1. Syntactic Argumentation Chapter11 Week 13 Three types of arguments ⊙ Economy of description ⊙ Elegance of description ⊙ Independent Justification

2. The art of argumentation How can we classify the words such as the, a, these, all, every, several, some, etc.? Compare (1) and (2) with (3) and (4). (1) the sunshine (2) every palm tree (3) warm sunshine (4) tall palm trees First Hypothesis: The, some, and every are like adjectives because they can occur before nouns

3. Falsifying the first Hypothesis Consider more data. (5) the warm sunshine/ *warm the sunshine (6) every tall palm tree/*tall every palm tree (7) *the some sunshine (8) *the every palm tree Those are counterexamples to the first Hypothesis: If they are from the same word class, why is it that warm and tall can be preceded by the and every?

4. Differences between adjectives and our unknown elements (the, some, every, etc.) adjectives (9) beautiful, warm, bright sunshine =>(stacking allowed) (11) very warm sunshine (12) Extremely tall palm trees =>An intensifying adverb can be preceded (15) Sunshine is warm. Unknown elements (10) *the some every island  (no stacking, only one selected) (13) *very the sunshine (14)*extremely every palm tree  An intensifying adverb cannot be preceded (16)*Sunshine is the. The first hypothesis must be abandoned. They belong to a different word class(determinatives).

5. A new hypothesis: Only one determinative can be selected. Consider (17). (17) All those several good ideas to get off this island have failed.  In this case it is possible to have more than one determinative. (falsifying the new hypothesis again, (17) cannot be accommodated in the X-bar theory because there is only one Spec position.

6. ⊙ Economy of description: Linguistically significant generalisations An example of linguistic generalisations X’ (Spec) X’X’ (Adjunct) Head /X (Complement) XP

7. Another example of generalisation: Cleft sentences It + form of be + FOCUS +who/that … Observe the type of category that can occur in the focus position. (19) Kate came to see me. -It was KATE that came to see me. (Noun) (20) I met her in Philadelphia. -It was in PHILADELPHIA that I met her. (PP) (21) I made her work. -*It was WORK that I made her. (*Verb) (22) I made her happy. -*It was HAPPY that I made her. (*Adjective)

8. Syntactic features for the major categories: binary features (23) [+/-N, +/-V] (24) noun = [+N, -V] verb = [-N, +V] adjective = [+N, +V] Preposition = [-N, -V] =>Only [-V] categories can be placed in the focus position of a cleft sentences. Consider the following data. (25) Tom likes pizzas. (26) Tom is fond of pizzas. (27) *Tom is fond pizzas. (28) *Tom’s fondness pizzas => The feature [-N] can take NP’s as complements but adjectives and nouns cannot.

9. ⊙ Economy of description: Occam’s Razor Definition: In describing a phenomenon, we should cut out unnecessary assumptions, categories, terminology, etc. Put differently, description should be as constrained as possible.

10. The traditional system of phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs Phrasal verbs: (i)Transitive with alternation [verb+NP+particle]/ [verb+Particle NP]: hand NP in, heat up, look up, Throw away, send back, switch on/off, break down (e.g) He handed his essay in. He handed in his essay. (ii) Intransitive[verb +particle] : fall over, fool around, break down (e.g)They always fool around at the weekend. (29) Valerie sent a memo out. (30) Valerie sent out a memo. (31) Valerie went out. Prepositional verbs: verbs that take a prepositional phrase as a Complement: (i) Intransitive [v+PP]: approve of (NP), believe in (NP), complain about (NP), decide on (NP), lean against (NP), look after (NP), object to (NP), rely on (NP), wait for (NP) (e.g)I agree with Kim/*agree Kim with (ii) Transitive [v+NP+PP]: remind (NP) of (NP), thank (NP) for (NP) (e.g) I thanked Pete for his help. (32) He agreed with his sister. (33) She looked through the window. (34) *He agreed his sister with. (35) *She looked the window through.

11. Let’s consider the element out in view of the principle of Occam’s Razor (i)Propose a new word class: It is called a particle in a few English grammars. This proposal is violating the principle of Occam’s Razor. (ii) Treating ‘particles’ as prepositions: Prepositions, like verbs, can be both transitive and intransitive (36) Valerie [ VP [ V sent][ NP a memo][ PP out]] => send; _ NP PP (37) Valerie [ VP [ V sent] – [ PP out] [ NP a memo]] (38) Valerie [ VP [ V went] [ PP out]] => go; _ PP

12. To achieve economy: (i)Doing away with the word class of particles (ii)There is no longer a need to posit a separate class of phrasal verbs => no phrasal verbs, and no prepositional verbs (iii) We have just verb-preposition constructions. A proposed analysis: (i)Verbs that subcategorise for an NP and an intransitive PP (like send) (ii)Verbs that subcategorise for an intransitive PP (like go)

13. To justify the analysis of Verb-preposition constructions, we should now check whether there is independent evidence that shows that the hypothesized PP actually behaves like a PP. First evidence (39) I went in.  Is there a way in which we can show that in is not a particle but an intransitive preposition heading a PP? (40) I went in the shower. => In turns from an intransitive into a transitive preposition here. Verbs likes eat and read can also be used intransitively and transitively. (41) I was reading. (42) I was reading a novel. (43) I was eating. (44) I was eating a pretzel. => Likewise in as a PP can be used transitively and intransitively without an object.

14. Second evidence: Compare (39) with (45) and (46). (39) I went in. (45) I went straight in. (46) I went straight in the shower. =>That straight can occur in regular PPs, Spec of PP, is suggestive of the fact that both in and in the shower are the same type of phrase, namely, a PP. Final evidence: Compare (47) with (39) and (40). (39) I went in. (40) I went in the shower. (47) I went there.  There can replace either in or in the shower. The following are independent data telling us that there is a substitute for PPs. (48) I saw her in the bank. there (49) They left her on the platform. there

15. Verb-preposition constructions See Table 11.2 (i)The new system is more constrained and more sophisticated: @no need of a special word class of particle @nor for the special classes of phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs @ The label ‘verb-preposition construction’ is only a convenient term. IP I’ NP IVP He hand V NPPP his essay in [-p] IP I’ NP IVP He hand V PPNP inhis essay [-p]

16. IP I’ NP IVP she remind V NPPP me of my cousin [+p] P NP IP I’ NP IVP I agree V P PP with Mr. Green [+p] NP IPIP I’ ADVP I’ IVP V’ PP V fool around at the weekend NP she always [+p]

17. ⊙ Economy of description: Achieving economy in the domain of functional terminology →We can achieve a terminological economy by doing away with the unnecessary labels subject complement (50a.b), and Obligatory Predication Adjunct (50c), Object complement (51). →We call them(AP, NP, PP, and Small clause) simply as Complements.

18. ⊙ Elegance of description (See 11.3.1) →There and now are prepositions, rather than adverbs. →There and now seem to behave as prepositions (intransitive prepositions) heading PPs. →As a result, the adverb and preposition classes have become more tightly defined.

19. ⊙ Independent Justification : → Show independent justification for the implicit argument ø in the data (99) and (101). (99) I was eating ø. (100) I was eating a pretzel. (101) I went straight in ø. (102) I went straight in the shower. →Independent data (105) Grag painted the wall red. (106) Our new washing powder washes ø whiter! washable items (107) These revolutionary brooms sweep ø cleaner! sweepable surfaces →If we had found no independent justification for ø, then our proposal would have been ad hoc. An ad hoc analysis is less attractive, everything else being equal.