Lecture 1: Trace Theory

 We have seen that things move :  Arguments move out of the VP into subject position  Wh-phrases move out of IP into CP  Verbs move from V position to I and C  But this can’t be the whole story:  It isn’t the case that anything can move anywhere  Besides looking at what can move we also need to look at what can’t  For a full picture, we also need to know why:  Things can and can’t move

 In the next 3 weeks we will be looking at:  What happens to positions that things move out of  What restrictions there are on movements  Why things move

 There is a central idea, proposed in the 1970s, that movements do not change structures: If not: any structure could be produced by a movement there would be no theory of structure

 Another idea is that movements do not alter lexical properties: If not: There would be no lexical restrictions on structure Words could change categories or subcategories

 An intransitive verb cannot become transitive by something moving into its object position  He smiled (a smile) at Mary  * He smiled Mary at  A transitive verb cannot become intransitive by moving its object  He smiled a smile(unergative)  There arrived a letter(unaccusative)  Who did he meet  * Who did he meet a meet  * Who did there meet a man

 When a subject moves from one clause to another (raising)-  John seems [ to be intelligent]  the clause does not behave as though it has lost its subject:  Clauses without subjects are ungrammatical  * is intelligent  Only the subject of a clause can be the antecedent of a reflexive pronoun in the object position of that clause  John thinks [ Bill likes himself]  John seems [ to like himself]

 When a verb moves out of V into I, the VP does not behave as though it has lost its head:  The heat made [ VP the ice melt]  The heat melt-ed [ VP the ice]  Phrases without heads are ungrammatical  The inflection can only take a VP complement

 In the mid-1970s it was suggested that when something moves, the position that it leaves does not disappear and neither is it left empty  A ‘trace’ of the moved element is left behind  Traces have the same properties as the moved element (category, reference, etc.)  But they are phonologically empty  The heat melt–ed [ VP the ice [ V t] ]  Who did he meet [ DP t]  He seems [ IP [ DP t] to be intelligent ]

 If traces are invisible, how do we know they are there?  There are three phenomena which seems to support the supposition of traces:  ‘Wanna’ contraction  Doubling  Resumption

 When want is followed immediately by to, they can be contracted to the form wanna in informal spoken English:  I want to hold your hand  I wanna hold your hand  Obviously, this can’t happen if there is something between want and to:  I want you to hold my hand   * I wanna you hold my hand  * I you wanna hold my hand

 Now consider:  who do you want to hold your hand  As want and to are adjacent, we might think that they can contract – but they can’t:  * who do you wanna hold your hand  This can be explained with trace theory: the trace sits between want and to:  you want who to hold your hand   who do you want t to hold your hand

 If we did not suppose the presence of a trace in these sentence, it would be difficult to account for why wanna contraction can take place in some cases but not others:  I wanna hold your hand  * who do you wanna hold your hand  From the surface, both these cases look identical.

 Doubling is a phenomena found in some languages where a moved element is pronounced twice:  Once in the position it is moved to  Once in the position it is moved from

 For example, in some dialects of Dutch and Italian, a moved wh-phrase can appear twice:  ci alo visto ci? (Italian dialect)  whom has-he seen whom  “who has he seen?”  wie denk je wie ik gezien heb? (Dutch dialect)  who think you who I seen have  “who do you think I have seen?”

 Some languages do the same thing with verbs that move:  In Gungbe (Togo), to emphasise a verb it is moved to the front of a clause – but it is also pronounced in its normal position inside the clause too:  ∂ù Sená ∂ù ble∂ì lo  eat Sena eat bread DET  “Sena ATE the bread”

 Doubling is associated with movement  It is not just the repetition of words or phrases  One part of the doubled element is pronounced in the ‘extraction site’  Exactly where the trace would be in cases with no doubling  Doubling therefore appears to involve the pronunciation of the trace

 Resumptive pronouns are pronouns used in positions from which movement has taken place.  In English we find them in two contexts:  Left dislocation  In constructions that would otherwise involve an ungrammatical movement

 Left dislocation is similar to topicalisation  Topicalisation involves the movement of an argument to the front of the clause:  (Usually, he likes animals but) those hamsters, he won’t go anywhere near  With topicalisation the extraction site is left empty

 With left dislocation the argument is moved to the front of the clause, but the extraction site is not empty:  That politician, I can’t stand him  The pronoun in the extraction site is called a resumptive pronoun  There has been much discussion of the structure of left dislocation  Whether it involves a single clause  Whether it involves movement at all  If it is a single clause and it does involve movement, then it seems that traces alternate with resumptive pronouns  John, I despise (him)

 There are some constructions in which movements produce ungrammaticalities  which candidate do you know [Bill voted for]  * which candidate do you know [why Bill voted for]  The syntactic contexts (e.g. a clause which begins with a wh-phrase) which prevent movement are often called Islands

 We know relative clauses begin with a wh-phrase (the relative pronoun), though they are not always pronounced  the man [(who) you gave the money to]  The movement of the relative pronoun is also blocked by Islands  * the man who I wondered why you gave the money to  However, this ungrammaticality can often be improved with a resumptive pronoun in the extraction position  the man who I wondered why you gave the money to him

 Resumption is a little like doubling, though:  Instead of the trace being pronounced as a full DP, a pronoun is used instead  Resumption is a more common phenomena (English doesn’t have doubling, but it does use resumptive pronouns, for example)  It has been claimed that a resumptive pronoun is a partial pronunciation of a trace  The pronoun realises the category and the reference of the trace, but not its full lexical content  Again, resumptive pronouns are visible traces

 A sentence can contain several movement and a single element can move several times  Each movement leaves behind a trace  So we need to keep track of which trace belongs to which moved element

 To do this we use indices:  [ CP - [ IP - past [ VP -en [ VP who see]]]]  Movements:  Object moves to subject position  Wh-phrase moves to specifier of CP  Verb moves to passive morpheme  Auxiliary moves to C (after insertion to support tense)  S-structure  [ CP who 1 was 3 [ IP t 1 t 3 [ VP see 2 -en [ VP t 1 t 2 ]]]]

 Traces are (usually) unpronounced elements left behind by movements  They preserve the structure of the sentence and the lexical properties of the elements in the sentence  We have phonological evidence of their existence  They can be pronounced  They block certain phonological processes  They are indexed with the moved element