Week 8. Midterm debrief CAS LX 522 Syntax I

Midterm results Mean: 88 Mean: 88 Median: 93 Median: 93 A A- B+ B B-

Some mid-term policy decisions and clarifications Proper names in English as DPs with Ø D. Proper names in English as DPs with Ø D. Pronouns are DPs with no NP inside. Pronouns are DPs with no NP inside. Main clauses are CPs Main clauses are CPs Predicate-internal subjects, auxiliaries, nonfinite clauses. Predicate-internal subjects, auxiliaries, nonfinite clauses. EPP holds in nonfinite clauses EPP holds in nonfinite clauses Expletives don’t get  -roles. Expletives don’t get  -roles. Expletives are not there at DS. Expletives are not there at DS.  -roles can only be assigned within the XP headed by the  -assigner. So, within VP.  -roles can only be assigned within the XP headed by the  -assigner. So, within VP. ECM, embedded TPs. ECM, embedded TPs.

Proper names Henceforth, we will consider proper names in English to be DPs with a Ø D head, in order to capture the crosslinguistically common form of proper names the Bill, as well as to allow for the Bill I know, etc. Henceforth, we will consider proper names in English to be DPs with a Ø D head, in order to capture the crosslinguistically common form of proper names the Bill, as well as to allow for the Bill I know, etc. DØDØ D DP N NP Bill N

Matrix clauses are CPs… We will also consider all matrix clauses to be full CPs. We will also consider all matrix clauses to be full CPs. In questions, we need a CP headed by a [+Q] morpheme in C. In questions, we need a CP headed by a [+Q] morpheme in C. In declaratives, we will assume that we have a CP headed by a (null) [– Q] morpheme. In declaratives, we will assume that we have a CP headed by a (null) [– Q] morpheme. C C CP [–Q] T T TP should … DP Bill

Predicate-internal subjects VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis The subject of a verb originates in the specifier of VP at DS. VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis The subject of a verb originates in the specifier of VP at DS. This goes for other subjects of other predicates, e.g., small clauses like I find Bill intolerable. This goes for other subjects of other predicates, e.g., small clauses like I find Bill intolerable. All  -roles are assigned within the predicate’s own XP. All  -roles are assigned within the predicate’s own XP. V V VP … DS T T DP … V V A AP DP A intolerable Bill find

Internal subjects and auxiliaries Note that this means that the subject has to be in the specifier of the main verb in cases where there are auxiliaries. Not in the specifier of the auxiliary verb—it’s the main verb which assigns the  -roles. Note that this means that the subject has to be in the specifier of the main verb in cases where there are auxiliaries. Not in the specifier of the auxiliary verb—it’s the main verb which assigns the  -roles. Also note: This has nothing to do with whether the clause is finite or not—this has to do with VP (or AP, etc.), not with TP. The subject is always in the specifier of the predicate. Also note: This has nothing to do with whether the clause is finite or not—this has to do with VP (or AP, etc.), not with TP. The subject is always in the specifier of the predicate. DP lunch V eaten V VP T [past] T DS V have V VP DP Bill …

EPP: Clarification The EPP is a constraint on TP, it says that SpecTP must be filled. The EPP is a constraint on TP, it says that SpecTP must be filled. It is not a property of finite T alone, it is a property of T in general. In particular, the SpecTP position of a nonfinite clause must be filled as well. This will be relevant later today. It is not a property of finite T alone, it is a property of T in general. In particular, the SpecTP position of a nonfinite clause must be filled as well. This will be relevant later today.

Expletives and  -roles Let me reiterate, the reason we have expletives at all is because we have a conflict between the  -criterion and the EPP. Let me reiterate, the reason we have expletives at all is because we have a conflict between the  -criterion and the EPP. The EPP requires something in SpecTP. The EPP requires something in SpecTP. The  -criterion says we can only have as many arguments as there are  -roles. The  -criterion says we can only have as many arguments as there are  -roles. In it rains, it is not present at DS—it cannot be, because it cannot get a  -role (since there is none around for it to get), but is inserted between DS and SS in order to satisfy the EPP. In it rains, it is not present at DS—it cannot be, because it cannot get a  -role (since there is none around for it to get), but is inserted between DS and SS in order to satisfy the EPP.

Government These three environments These three environments Sister Sister Specifier Specifier Specifier of sister Specifier of sister …are together the positions which are governed by the head X. …are together the positions which are governed by the head X. Y Y YP … X X XP DP The radius of government

Government A Case-assigning head X can assign Case to a DP which is any of these positions. A Case-assigning head X can assign Case to a DP which is any of these positions. Case-assignment can only take place between a Case-assigner and a DP within the radius of government. Case-assignment can only take place between a Case-assigner and a DP within the radius of government. Y Y YP … X X XP DP The radius of government

Government Take this to be The Truth. Take this to be The Truth. Bill wants me to leave. Bill wants me to leave. Here the verb want assigns an Experiencer  -role and a Proposition  -role, the proposition assigned to the embedded clause. Here the verb want assigns an Experiencer  -role and a Proposition  -role, the proposition assigned to the embedded clause. Me is getting Case from want, apparently, since it is accusative. Me is getting Case from want, apparently, since it is accusative. Y Y YP … X X XP DP The radius of government

Case Given what we’ve got so far, we might expect this structure. Given what we’ve got so far, we might expect this structure. But can this be right? But can this be right? Can want provide Case for me? Can want provide Case for me? C [–Q] C CP DP i Bill tjtj V VP V j +T wants T TP SS VP T to T TP leave V V tktk DP k 1sg … titi *

Case Answer: No. Answer: No. Want and me are too far apart. Want and me are too far apart. Me is not in the government radius of want. Me is not in the government radius of want. C [–Q] C CP DP i Bill tjtj V VP V j +T wants T TP SS VP T to T TP leave V V tktk DP k 1sg … titi *

Case Instead, it must look like this, where there is no CP containing the embedded clause, just a bare TP. Instead, it must look like this, where there is no CP containing the embedded clause, just a bare TP. Now, everything is fine. Now, everything is fine. DP i Bill tjtj V VP V j +T wants T TP SS VP T to T TP leave V V tktk DP k 1sg … titi

CP So when do we have CP and when don’t we? So when do we have CP and when don’t we? Finite clauses always have a CP (this includes matrix clauses now too.). Finite clauses always have a CP (this includes matrix clauses now too.). Nonfinite clauses generally don’t have a CP unless you can see it (unless there is a complementizer or some other evidence of CP). Nonfinite clauses generally don’t have a CP unless you can see it (unless there is a complementizer or some other evidence of CP). I want for Bill to leave. (CP) I want for Bill to leave. (CP) I want Bill to leave. (TP) I want Bill to leave. (TP) I don’t know what to buy. (CP) I don’t know what to buy. (CP)

ECM This configuration, where a Case- assigning predicate provides Case to the specifier of its sister, is sometimes called Exceptional Case Marking (ECM). This configuration, where a Case- assigning predicate provides Case to the specifier of its sister, is sometimes called Exceptional Case Marking (ECM). The idea was that it’s an unusual configuration for Case (not complement or specifier of the assigner). The idea was that it’s an unusual configuration for Case (not complement or specifier of the assigner). DP i Bill tjtj V VP V j +T wants T TP SS VP T to T TP leave V V tktk DP k 1sg … titi

ECM Note! The textbook provides an altogether different analysis of how me gets Case in this sentence, under the name “object raising”. Note! The textbook provides an altogether different analysis of how me gets Case in this sentence, under the name “object raising”. Problem is, doing it the way the textbook does right now breaks X-bar theory and we don’t want to do that. So, for now, this is the official way to analyze these sentences. Problem is, doing it the way the textbook does right now breaks X-bar theory and we don’t want to do that. So, for now, this is the official way to analyze these sentences. DP i Bill tjtj V VP V j +T wants T TP SS VP T to T TP leave V V tktk DP k 1sg … titi

Abstract thoughts Pick a bunch of things from the lexicon. Pick a bunch of things from the lexicon. The lexicon is where we store all of our language- particular information—not only words like student, but also words like the and that and -ed. The lexicon is where we store all of our language- particular information—not only words like student, but also words like the and that and -ed. Assemble them logically into predicates and arguments in a DS tree, using the X-bar schema. Assemble them logically into predicates and arguments in a DS tree, using the X-bar schema. Does every  -role of every predicate get assigned to exactly one argument? Does every argument get assigned exactly one  -role? Does every  -role of every predicate get assigned to exactly one argument? Does every argument get assigned exactly one  -role? Clauses have information about force (question, statement, exclamation—C), tense and modality (past, present, certain, conditional—T), and predicate-argument combinations (VP). Clauses have information about force (question, statement, exclamation—C), tense and modality (past, present, certain, conditional—T), and predicate-argument combinations (VP).

Problems at DS The arrangement of things at DS is not good enough. The arrangement of things at DS is not good enough. DP’s need to be in one of the privileged positions in the structure (near a Case-assigner)—”DPs need Case” (Case Filter). DP’s need to be in one of the privileged positions in the structure (near a Case-assigner)—”DPs need Case” (Case Filter). The specifier of TP cannot be left empty (EPP). The specifier of TP cannot be left empty (EPP). And some other things… And some other things… We think of these as requirements that need to be met, and often they are requirements imposed by a particular head in the tree. We think of these as requirements that need to be met, and often they are requirements imposed by a particular head in the tree. T requires that its XP have a non-empty spec. T requires that its XP have a non-empty spec. D requires that its XP be near a Case assigner. D requires that its XP be near a Case assigner.

Problems at DS More requirements of this sort… More requirements of this sort… Question-type C (that is, [+Q]) needs to be near T. Question-type C (that is, [+Q]) needs to be near T. Hence in questions T will have to move up to C. Hence in questions T will have to move up to C. T (when the type that gets realized as a suffix— e.g., -ed, -s, but not will or might) needs to be near an auxiliary verb if there is one. T (when the type that gets realized as a suffix— e.g., -ed, -s, but not will or might) needs to be near an auxiliary verb if there is one. Hence auxiliaries will have to move up to T. Hence auxiliaries will have to move up to T. It’s a requirement of T not of the auxiliary. It’s a requirement of T not of the auxiliary. John wasn’t under the table. John wasn’t under the table. John will be under the table. John will be under the table. John hasn’t been under the table for some time now. John hasn’t been under the table for some time now.

Solving problems through movement The problems with DS are generally that things which need to be next to each other aren’t. The problems with DS are generally that things which need to be next to each other aren’t. Note that we couldn’t have put things next to each other initially at DS, though, because  -role assignment has to be local, among other things. Note that we couldn’t have put things next to each other initially at DS, though, because  -role assignment has to be local, among other things. So, we move things from one place in the tree to another, to satisfy the requirements. Move heads to adjoin to heads (but not over other heads), move XPs into specifiers (e.g., moving to SpecTP). So, we move things from one place in the tree to another, to satisfy the requirements. Move heads to adjoin to heads (but not over other heads), move XPs into specifiers (e.g., moving to SpecTP).

Crash? If you get to the end of the moves you can make and there is still some requirement left unmet, sometimes we say that the derivation crashes. That is, the sentence you were trying to make is ungrammatical. If you get to the end of the moves you can make and there is still some requirement left unmet, sometimes we say that the derivation crashes. That is, the sentence you were trying to make is ungrammatical.

Syntax vs. phonology When something is pronounced differently from how you’d expect based on the DS, this could be either When something is pronounced differently from how you’d expect based on the DS, this could be either Movement in the syntax Movement in the syntax Alteration in the morphology Alteration in the morphology Hard to tell the difference. Hard to tell the difference. Clues: In syntax movement is only upward (moved element must c-command its trace). Clues: In syntax movement is only upward (moved element must c-command its trace).

Syntax vs. phonology Given that, do-support must be phonological. Given that, do-support must be phonological. Some kinds of T have the morphological property that they are verbal suffixes—they are pronounced at the ends of verbs. Some kinds of T have the morphological property that they are verbal suffixes—they are pronounced at the ends of verbs. If you try to pronounce T without a verb to hook onto, there’s no crash—the morphology just deals with it as best it can, by inserting the most meaningless verb, do, and pronouncing T on that. If you try to pronounce T without a verb to hook onto, there’s no crash—the morphology just deals with it as best it can, by inserting the most meaningless verb, do, and pronouncing T on that.

Labeling When labeling things in a tree, there’s a certain amount of flexibility in what you write. When labeling things in a tree, there’s a certain amount of flexibility in what you write. [past], -ed, … [past], -ed, … However, if a feature indicates a requirement that’s affecting the syntax, you need to put it in. Hence: C [+Q]. However, if a feature indicates a requirement that’s affecting the syntax, you need to put it in. Hence: C [+Q]. If a pronunciation is seriously ambiguous as to what lexical item you have, this is also no good. For example: T -Ø. What tense is that? If a pronunciation is seriously ambiguous as to what lexical item you have, this is also no good. For example: T -Ø. What tense is that?

Ø vs. We often distinguish the syntactic structure of something from its pronounciation. We often distinguish the syntactic structure of something from its pronounciation. C is there in the tree, whether it’s pronounced that or not pronounced at all. C is there in the tree, whether it’s pronounced that or not pronounced at all. We write the “silent C” as Ø. We write the “silent C” as Ø. But if there’s no C at all, you don’t write Ø, since that means “silent C”. But if there’s no C at all, you don’t write Ø, since that means “silent C”.