1. Episode 6a. Head movement 5.4-5.5 CAS LX 522 Syntax I

2. Recap: features The lexicon contains bundles of features. These feature bundles are assembled by a computational process into syntactic structures for interpretation by the conceptual-intensional an articulatory-perceptual systems. The lexicon contains bundles of features. These feature bundles are assembled by a computational process into syntactic structures for interpretation by the conceptual-intensional an articulatory-perceptual systems. Among these features, we have Among these features, we have Interpretable features (such as the category feature that determines the category of the lexical item) Interpretable features (such as the category feature that determines the category of the lexical item) Uninterpretable features (such as the selectional feature [uN] on a transitive verb). Uninterpretable features are intolerable at the interfaces, and must be removed (by checking) or the derivation crashes. Uninterpretable features (such as the selectional feature [uN] on a transitive verb). Uninterpretable features are intolerable at the interfaces, and must be removed (by checking) or the derivation crashes.

3. Recap: uninterpretable features Uninterpretable features vary along two dimensions. Privative vs. unvalued and strong vs. weak. Uninterpretable features vary along two dimensions. Privative vs. unvalued and strong vs. weak. Privative features (such as [uN]) which are checked by matching features (such as [N] or [uN]). Privative features (such as [uN]) which are checked by matching features (such as [N] or [uN]). Unvalued features (such as [uInfl:]) which are checked by features that can provide a value (such as [tense:past]). Unvalued features (such as [uInfl:]) which are checked by features that can provide a value (such as [tense:past]). Strong uninterpretable features can only be checked if they are local (sister) to the feature that checks them. Strong uninterpretable features can only be checked if they are local (sister) to the feature that checks them. Weak uninterpretable features can be “checked at a distance.” Weak uninterpretable features can be “checked at a distance.” Strong features can force movement, but because the system is economical (lazy), no movement is allowed just to check a weak feature. Strong features can force movement, but because the system is economical (lazy), no movement is allowed just to check a weak feature.

4. Recap: Matching and Checking Checking is relation between an uninterpretable feature and a matching feature, allowing the uninterpretable feature to be ignored at the interface. Checking is relation between an uninterpretable feature and a matching feature, allowing the uninterpretable feature to be ignored at the interface. For two features to match: For two features to match: One must c-command the other. One must c-command the other. There must not be a closer feature that could match. (p218) There must not be a closer feature that could match. (p218) [uF] … [F] … [F][F] … [F] … [uF] [uF] … [F] … [F][F] … [F] … [uF] If the uninterpretable feature is strong, the matching feature must be local (e.g., a feature of the sister) in order for the uninterpretable feature to be checked. If the uninterpretable feature is strong, the matching feature must be local (e.g., a feature of the sister) in order for the uninterpretable feature to be checked. For [uV*] on v, it matches the [V] feature of the verb below it, then the verb must move up to v to check [uV*]. For [uV*] on v, it matches the [V] feature of the verb below it, then the verb must move up to v to check [uV*]. For [uInfl:*] on an auxiliary, the [tense:past] feature (above it) matches it and values it, then the auxiliary must move up to T for the feature to be checked. For [uInfl:*] on an auxiliary, the [tense:past] feature (above it) matches it and values it, then the auxiliary must move up to T for the feature to be checked.

5. Recap: Merge Merge: create a new syntactic object from two existing syntactic objects, with the label (features) projecting from one. Merge happens for one of two reasons: Merge: create a new syntactic object from two existing syntactic objects, with the label (features) projecting from one. Merge happens for one of two reasons: To check an uninterpretable feature: the label of the one with the uninterpretable feature projects. To check an uninterpretable feature: the label of the one with the uninterpretable feature projects. Now that we have strong features, we will consider selectional features to be strong features, i.e. [uN*], checked locally under sisterhood created by Merge. Now that we have strong features, we will consider selectional features to be strong features, i.e. [uN*], checked locally under sisterhood created by Merge. To satisfy the Hierarchy of Projections: the label of the higher one in the hierarchy projects and no features are checked. To satisfy the Hierarchy of Projections: the label of the higher one in the hierarchy projects and no features are checked. This only happens once all of the strong uninterpretable features in the non-projecting object have been checked (and any adjunctions to be done have been done) This only happens once all of the strong uninterpretable features in the non-projecting object have been checked (and any adjunctions to be done have been done)

6. Recap: Adjoin, Agree, HoP Adjoin is like Merge, but it does not result in the checking of a feature. Adjoin is like Merge, but it does not result in the checking of a feature. Merge always takes priority over Adjoin, so Adjoin only happens once the (strong) uninterpretable features of the object being adjoined to are checked. Merge always takes priority over Adjoin, so Adjoin only happens once the (strong) uninterpretable features of the object being adjoined to are checked. Adjoining YP to XP results in another XP (the maximal projection is extended), so YP becomes in essence both a daughter and a sister to XP. Adjoining YP to XP results in another XP (the maximal projection is extended), so YP becomes in essence both a daughter and a sister to XP. Agree is the operation that checks (and values where appropriate) features under c-command. Agree is the operation that checks (and values where appropriate) features under c-command. Hierarchy of Projections: T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V Hierarchy of Projections: T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V

7. Move There are two basic kinds of movement. There are two basic kinds of movement. One is head-movement, where a head moves up to join with another head. One is head-movement, where a head moves up to join with another head. Examples: V moves to v, Perf moves to T Examples: V moves to v, Perf moves to T The other is XP-movement, where a maximal projection moves up to a specifier of a higher phrase. The other is XP-movement, where a maximal projection moves up to a specifier of a higher phrase. Example: The subject moving to SpecTP. Example: The subject moving to SpecTP. Both happen because a strong uninterpretable feature needs to be checked. Both happen because a strong uninterpretable feature needs to be checked.

8. Pat ate lunch Yes, again with this sentence, but now with nearly all of our technology in place. Our workspace (numeration) starts out as shown here. Yes, again with this sentence, but now with nearly all of our technology in place. Our workspace (numeration) starts out as shown here. Eat has a Theme  -role to assign. Eat has a Theme  -role to assign. Eat has strong uninterpretable [uN*] feature. Eat has strong uninterpretable [uN*] feature. v agent has an Agent  -role to assign. v agent has an Agent  -role to assign. v agent has a strong uninterpretable [uN*] feature. v agent has a strong uninterpretable [uN*] feature. V always moves to v. V always moves to v. v always has a strong uninterpretable [uV*] feature. v always has a strong uninterpretable [uV*] feature. Verbs are inflected for tense. Verbs are inflected for tense. v always has an unvalued Infl feature [uInfl:]. v always has an unvalued Infl feature [uInfl:]. The subject always moves (in English) to SpecTP. The subject always moves (in English) to SpecTP. T has a strong unintepretable [uN*] feature. T has a strong unintepretable [uN*] feature. Pat [N] lunch [N] T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] eat [V, uN*] v agent [v, uN*, uInfl:, uV*]

9. Pat ate lunch Step 1. Merge eat and lunch. Step 1. Merge eat and lunch. HoP: T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V HoP: T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V We have to take care of V first. We have to take care of V first. The [uN*] feature is now c-commanded by the [N] feature of lunch. The [uN*] feature is now c-commanded by the [N] feature of lunch. The [uN*] feature is strong, requiring that it be local to the [N] feature in order to be checked. Sisters are local, the checking succeeds. The [uN*] feature is strong, requiring that it be local to the [N] feature in order to be checked. Sisters are local, the checking succeeds. The features of eat project, since it had its feature checked. All strong features are checked, so this is the maximal projection of V (VP). The features of eat project, since it had its feature checked. All strong features are checked, so this is the maximal projection of V (VP). Pat [N] NP lunch [N] T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] V eat [V, uN*] v agent [v, uN*, uInfl:, uV*] VP

10. Pat ate lunch Step 2. Merge v agent and VP. Step 2. Merge v agent and VP. HoP: T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V HoP: T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V V is finished, we have a v, so we need to Merge them next. V is finished, we have a v, so we need to Merge them next. No features are checked as a result of this step. No features are checked as a result of this step. The features of v agent project, since it is higher on the HoP. The features of v agent project, since it is higher on the HoP. v agent still has unchecked strong features, so this is an intermediate projection of v (v). v agent still has unchecked strong features, so this is an intermediate projection of v (v). Pat [N] NP lunch [N] T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] V eat [V, uN*] v agent [v, uN*, uInfl:, uV*] VP v v [uN*, uInfl:, uV*]

11. Pat ate lunch Step 3. Move V to v. Step 3. Move V to v. There were two options for this step, either moving V to v (to check the [uV*] feature) or Merging Pat and v (to check the [uN*] feature). There were two options for this step, either moving V to v (to check the [uV*] feature) or Merging Pat and v (to check the [uN*] feature). We will suppose that head- movement happens first, as soon as the head is integrated into the structure. We will suppose that head- movement happens first, as soon as the head is integrated into the structure. The [uV*] feature of v c-commands the [V] feature of eat. The [uV*] feature is strong, so it must be local to [V] in order to be checked. Head- movement yields a local relation, the checking succeeds. The [uV*] feature of v c-commands the [V] feature of eat. The [uV*] feature is strong, so it must be local to [V] in order to be checked. Head- movement yields a local relation, the checking succeeds. The features of v are just the features of v, so v also no longer has an unchecked [uV*] feature. The features of v are just the features of v, so v also no longer has an unchecked [uV*] feature. Nothing new projects… Nothing new projects… Pat [N] NP lunch [N] T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] v agent [v, uN*, uInfl:, uV*] VP v v [uN*, uInfl:, uV*] + V eat [V]

12. Interlude: What happens when V moves to v? When V moves to v, they combine in a way that we have been writing just as V+v. Let’s be more precise. When V moves to v, they combine in a way that we have been writing just as V+v. Let’s be more precise. In fact, we assume that V head-adjoins (adjoins, head-to-head) to v. This is the same sort of structure that Adjoin creates between maximal projections. In fact, we assume that V head-adjoins (adjoins, head-to-head) to v. This is the same sort of structure that Adjoin creates between maximal projections. In the structure, the v head is replaced by the v head with V adjoined. In the structure, the v head is replaced by the v head with V adjoined. Adjunction does not change projection levels—v is still a minimal projection, still the head of vP. But it is a complex head (it’s a v with a V adjoined to it). Adjunction does not change projection levels—v is still a minimal projection, still the head of vP. But it is a complex head (it’s a v with a V adjoined to it). VP NP v eat v v V [uV*, …]

13. Interlude: What happens when V moves to v? We should also consider what happens to the VP from which the V moved. We should also consider what happens to the VP from which the V moved. It is still a VP, it must still have a head. It is still a VP, it must still have a head. The features of the VP are the features of the head (recall for example, that checking the uninterpretable feature on the head is the same as checking the uninterpretable feature on the projection of the head). The VP is still a VP, its head is still a verb (with category feature [V]), and presumably all the rest of the features as well. The features of the VP are the features of the head (recall for example, that checking the uninterpretable feature on the head is the same as checking the uninterpretable feature on the projection of the head). The VP is still a VP, its head is still a verb (with category feature [V]), and presumably all the rest of the features as well. We notate the original location of the V by writing (standing for the “trace” left behind by the original V). We notate the original location of the V by writing (standing for the “trace” left behind by the original V). But since must still be a bundle of features, the same one that was there before movement, is really just another copy (or, well, the original) of the verb. But since must still be a bundle of features, the same one that was there before movement, is really just another copy (or, well, the original) of the verb. VP NP v eat v v V [uV*, …]

14. Interlude: What happens when V moves to v? Moral: “Head-movement” can be viewed as Copy+Adjoin. Moral: “Head-movement” can be viewed as Copy+Adjoin. A copy is made of V. A copy is made of V. The copy of V is adjoined to v. The copy of V is adjoined to v. The original v is replaced by the syntactic object formed by Adjoining the copy of V to v. The original v is replaced by the syntactic object formed by Adjoining the copy of V to v. Preview: we will think of movement of the subject in the same way (but as Copy+Merge). Preview: we will think of movement of the subject in the same way (but as Copy+Merge). VP NP v eat v v V [uV*, …]

15. Interlude: What happens when V moves to v? That’s craziness, isn’t it? Now instead of one V, we have two identical copies. Why isn’t this Pat Pat ate ate lunch? That’s craziness, isn’t it? Now instead of one V, we have two identical copies. Why isn’t this Pat Pat ate ate lunch? We need both copies (the higher one to check the feature, the lower one to head the original projection of V). But on the other hand, the verb was picked from the lexicon just once. We need both copies (the higher one to check the feature, the lower one to head the original projection of V). But on the other hand, the verb was picked from the lexicon just once. A-P interface: Only the highest copy is pronounced. A-P interface: Only the highest copy is pronounced. This is just a precise way to spell out the idea that you “move it but leave a trace.” This is just a precise way to spell out the idea that you “move it but leave a trace.” Highest copy = the one that is not c- commanded by another copy. Highest copy = the one that is not c- commanded by another copy. A head V adjoined to another head v c- commands the same nodes that v did. A head V adjoined to another head v c- commands the same nodes that v did. VP NP v eat v v V [uV*, …]

16. v v [uN*, uInfl:, uV*] Pat ate lunch Step 4. Merge Pat and v. Step 4. Merge Pat and v. Can’t Merge T (would value and check [uInfl:]) because T is higher on HoP and v still has strong features left. Can’t Merge T (would value and check [uInfl:]) because T is higher on HoP and v still has strong features left. HoP: T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V HoP: T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V The [uN*] feature of v is c-commanded by the [N] feature of Pat. The [uN*] feature is strong, so it must be local to [N] in order to be checked. Sisters are local, the checking succeeds. The [uN*] feature of v is c-commanded by the [N] feature of Pat. The [uN*] feature is strong, so it must be local to [N] in order to be checked. Sisters are local, the checking succeeds. The features of v (a.k.a. v) project, because it was the one that had its feature checked. The features of v (a.k.a. v) project, because it was the one that had its feature checked. This is the maximal projection of v (vP), because it has no further strong uninterpretable features to check. This is the maximal projection of v (vP), because it has no further strong uninterpretable features to check. NP Pat [N] T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] NP lunch [N] v agent [v, uN*, uInfl:, uV*] VPv V eat [V] vP vP [uN*, uInfl:, uV*]

17. v Pat ate lunch Step 5. Merge T and vP. Step 5. Merge T and vP. HoP: T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V HoP: T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V v is finished, we have a T, so we need to Merge them next. v is finished, we have a T, so we need to Merge them next. No features are checked as a result of this step. No features are checked as a result of this step. The features of T project, because it is higher on the HoP. The features of T project, because it is higher on the HoP. It is an intermediate projection (T) because it still has an uninterpretable feature to check. It is an intermediate projection (T) because it still has an uninterpretable feature to check. NP Pat [N] T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] NP lunch [N] v agent [v, uN*, uInfl:, uV*] VPv V eat [V] vPvPvPvP T [ T [tense:past, T, uN*, …]

18. v Pat ate lunch Step 6. Agree between T and v. Step 6. Agree between T and v. T, and its [tense:past] feature, now c-command v and its [uInfl:] feature. T, and its [tense:past] feature, now c-command v and its [uInfl:] feature. T values and checks the [uInfl:] feature of v. T values and checks the [uInfl:] feature of v. NP Pat [N] T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] NP lunch [N] v agent [v, uN*, uV*, uInfl:past] VPv V eat [V] vPvPvPvP T [ T [tense:past, T, uN*, …]

19. v Pat ate lunch Step 7. Move Pat to the specifier of TP. Step 7. Move Pat to the specifier of TP. T has an strong uninterpretable [uN*] feature. T has an strong uninterpretable [uN*] feature. T c-commands Pat (with an [N] feature that can match T’s [uN*]). T c-commands Pat (with an [N] feature that can match T’s [uN*]). T also c-commands lunch but Pat is closer (Pat c-commands lunch). T also c-commands lunch but Pat is closer (Pat c-commands lunch). So the NP with the matching feature (Pat) is copied, and Merged. So the NP with the matching feature (Pat) is copied, and Merged. T projects (it had the feature checked) and it has no strong uninterpretable features left to check, so it is a maximal projection (TP) T projects (it had the feature checked) and it has no strong uninterpretable features left to check, so it is a maximal projection (TP) T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] NP lunch [N] v agent [v, uN*, uV*, uInfl:past] VPv V eat [V] vPvPvPvP T [ T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] NP Pat [N] TPTPTPTP

20. v Pat ate lunch And that’s it. We have a single object, no uninterpretable features left. And that’s it. We have a single object, no uninterpretable features left. This is the structure for Pat ate lunch. This is the structure for Pat ate lunch. The final structure? Well, no. There are some changes we will make in coming weeks, concerning the structure of NP and issues relating to case. But it’s quite close. The final structure? Well, no. There are some changes we will make in coming weeks, concerning the structure of NP and issues relating to case. But it’s quite close. T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] NP lunch [N] v agent [v, uN*, uV*, uInfl:past] VPv V eat [V] vPvPvPvP T [ T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] NP Pat [N] TPTPTPTP

21. Back to our story… Last time, we looked at data like: Last time, we looked at data like: Pat might not be eating lunch. Pat might not be eating lunch. Pat is not eating lunch. Pat is not eating lunch. Pat has not eaten lunch. Pat has not eaten lunch. Pat did not each lunch. Pat did not each lunch. And concluded that auxiliary verbs (have and be) move to T (over not, when T isn’t a modal). Main verbs do not move to T (instead we have do, which we’ll talk about shortly). And concluded that auxiliary verbs (have and be) move to T (over not, when T isn’t a modal). Main verbs do not move to T (instead we have do, which we’ll talk about shortly). The [uInfl:] on auxiliaries is strong when valued by T (elsewhere [uInfl:] is weak). The [uInfl:] on auxiliaries is strong when valued by T (elsewhere [uInfl:] is weak). This is not a shining example of the success of our model, but this has been a thorn in the side of every model that has ever attempted to explain the special behavior of auxiliaries. This is not a shining example of the success of our model, but this has been a thorn in the side of every model that has ever attempted to explain the special behavior of auxiliaries.

22. Pat was not eating lunch. Because [uInfl:] on Prog is valued by T (becoming [uInfl:past*]), it must move up to (adjoin to) T. Because [uInfl:] on Prog is valued by T (becoming [uInfl:past*]), it must move up to (adjoin to) T. NP VPVP v vPvP lunch T [tense:past] T TP NP Pat v+V eat Prog be [uInfl:*] NegP ProgPNeg not

23. French vs. English In English, adverbs cannot come between the verb and the object. In English, adverbs cannot come between the verb and the object. *Pat eats often apples. *Pat eats often apples. Pat often eats apples. Pat often eats apples. In French it’s the other way around. In French it’s the other way around. Jean mange souvent des pommes. Jean eats often of.the apples ‘Jean often eats apples.’ Jean mange souvent des pommes. Jean eats often of.the apples ‘Jean often eats apples.’ *Jean souvent mange des pommes. *Jean souvent mange des pommes. If we suppose that the basic structures are the same, why might that be? If we suppose that the basic structures are the same, why might that be?

24. French vs. English Similarly, while only auxiliaries in English show up before negation (not)… Similarly, while only auxiliaries in English show up before negation (not)… John does not love Mary. John does not love Mary. John has not eaten apples. John has not eaten apples. …all verbs seem to show up before negation (pas) in French: …all verbs seem to show up before negation (pas) in French: Jean (n’)aime pas Marie. Jean (ne) loves not Marie ‘Jean doesn’t love Marie.’ Jean (n’)aime pas Marie. Jean (ne) loves not Marie ‘Jean doesn’t love Marie.’ Jean (n’)a pas mangé des pommes. Jean (ne)has not eaten of.the apples ‘Jean didn’t eat apples.’ Jean (n’)a pas mangé des pommes. Jean (ne)has not eaten of.the apples ‘Jean didn’t eat apples.’

25. V raises to T in French What it looks like is that both V and auxiliaries raise to T in French. What it looks like is that both V and auxiliaries raise to T in French. This is a parametric difference between English and French. This is a parametric difference between English and French. A kid’s task is to determine whether V moves to T and whether auxiliaries move to T. A kid’s task is to determine whether V moves to T and whether auxiliaries move to T. T values [uInfl:] on Aux T values [uInfl:] on v EnglishStrongWeak FrenchStrongStrong

26. v Jean (ne) téléphone pas Marie First, build the vP just as in English. First, build the vP just as in English. Merge téléphone and Marie to form the VP, Merge v and VP to satisfy the HoP, move V to adjoin to v to check v’s [uV*] feature, Merge Jean and v. Merge téléphone and Marie to form the VP, Merge v and VP to satisfy the HoP, move V to adjoin to v to check v’s [uV*] feature, Merge Jean and v. NP Marie [N] v agent [v, uN*, uV*, uInfl:] VPv V téléphone [V] vPvPvPvP NP Jean [N] Neg pas T [tense:pres, T, uN*, …]

27. v Jean (ne) téléphone pas Marie Merge Neg with vP to form NegP (following the HoP). Merge Neg with vP to form NegP (following the HoP). T [tense:pres, T, uN*, …] NP Marie v agent [v, uN*, uV*, uInfl:] VPv V téléphone vPvPvPvP NP Jean NegP Neg pas

28. v Jean (ne) téléphone pas Marie Merge T with NegP to form T (again, following the HoP). Merge T with NegP to form T (again, following the HoP). Now T with its [tense:pres] feature c-commands v and its [uInfl:] feature. They Match. But in French, when [uInfl:] on v is valued by T it is strong. So… Now T with its [tense:pres] feature c-commands v and its [uInfl:] feature. They Match. But in French, when [uInfl:] on v is valued by T it is strong. So… T [tense:pres, T, uN*, …] NP Marie v agent [v, uN*, uV*, uInfl:pres*] VPv V téléphone vPvPvPvP NP Jean Neg pas NegP T T [tense:pres, T, uN*, …]

29. v Jean (ne) téléphone pas Marie v has to move to T. Notice that at this point v has V adjoined to it. You can’t take them apart. The whole complex head moves to T. v has to move to T. Notice that at this point v has V adjoined to it. You can’t take them apart. The whole complex head moves to T. NP Marie VP vPvPvPvP NP Jean Neg pas NegP v [uInfl:pres*] v V téléphone T T T T [tense:pres, T, uN*, …]

30. v Jean (ne) téléphone pas Marie And then, we move the subject up to SpecTP to check the final uninterpretable (strong) feature of T, [uN*]. And then, we move the subject up to SpecTP to check the final uninterpretable (strong) feature of T, [uN*]. NP Marie VP vPvPvPvP Neg pas NegP v [uInfl:pres*] v V téléphone T T T T [tense:pres, T, uN*, …] NP Jean TP So, French is just like English, except that even v moves to T.

31. Swedish Looking at Swedish, we can see that not only do languages vary on whether they raise main verbs to T, languages also vary on whether they raise auxiliaries to T: Looking at Swedish, we can see that not only do languages vary on whether they raise main verbs to T, languages also vary on whether they raise auxiliaries to T: …om hon inte har köpt boken whether she not has bougt book-the ‘…whether she hasn’t bought the book.’ …om hon inte har köpt boken whether she not has bougt book-the ‘…whether she hasn’t bought the book.’ …om hon inte köpte boken whether she not bought book-the ‘…whether she didn’t buy the book.’ …om hon inte köpte boken whether she not bought book-the ‘…whether she didn’t buy the book.’ So both parameters can vary from language to language. So both parameters can vary from language to language.

32. Typology of verb/aux raising Interestingly, there don’t seem to be languages that raise main verbs but not auxiliaries. Interestingly, there don’t seem to be languages that raise main verbs but not auxiliaries. This double-binary distinction predicts there would be. This double-binary distinction predicts there would be. This is a pattern that we would like to explain someday, another mystery about Aux to file away. This is a pattern that we would like to explain someday, another mystery about Aux to file away. Sorry, we won’t have any satisfying explanation for this gap this semester. Sorry, we won’t have any satisfying explanation for this gap this semester. T values [uInfl:] on Aux T values [uInfl:] on v EnglishStrongWeak FrenchStrongStrong SwedishWeakWeak Unatteste d WeakStrong

33. Irish In Irish, the basic word order is VSO (other languages have this property too, e.g., Arabic) In Irish, the basic word order is VSO (other languages have this property too, e.g., Arabic) Phóg Máire an lucharachán. kissed Mary the leprechaun ‘Mary kissed the leprechaun.’ Phóg Máire an lucharachán. kissed Mary the leprechaun ‘Mary kissed the leprechaun.’ We distinguish SVO from SOV by supposing that the head-complement order can vary from language to language (heads precede complements in English, heads follow complements in Japanese). We distinguish SVO from SOV by supposing that the head-complement order can vary from language to language (heads precede complements in English, heads follow complements in Japanese). We may also be able to distinguish other languages (OVS, VOS) by a parameter of specifier order. We may also be able to distinguish other languages (OVS, VOS) by a parameter of specifier order. But no combination of these two parameters can give us VOS. But no combination of these two parameters can give us VOS.

34. Irish But look at auxiliary verbs in Irish: But look at auxiliary verbs in Irish: Tá Máire ag-pógáil an lucharachán. Is Mary ing-kiss the leprechaun ‘Mary is kissing the leprechaun.’ Tá Máire ag-pógáil an lucharachán. Is Mary ing-kiss the leprechaun ‘Mary is kissing the leprechaun.’ We find that if an auxiliary occupies the verb slot at the beginning of the sentence, the main verb appears between the subject and verb—Aux S V O. We find that if an auxiliary occupies the verb slot at the beginning of the sentence, the main verb appears between the subject and verb—Aux S V O. What does this suggest about What does this suggest about The head-parameter setting in Irish? The head-parameter setting in Irish? How VSO order arises? How VSO order arises?

35. SVO to VSO Irish appears to be essentially an SVO language, like French. Irish appears to be essentially an SVO language, like French. Verbs and auxiliaries raise past the subject to yield VSO. Verbs and auxiliaries raise past the subject to yield VSO. We can analyze the Irish pattern as being minimally different from our existing analysis of French— just one difference, which we hypothesize is another parametric difference between languages. We can analyze the Irish pattern as being minimally different from our existing analysis of French— just one difference, which we hypothesize is another parametric difference between languages. V and Aux both raise to T (when tense values the [uInfl:] feature of either one, [uInfl:] is strong) in Irish, just as in French. V and Aux both raise to T (when tense values the [uInfl:] feature of either one, [uInfl:] is strong) in Irish, just as in French.

36. v French vs. Irish Remember this step in the French derivation before? Remember this step in the French derivation before? I’ve omitted negation to make it simpler. I’ve omitted negation to make it simpler. What if we stopped here? What if we stopped here? In French it would crash (why?). But what if it didn’t crash in Irish? In French it would crash (why?). But what if it didn’t crash in Irish? NP Marie VP vPvPvPvP NP Jean v [uInfl:pres*] v V téléphone T T T T [tense:pres, T, uN*, …]

37. Parametric differences We could analyze Irish as being just like French except without the strong [uN*] feature on T. We could analyze Irish as being just like French except without the strong [uN*] feature on T. Without that feature, the subject doesn’t need to move to SpecTP. The order would be VSO, or AuxSVO. Without that feature, the subject doesn’t need to move to SpecTP. The order would be VSO, or AuxSVO. So, languages can vary in, at least: So, languages can vary in, at least: Head-complement order Head-complement order (Head-specifier order) (Head-specifier order) Whether [uInfl:] on Aux is strong or weak when valued by T Whether [uInfl:] on Aux is strong or weak when valued by T Whether [uInfl:] on v is strong or weak when valued by T Whether [uInfl:] on v is strong or weak when valued by T Whether T has a [uN*] feature or not Whether T has a [uN*] feature or not

38. do-support In French, verbs move to T. In English, they don’t move to T. In French, verbs move to T. In English, they don’t move to T. That’s because in French, when [tense:past] values [uInfl:] on v, it is strong, and in English, it is weak. That’s because in French, when [tense:past] values [uInfl:] on v, it is strong, and in English, it is weak. What this doesn’t explain is why do appears sometimes in English, seemingly doing nothing but carrying the tense (and subject agreement). What this doesn’t explain is why do appears sometimes in English, seemingly doing nothing but carrying the tense (and subject agreement). The environments are complicated: The environments are complicated: Tom did not commit the crime. Tom did not commit the crime. Tom did not commit the crime, but someone did. Tom did not commit the crime, but someone did. Zoe and Danny vowed to prove Tom innocent, and prove Tom innocent they did. Zoe and Danny vowed to prove Tom innocent, and prove Tom innocent they did. Tom (has) never committed that crime. Tom (has) never committed that crime.

39. do-support The environments are complicated: The environments are complicated: Tom did not commit the crime. Tom did not commit the crime. Tom did not commit the crime, but someone did. Tom did not commit the crime, but someone did. Zoe and Danny vowed to prove Tom innocent, and prove Tom innocent they did. Zoe and Danny vowed to prove Tom innocent, and prove Tom innocent they did. Tom (has) never committed that crime. Tom (has) never committed that crime. When not separates T and v, do appears in T to carry the tense morphology. When not separates T and v, do appears in T to carry the tense morphology. When T is stranded due to VP ellipsis or VP fronting, do appears in T to carry the tense morphology. When T is stranded due to VP ellipsis or VP fronting, do appears in T to carry the tense morphology. When never (or any adverb) separates T and v, tense morphology appears on the verb (v). When never (or any adverb) separates T and v, tense morphology appears on the verb (v). So, do appears when T is separated from the verb, but adverbs like never aren’t “visible”, they don’t get in the way. So, do appears when T is separated from the verb, but adverbs like never aren’t “visible”, they don’t get in the way.

40. PTR Adger’s proposal: Adger’s proposal: Pronounce tense on the next head down from T (the head of T’s sister) if it has a [uInfl:] feature valued by a feature of T. If not, insert do into T and pronounce the tense on do. Pronounce tense on the next head down from T (the head of T’s sister) if it has a [uInfl:] feature valued by a feature of T. If not, insert do into T and pronounce the tense on do. NegP, if there, will be the sister of T (HoP), but Neg has no [uInfl:] feature. do will be inserted. NegP, if there, will be the sister of T (HoP), but Neg has no [uInfl:] feature. do will be inserted. Adverbs adjoin to vP, resulting in a vP. v has an [uInfl:] valued by T and adverbs don’t get in the way of vP being the sister of T. Tense is pronounced on the verb (v). Adverbs adjoin to vP, resulting in a vP. v has an [uInfl:] valued by T and adverbs don’t get in the way of vP being the sister of T. Tense is pronounced on the verb (v). If vP is gone altogether, do is inserted. If vP is gone altogether, do is inserted.

41. PTR There is a link between the [tense:past] feature on T and the [uInfl:past] feature on v: they were linked by Agree, when the feature was checked. There is a link between the [tense:past] feature on T and the [uInfl:past] feature on v: they were linked by Agree, when the feature was checked. Suppose Agree forms an object, a chain, between things that it applies to. Suppose Agree forms an object, a chain, between things that it applies to. So T and v form a chain (T, v) because Agree valued and checked the [uInfl:] feature of v with the [tense:past] feature of T. So T and v form a chain (T, v) because Agree valued and checked the [uInfl:] feature of v with the [tense:past] feature of T. Pronouncing Tense Rule (PTR) In a chain (T[tense], v[uInfl:tense]), pronounce the tense features on v only if v is the head of T’s sister. Pronouncing Tense Rule (PTR) In a chain (T[tense], v[uInfl:tense]), pronounce the tense features on v only if v is the head of T’s sister. This is not quite correctly stated, though: It doesn’t apply properly to (166) on p. 193: Gilgamesh hasn’t kissed Ishtar. This is not quite correctly stated, though: It doesn’t apply properly to (166) on p. 193: Gilgamesh hasn’t kissed Ishtar.

42. v Pat did not call Chris So, here, T and v form a chain because [tense:past] valued [uInfl:past]. But v is not the head of T’s sister. So, here, T and v form a chain because [tense:past] valued [uInfl:past]. But v is not the head of T’s sister. T [tense:past, …] NP Chris v agent [uInfl:past, …] VPv V call vPvPvPvP Neg not NegP T NP Pat TP

43. v Pat did not call Chris Do-support comes to the rescue. What this means is just that T is pronounced as do with the tense specifications on T. According to PTR, we don’t pronounce them on v. The tree doesn’t change. Do-support comes to the rescue. What this means is just that T is pronounced as do with the tense specifications on T. According to PTR, we don’t pronounce them on v. The tree doesn’t change. T [tense:past, …] did NP Chris v agent [uInfl:past, …] VPv V call vPvPvPvP Neg not NegP T NP Pat TP

44. v Pat never called Chris If there is an adverb like never, PTR still allows tense to be pronounced on v (so T doesn’t have any pronunciation of its own at all). If there is an adverb like never, PTR still allows tense to be pronounced on v (so T doesn’t have any pronunciation of its own at all). T [tense:past, …] NP Chris v agent [uInfl:past, …] VPv V call vPvPvPvP AdvP never vPvPvPvP T NP Pat TP

45.                       