Episode 7b. Subjects, agreement, and case CAS LX 522 Syntax I

Historical interlude Back in the old days, people hypothesized that Pat will charm snakes had a structure like this. Back in the old days, people hypothesized that Pat will charm snakes had a structure like this. The subject NP Pat was in the specifier of “IP” (what we call “TP”), and the VP contained only the verb charm and the object NP snakes. The subject NP Pat was in the specifier of “IP” (what we call “TP”), and the VP contained only the verb charm and the object NP snakes. Pat got an Agent  -role by being in SpecIP, even though the fact that there is an Agent  -role to be had is determined by the verb down in the VP. Pat got an Agent  -role by being in SpecIP, even though the fact that there is an Agent  -role to be had is determined by the verb down in the VP. VP I will I IP NP Pat V charm NP snakes

Historical interlude Nevertheless, this predicts the normal word order pretty well, and so it was hypothesized that the verb simply assigned one of its  -roles directly to SpecIP. Nevertheless, this predicts the normal word order pretty well, and so it was hypothesized that the verb simply assigned one of its  -roles directly to SpecIP. No big deal, syntax works in strange and mysterious ways. No big deal, syntax works in strange and mysterious ways. At a certain point, someone started thinking about sentences like these: At a certain point, someone started thinking about sentences like these: All the students will take the exam. All the students will take the exam. The students will all take the exam. The students will all take the exam. It’s fairly clear here that all the students is an NP, that it forms a coherent unit, a coherent concept. All really belongs with the students. It’s fairly clear here that all the students is an NP, that it forms a coherent unit, a coherent concept. All really belongs with the students. VP I will I IP NP Pat NP snakes V charm

Historical interlude All the students will take the exam. All the students will take the exam. The students will all take the exam. The students will all take the exam. Back in the even older days, the hypothesis was that there was a special rule that turned the first sentence into the second. Back in the even older days, the hypothesis was that there was a special rule that turned the first sentence into the second. The Quantifier Float rule would move all over to the right, next to the VP. The Quantifier Float rule would move all over to the right, next to the VP. all NP … VP  NP … all + VP all NP … VP  NP … all + VP VP I will I IP NP Pat NP snakes V charm

Historical interlude Not all quantifiers are subject to Quantifier Float: Not all quantifiers are subject to Quantifier Float: Quantifiers: every, some, all, most, several, many, both, four, … Quantifiers: every, some, all, most, several, many, both, four, … Every student will take the exam. *Student will every take the exam. Every student will take the exam. *Student will every take the exam. Several students will take the exam. *Students will several take the exam. Several students will take the exam. *Students will several take the exam. It works for both and all: The students will both take the exam. The students will all take the exam. It works for both and all: The students will both take the exam. The students will all take the exam. What’s a difference between every, some, several, many and both, all? What’s a difference between every, some, several, many and both, all? VP I will I IP NP Pat NP snakes V charm

Historical interlude Upon further reflection, some enterprising syntacticians hit upon the idea that rather than floating all to its position next to VP, all might instead have been “left behind” by a subject that had moved. Upon further reflection, some enterprising syntacticians hit upon the idea that rather than floating all to its position next to VP, all might instead have been “left behind” by a subject that had moved. will [all [the students]] take the exam. will [all [the students]] take the exam. [all [the students]] i will t i take the exam. [all [the students]] i will t i take the exam. [the students] i will [all t i ] take the exam. [the students] i will [all t i ] take the exam. And why would all the students have been down there? Well, that would simplify assignment of  -roles. And why would all the students have been down there? Well, that would simplify assignment of  -roles. VP I will I IP NP Pat NP snakes V charm

The VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis The verb (head of VP) can assign  -roles to other things within the VP, which is a natural explanation for how the choice of verb controls whether an Agent  -role is assigned or not. The verb (head of VP) can assign  -roles to other things within the VP, which is a natural explanation for how the choice of verb controls whether an Agent  -role is assigned or not. This idea became known as the VP- Internal Subject Hypothesis. This idea became known as the VP- Internal Subject Hypothesis. V I I IP NP Pat will titi VP NP snakes V charm

The VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis For us, we’ve supposed from the beginning that assignment of  -roles is necessarily local. This may not seem like a very surprising hypothesis. For us, we’ve supposed from the beginning that assignment of  -roles is necessarily local. This may not seem like a very surprising hypothesis. But it was at the time a rather unintuitive idea, and so various people set out to see if some of the predictions this makes are borne out in the grammatical data. But it was at the time a rather unintuitive idea, and so various people set out to see if some of the predictions this makes are borne out in the grammatical data. V I I IP NP Pat will titi VP NP snakes V charm

The VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis It turns out that as people looked, there were reasons to believe this. It turns out that as people looked, there were reasons to believe this. The new analysis of Quantifier Float no longer relies on an idiosyncratic rule of English, but more general principles. The new analysis of Quantifier Float no longer relies on an idiosyncratic rule of English, but more general principles. The assignment of  -roles can now be more directly related to the properties of the verb. The assignment of  -roles can now be more directly related to the properties of the verb. And we can make sense of there constructions in a more straightforward way. And we can make sense of there constructions in a more straightforward way. V I I IP NP Pat will titi VP NP snakes V charm

Back to the present The basic components of the quantifier “stranding” phenomenon are: The basic components of the quantifier “stranding” phenomenon are: All the students is a constituent. The students is an NP inside all the students. All the students is a constituent. The students is an NP inside all the students. [all [ NP the students]] [all [ NP the students]] Either all the students or just the students can move to SpecTP, to satisfy the [uN*] feature of T. Either all the students or just the students can move to SpecTP, to satisfy the [uN*] feature of T. So all the students and the students are both NPs. So all the students and the students are both NPs. [ NP all [ NP the students]] [ NP all [ NP the students]] So all is essentially a noun, but one that takes an NP complement (all: [N, uN*, …]). So all is essentially a noun, but one that takes an NP complement (all: [N, uN*, …]). We’re assuming here that all is not an adjunct, but in fact a head, taking the NP as a complement. Why? We’re assuming here that all is not an adjunct, but in fact a head, taking the NP as a complement. Why? all NP the students Quantifier stranding is still often referred to as “quantifier float” to this day, even though the name no longer reflects the analysis.

v All the students will take the exam We start by building our vP. We start by building our vP. Merge the NP the exam and the V take (checks [uN*] on V) Merge the NP the exam and the V take (checks [uN*] on V) Merge v and VP (HoP) Merge v and VP (HoP) Move V to v (checks [uV*] on v) Move V to v (checks [uV*] on v) Merge the N all and the NP the students (checks [uN*] on all) Merge the N all and the NP the students (checks [uN*] on all) v agent [uInfl:, …] VPv V take vPvPvPvP all NP the students NP the exam

v All the students will take the exam We Merge the M will with vP (HoP) We Merge the M will with vP (HoP) This values [uInfl:] on v as [uInfl:M]. This values [uInfl:] on v as [uInfl:M]. v agent [uInfl:M, …] VPv V take vPvPvPvP all NP the students NP the exam M M will [uInfl:, …]

v All the students will take the exam We Merge the T will with MP (HoP) We Merge the T will with MP (HoP) This values [uInfl:] on M as [uInfl:pres*] (strong). This values [uInfl:] on M as [uInfl:pres*] (strong). v agent [uInfl:M, …] VPv V take vPvPvPvP all NP the students NP the exam MPMPMPMP M will [uInfl:pres*, …] T T [tense:pres, uN*,…]

v All the students will take the exam We move M up to T We move M up to T This checks the strong [uInfl:pres*] on M. This checks the strong [uInfl:pres*] on M. v agent [uInfl:M, …] VPv V take vPvPvPvP all NP the students NP the exam MPMPMPMP M will [uInfl:pres*, …] T T [tense:pres, uN*,…] T

All the students will take the exam Now, there are two possibilities: Now, there are two possibilities: Move the NP all the students. Move the NP all the students. Move the NP the students. Move the NP the students. Is all the students closer to T than the students is? Not if we define “closer” as we did, in terms of c-command. Where X c-commands Y and Z, Y is closer to X than Z is if Y c- commands Z. v v agent [uInfl:M, …] VPv V take vPvPvPvP all NP the students NP the exam MPMPMPMP M will [uInfl:pres*, …] T T [tense:pres, uN*,…] T

All the students will take the exam Now, there are two possibilities: Now, there are two possibilities: Move the NP all the students. Move the NP all the students. Move the NP the students. Move the NP the students. v v agent [uInfl:M, …] VPv V take vPvPvPvP all NP the students NP the exam MPMPMPMP M will [uInfl:pres*, …] T T [tense:pres, uN*,…] T TP

The students will all take the exam Now, there are two possibilities: Now, there are two possibilities: Move the NP all the students. Move the NP all the students. Move the NP the students. Move the NP the students. v v agent [uInfl:M, …] VPv V take vPvPvPvP all NP NP the exam MPMPMPMP M will [uInfl:pres*, …] T T [tense:pres, uN*,…] T TP NP the students

Expletive constructions An expletive is an element that can be in subject position without having received a  -role from anywhere. An expletive is an element that can be in subject position without having received a  -role from anywhere. It had been raining. It had been raining. There were fans rioting on Comm Ave. There were fans rioting on Comm Ave. We’ve seen it before. But there is also there, which we’ll concentrate on now. Neither means anything, neither gets a  -role, both appear to satisfy the [uN*] feature of T. We’ve seen it before. But there is also there, which we’ll concentrate on now. Neither means anything, neither gets a  -role, both appear to satisfy the [uN*] feature of T. Both can be used in other ways: I saw it over there. Both can be used in other ways: I saw it over there.

Expletive constructions There were fans rioting on Comm Ave. There were fans rioting on Comm Ave. Fans were rioting on Comm Ave. Fans were rioting on Comm Ave. v vPvP T TP fans v+V riot ProgP T Tbe v vPvP fans T TP there v+V riot ProgP T Tbe

Case Recall that pronouns in English show distinctions in case: Recall that pronouns in English show distinctions in case: Subject pronouns are in nominative case Subject pronouns are in nominative case Object pronouns are in accusative case Object pronouns are in accusative case I saw her. She saw me. They saw him. I saw her. She saw me. They saw him. How can we ensure the correlation? How can we ensure the correlation?

Nom case Nominative subjects generally appear in the specifier of a finite T. Nominative subjects generally appear in the specifier of a finite T. Finite T is pretty much any kind of T except the infinitive. Finite T is pretty much any kind of T except the infinitive. We can treat case like we treated tense inflection: We can treat case like we treated tense inflection: Suppose T also has a [ucase:nom] feature. Suppose T also has a [ucase:nom] feature. Suppose nominative NPs have a [ucase:] feature. Suppose nominative NPs have a [ucase:] feature. Suppose the [ucase:nom] on T can value [ucase:] on the NP, checking both. Suppose the [ucase:nom] on T can value [ucase:] on the NP, checking both. So T needs a nom NP, and a nom NP needs T. So T needs a nom NP, and a nom NP needs T.

Acc case Subjects check nominative case with T. Objects have accusative case, which we can treat in the same kind of way. Subjects check nominative case with T. Objects have accusative case, which we can treat in the same kind of way. Suppose v has [ucase:acc]. Suppose v has [ucase:acc]. Suppose accusative NPs have [ucase:] Suppose accusative NPs have [ucase:] Suppose the [ucase:acc] on v can value the [ucase:] feature on the NP, checking both. Suppose the [ucase:acc] on v can value the [ucase:] feature on the NP, checking both. Nominative case is a relation between (finite) T and an NP, accusative case is a relation between v and an NP. Nominative case is a relation between (finite) T and an NP, accusative case is a relation between v and an NP.

Notes on case Nominative case is associated with finite T. Nominative case is associated with finite T. She will charm snakes. She will charm snakes. I want her to charm snakes. I want her to charm snakes. I expect her to charm snakes. I expect her to charm snakes. Non-finite T is not associated with nominative case. It’s not actually associated with accusative case either, but we’ll come back to that later. Non-finite T is not associated with nominative case. It’s not actually associated with accusative case either, but we’ll come back to that later. Because NPs have an unvalued [ucase:] feature, we can suppose that pronouns always enter the numeration the same way, and are valued based on where they are Merged. Because NPs have an unvalued [ucase:] feature, we can suppose that pronouns always enter the numeration the same way, and are valued based on where they are Merged. pronoun [N, ucase:, …] pronoun [N, ucase:, …]

Notes on case Although in English we only see the morphological effect of case on pronouns, we assume that all NPs have an unvalued [ u case: ] feature. Although in English we only see the morphological effect of case on pronouns, we assume that all NPs have an unvalued [ u case: ] feature. Plenty of languages other than English show case on all NPs, not just on pronouns. Case is something that goes with being an NP. It’s just something you often don’t hear in English. Plenty of languages other than English show case on all NPs, not just on pronouns. Case is something that goes with being an NP. It’s just something you often don’t hear in English. Notational shortcuts: Notational shortcuts: [nom] is used for [ucase:nom] (on T, or NP when checked) [nom] is used for [ucase:nom] (on T, or NP when checked) [acc] is used for [ucase:acc] (on v, or NP when checked) [acc] is used for [ucase:acc] (on v, or NP when checked) [case] is used for [ucase:] (on an NP) [case] is used for [ucase:] (on an NP)

Subject-verb agreement Recall that in English, the  -features of the subject have an effect on the morphology of the verb: Recall that in English, the  -features of the subject have an effect on the morphology of the verb: Fans were rioting on Comm Ave. Fans were rioting on Comm Ave. A fan was rioting on Comm Ave. A fan was rioting on Comm Ave. While we’re here, we might as well account for this too. It is also an agreement relation, between the subject and, eventually, the verb (or auxiliary, if there is one). While we’re here, we might as well account for this too. It is also an agreement relation, between the subject and, eventually, the verb (or auxiliary, if there is one).

Subject-verb agreement The verb gets its tense inflection specified by T when, e.g., the [tense:pres] feature of T values the [ u Infl: ] feature of v. The verb gets its tense inflection specified by T when, e.g., the [tense:pres] feature of T values the [ u Infl: ] feature of v. Since the subject already agrees with T (the [ nom ] feature of T checks the [ case ] feature of the subject), we’ll incorporate subject agreement into this process. Since the subject already agrees with T (the [ nom ] feature of T checks the [ case ] feature of the subject), we’ll incorporate subject agreement into this process. Notice that we still want this agreement to be mediated by T (sometimes it values, e.g., Perf): Notice that we still want this agreement to be mediated by T (sometimes it values, e.g., Perf): They have been reading novels. They have been reading novels. She has been reading novels. She has been reading novels.

Subject-verb agreement Suppose then that T has a [ u  : ] feature as well. Suppose then that T has a [ u  : ] feature as well. The subject has (interpretable)  -features that value the [ u  : ] feature of T. The subject has (interpretable)  -features that value the [ u  : ] feature of T. Fans were rioting on Comm Ave. Fans were rioting on Comm Ave. T [T, uN*, u  :, nom] T [T, uN*, u  :, nom] fans [N,  :pl, case] fans [N,  :pl, case] So, once T is in the structure, c-commanding fans in SpecvP, we get: So, once T is in the structure, c-commanding fans in SpecvP, we get: T [T, uN*, u  :pl, nom] T [T, uN*, u  :pl, nom] fans [N,  :pl, nom] fans [N,  :pl, nom]

Subject-verb agreement Finally, we suppose that the (checked) [ u  :pl] feature of T, also values a [ u Infl: ] feature on a lower v (or Perf, or Prog). Finally, we suppose that the (checked) [ u  :pl] feature of T, also values a [ u Infl: ] feature on a lower v (or Perf, or Prog). The rules of pronunciation will tell us that a v with the verb riot adjoined to it sounds like: The rules of pronunciation will tell us that a v with the verb riot adjoined to it sounds like: “riots” if v has the feature [uInfl:pres,sg] “riots” if v has the feature [uInfl:pres,sg] “riot” if v has the feature [uInfl:pres,pl]. “riot” if v has the feature [uInfl:pres,pl]. Notice that T values a [ u Infl: ] feature all at once, with any relevant feature(s) it has (so, tense and  -features both). Notice that T values a [ u Infl: ] feature all at once, with any relevant feature(s) it has (so, tense and  -features both).

She likes them So, let’s walk through it. So, let’s walk through it. We start by merging like and the 3pl pronoun. We start by merging like and the 3pl pronoun. NP pronoun [N,  :3pl, case] VP V likes [V]

She likes them v [v, u N*, u Infl:, u V*, acc ] v [v, u N*, u Infl:, u V*, acc ] We Merge v with VP (HoP). We Merge v with VP (HoP). The [ acc ] on v matches, values, and checks the [ case ] on the pronoun, checking itself as well. The [ acc ] on v matches, values, and checks the [ case ] on the pronoun, checking itself as well. Agree is lazy, we can do this without any further Merging or Moving. Agree is lazy, we can do this without any further Merging or Moving. NP pronoun [N,  :3pl, acc] VP V likes [V] v v [v, uN*, uInfl:, uV*, acc]

She likes them The V moves up to adjoin to v to check the [ u V* ] feature of v. The V moves up to adjoin to v to check the [ u V* ] feature of v. NP pronoun [N,  :3pl, acc] VP v v v [v, uN*, uInfl:, uV*, acc] V likes [V]

She likes them The V moves up to adjoin to v to check the [ u V* ] feature of v. The V moves up to adjoin to v to check the [ u V* ] feature of v. The 3sg feminine pronoun is Merged to check the [ u N* ] feature of v. The 3sg feminine pronoun is Merged to check the [ u N* ] feature of v. NP pronoun [N,  :3pl, acc] VP v v v [v, uN*, uInfl:, uV*, acc] V likes [V] vPvPvPvP NP pronoun [N,  :3fsg, case]

She likes them The T is Merged with vP (HoP). The T is Merged with vP (HoP). The [ nom ] feature of T matches, values, and checks the [ case ] feature of the pronoun, checking itself in the process. NP pronoun [N,  :3pl, acc] VP v v v [v, uN*, uInfl:, uV*, acc] V likes [V] vPvPvPvP NP pronoun [N,  :3fsg, nom] T T [T, tense:pres, u  :, uN*, nom]

She likes them The [  :3fsg] feature of NP values and checks the [ u  : ] feature of T. NP pronoun [N,  :3pl, acc] VP v v v [v, uN*, uInfl:, uV*, acc] V likes [V] vPvPvPvP NP pronoun [N,  :3fsg, nom] T T [T, tense:pres, u  :3fsg, uN*, nom]

She likes them The [ u  :3fsg] and [tense:pres] features of T value and check the [ u Infl: ] feature of v. From now on: (Finite) T can only value a lower [uInfl:] feature once T itself has a value for [  ]. Both [tense] and [  ] value the lower [uInfl:] feature. First step is always to check the [u  :] feature on T, after which T will check the lower [uInfl:] feature. NP pronoun [N,  :3pl, acc] VP v v v [v, uN*, uInfl:pres3fsg, uV*, acc] V likes [V] vPvPvPvP NP pronoun [N,  :3fsg, nom] T T [T, tense:pres, u  :3fsg, uN*, nom]

She likes them Finally, the NP is moved up and Merged with T in order to check the EPP feature (the [ u N* ] feature) of T. NP pronoun [N,  :3pl, acc] VP v v vPvPvPvP T T [T, tense:pres, u  :3fsg, uN*, nom] NP pronoun [N,  :3fsg, nom] TP v [v, uN*, uInfl:pres3fsg, uV*, acc] V likes [V]

She likes them All uninterpretable features are checked, the pronunciation rules give us she likes them. NP pronoun [N,  :3pl, acc] VP v v vPvPvPvP T T [T, tense:pres, u  :3fsg, uN*, nom] NP pronoun [N,  :3fsg, nom] TP v [v, uN*, uInfl:pres3fsg, uV*, acc] V likes [V]

                      