the underlying structure. NegP A common view of negation is that it has its own projection, a NegP, headed by a negative morpheme. For example, something like this. Interestingly, negation sometimes comes “in two parts”, with two morphemes implicated in negation. NegP has in principle two positions available for negative morphemes, its specifier and its head. Standard French ne…pas is an example of this which we’ll look at now. NegP Neg Neg French negation In standard French, the negation of a sentence generally involves a morpheme ne placed before the tensed verb and a morpheme pas placed after it, as in: Jean ne mange pas des pommes. Jean NE eats NOT of.the apples ‘Jean doesn’t eat apples.’ However, English gives us reason to believe (assuming NegP is in the same place in the tree in both languages) that NegP comes between IP and VP: Bill will not eat apples. French negation A common view of how French negation looks at DS is like this, with ne being a morpheme of category Neg, heading a NegP with pas in its specifier. IP DP I I [PRES] For the moment, we won’t concern ourselves with the categorial status of pas; clearly it must be an XP of some kind itself, maybe also of category Neg, but it never heads the main NegP in a sentence. I’ll write it just as pas in the specifier. pas NegP Neg Neg VP ne V PP French negation How do we get the correct word order? We know that V needs to move to I, but wouldn’t this yield: Jean mange pas ne des pommes. ? You’d think so, yet the facts tell us that we actually get: Jean ne mange pas des pommes. IP DP I I [PRES] pas NegP Neg Neg VP ne V PP French negation Suppose, however, that the verb moves first to Neg, and then moves up to I… What will happen first is that the V will head-adjoin to Neg, creating a complex head… IP DP I I [PRES] pas NegP Neg Neg VP ne V PP French negation Note that we take ne to be a prefix (not a suffix), which means when we create the complex head, the verb adjoins on the right. Now, the verb still needs to move to I, but it is attached to the Neg now… so the Neg moves to I. Complex heads move as a unit. You can’t “dis-attach” a head from a complex head. IP DP I NegP I [PRES] pas Neg Neg Neg ne Vi t i VP PP French negation This final movement ends up with the verb close enough to the tense suffix to satisfy the requirement that tense have a verbal host, while at the same time “taking ne along” to get us the right word order. Jean ne mange pas… IP DP I NegP I Negj Neg ne I [PRES] Vi pas Neg tj VP ti PP French negation So, we see that assuming that ne is the head of NegP in French (with pas in the specifier), and assuming that the verb “stops off” to attach to Neg before moving (now as a part of the complex Neg head) up to I, we get the right word order. Note that, since *Jean mange pas ne des pommes is ungrammatical, we also know that the verb has to stop off at Neg on the way up. Head Movement Constraint This is an example which motivated the hypothesis that head movement is constrained by the Head Movement Constraint (or HMC) which says that when a head moves to another head, it cannot “skip” over a head inbetween. So, the reason the verb stops at Neg is because Neg is between where V began and I. Head Movement Constraint A head cannot move over another head. Colloquial French? It turns out that the negation morpheme ne that we suppose is the head of the NegP projection is actually generally optional (or even preferentially omitted in colloquial French)—yet pas doesn’t act any differently (i.e. it doesn’t get “picked up” by the verb on the way up to I instead of ne). What this suggests is that colloquial French has a null morpheme which is the head of NegP— that pas is still in SpecNegP, but the head is Ø instead of ne. English negation A common view of English negation is actually an extension of this: Many researchers consider not to be in the specifier of NegP, with a null head. [IP John I [NegP not ØNEG [VP is eating lunch]]] [IP John I [NegP not ØNEG+isi [VP ti eating lunch]]] [IP John [isi+ØNEG]j [NegP not tj [VP ti eating lunch]]] English negation [IP John [isi+ØNEG]j [NegP not tj [VP ti eating lunch]]] However, sometimes English negation does appear to be the head of NegP—when it’s “contracted” as -n’t. Isn’t Bill hungry? Cf. Is Bill not hungry? Notice that when the verb moved to I and then to C, it seems to have carried negation along. The Italian DP In Italian, in many cases, there is simply an option (stylistically governed) as to whether you say The Gianni or just Gianni: Gianni mi ha telefonato. Gianni me has telephoned ‘Gianni called me up.’ Il Gianni mi ha telefonato. the Gianni me has telephoned ‘Gianni called me up.’ The Italian DP However, there is a difference with respect to the order of adjectives and the noun depending on which one you use. L’ antica Roma the ancient Rome ‘Ancient Rome’ *Antica Roma ancient Rome Roma antica Rome ancient E’venuto il vecchio Cameresi. came the older Cameresi *E’venuto vecchio Cameresi. came older Cameresi E’venuto Cameresi vecchio. came Cameresi older The Italian DP But this makes perfect sense, if what is happening in the cases where there is no determiner is that the N is moving up to D (just like V moves up DP to I in the main clause), and when there is a determiner, the N stays D put. D+Ni NP L’ antica Roma the ancient Rome AdjP NP Roma antica Roma Rome ancient *Antica ancient Rome ti … Back to VSO Now, let’s return to the question of VSO order in languages like Irish (remember that?). Recall that we started off with the observation that there isn’t any way to “generate VSO order” at DS using X-bar rules because V and O are sisters at DS. However, now that we have verb movement at our disposal, we could certainly derive VSO like this: DS: Subject Verb Object SS: Verbi Subject ti Object Irish In support of verb movement, consider: 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 find that if an auxiliary occupies the verb slot at the beginning of the sentence, the main verb appears between the subject and verb—it remains, unmoved. This suggests that deriving VSO from SVO is on the VSO order in Irish Where is the verb moving to, though? The verb ends up to the left of the subject, which in English we took to be movement to C: Will Bill buy cheese? A natural thing to suppose is that the verb moves to I and then to C in Irish to get VSO order. VSO order in Irish Except, consider these: 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.’ If the verb moves to C, where are an and gur? VSO order in Irish In English (and German and other languages) if there is something in C, the verb doesn’t move there (it doesn’t need to): Is Bill hungry? Should Bill be hungry? I wonder if Bill is hungry. But in Irish, we see an overt complementizer followed by VSO. A VP-internal subject in Irish? One possibility that this suggests is that the verb is only moving to T, but the subject is actually lower than T—and we have a place in our tree which hasn’t been used yet, the specifier of VP. But what about English? We expect that DS looks pretty much the same across languages, so why does the subject seem to start in different places in Irish and English? CP C C TP T T+Vi VP DP V ti … Wrapup So, what we’ve seen is basically that there is an operation of head movement which can take the head of an XP and attach it (head-adjoin) it to a higher head. This kind of movement cannot skip over intervening heads in the structure (HMC). We’ve seen V-to-I movement, I-to-C movement, and N-to-D movement as examples of this.