Elliptical, gapping, null spellout, silent AUX 3.3-10 3.3 Null Auxiliaries Elliptical, gapping, null spellout, silent AUX

(15) He could have helped her, or [she have helped him] TP PRN T´ she T AUXP could AUX VP have V PRN helped him (18) Have-cliticisation blocked: *He could have … or she’ve helped him.

(19) Have-cliticisation Have can encliticise onto a word W ending in a vowel or diphthong provided that W c-commands have and W is immediately adjacent to have

3.4 Null T (21) All finite clauses are TPs headed by an (overt or null) T constituent (23) TP (25) TP PRN T´ PRN T´ He T VP He T VP ? V N Do+Af3SgPr V N enjoys syntax does enjoy syntax enjoyed Af3SgPr enjoys syntax Affix Hopping (Af: Tense Affix) Chomsky (1995): All heads in a syntactic structure are required to play a role in determining the meaning of the overall structure. Cf. perfect have (AUX) vs. causative/experienced have (V) (31) a. They’ve seen a ghost (perfect have) b.*They’ve their car serviced regularly (causative have) c.*They’ve students walk out on them sometimes (experienced have)

Null T in infinitive clauses (33) a. I have never known [Tom criticise anyone] him => Tom has never been known [to criticise anyone] b. A reporter saw [Senator Sleaze leave Benny’s Bunny Bar] => He was seen [to leave B’s B B] (35) ECM verbs TP a. I expect [him to win] N T´ b. I judged [him to be lying] Tom T VP c. They reported [him to be missing] to V PRN d. I believe [him to be innocent] criticise anyone

3.6 Null C in finite clauses (44) We didn’t know [he had resigned] or [that he had been accused of corruption] (49) A: What were you going to ask me? B: a. If you feel like a Coke b. Do you feel like a Coke? c.*If do you feel like a Coke? (50) [I am feeling thirsty], but [should I save my last Coke till later]? (52) Case Condition A pronoun or noun expression is assigned case by the closest case- assigning head which c-commands it A finite C constituent (whether overt or null) assigns nominative case to the subject of its clause under c-command

3.7 Null C in infinite clauses (55) I want [Mary to come to Japan] and [for her to see my parents] (57) obl. for-deletion when immediately follows want a. *More than anything, she wanted for him to apologise b. More than anything, she wanted him to apologise c. She wanted more than anything for him to apologise d. *She wanted more than anything him to apologise (58) a. What she wanted was for him to apologise b.*What she wanted was him to apologise

3.8 Defective clauses ECM verbs (67) *We didn’t intend [you to hurt him] or [for him to hurt you] (70) a. He is believed to hurt you b. You weren’t intended to hurt him (72) Impenetrability Condition A constituent in the domain of (i.e. c-commanded by) a complementiser is impenetrable to (and so cannot be attracted by) a higher head c-commanding the complementiser (73)*[CP [C Ø] [TP You [Tweren’t] intended [CP [Cfor] [TP you [Tto] hurt anyone]]]] x (PIC)

3.9 Null determiners and quantifiers (81) a. DP b. DP c. DP D N D N D N we linguists you linguists Ø linguists (82) a. Eggs and many dairy products cause cholesterol b. I’d like toast and some coffee please QP Q N Ø eggs toast

Longobardi (2005) ‘Toward a Unified Grammar of Reference’ Italian bare arguments are in fact DPs with a null D DP D NP ∂ potatoes ∂ : phonologically null N-to-D raising: obligatory for PNs (proper nouns), impossible for BNs (bare nouns)

Determinerless arguments (1) PNs(proper names): (2) BNs(bare nouns): to denote a definite, specific entity mass or plural head nouns (Kripke 1980) Ho incontrato Maria/te a. Bevo sempre vino 'I met Maria/you.' 'I always drink wine.‘ b. Ho mangiato patate 'I ate potatoes.'