1. Installment 10b. Raising, etc. 8.2.6-8.4 CAS LX 522 Syntax I

2. Sentences inside sentences Last time we began looking at embedded sentences. Last time we began looking at embedded sentences. Embedded sentences can be finite: Embedded sentences can be finite: Shannon claimed [that she could catch a fish]. Shannon claimed [that she could catch a fish]. Or nonfinite: Or nonfinite: Michael wants [PRO to leave]. Michael wants [PRO to leave]. Jin wants [Michael to return the watch]. Jin wants [Michael to return the watch]. Sun arranged [for him to return the watch]. Sun arranged [for him to return the watch].

3. Embedded clauses Embedded finite clauses are CPs, with a complementizer (that or Ø). Embedded finite clauses are CPs, with a complementizer (that or Ø). Shannon claimed [ CP that she could catch a fish]. Shannon claimed [ CP that she could catch a fish]. Shannon claimed [ CP Ø she could catch a fish]. Shannon claimed [ CP Ø she could catch a fish]. Embedded nonfinite clauses have to as T, and can be CPs or bare TPs— the distinction is determined by case properties of the verb. Embedded nonfinite clauses have to as T, and can be CPs or bare TPs— the distinction is determined by case properties of the verb. Michael wants [ CP Ø NULL PRO NULL to leave] Michael wants [ CP Ø NULL PRO NULL to leave] Jin wants ACC [ TP Michael ACC to return the watch]. Jin wants ACC [ TP Michael ACC to return the watch]. Sun arranged [ CP for ACC him ACC to return the watch]. Sun arranged [ CP for ACC him ACC to return the watch]. Nonfinite to does not assign case, so the subject must get case (have its [case] feature checked) in some other way. Nonfinite to does not assign case, so the subject must get case (have its [case] feature checked) in some other way.

4. Seems Now, we’ll turn to another kind of embedded nonfinite clause. Now, we’ll turn to another kind of embedded nonfinite clause. Charlie seems [to dislike bees]. Charlie seems [to dislike bees]. This looks a little bit like: This looks a little bit like: Charlie tried [to sneak away]. Charlie tried [to sneak away]. Which is really: Which is really: Charlie tried [PRO to sneak away]. Charlie tried [PRO to sneak away]. Charlie is the Agent of try. Charlie is the Agent of try. PRO (=Charlie) is the Agent of sneak. PRO (=Charlie) is the Agent of sneak. So, what about Charlie seems to dislike bees? What  -roles go to Charlie? So, what about Charlie seems to dislike bees? What  -roles go to Charlie?

5. Charlie seems to receive (just) one  -role Seems can also embed a finite clause, so consider the pair: Seems can also embed a finite clause, so consider the pair: Charlie seems to dislike bees. Charlie seems to dislike bees. It seems that Charlie dislikes bees. It seems that Charlie dislikes bees. The it in the second sentence is the same it we find in It rained. It does not get a  -role, because rain doesn’t have any  -roles. We only have it there because sentences need subjects (EPP: T has a [uD*] feature). The it in the second sentence is the same it we find in It rained. It does not get a  -role, because rain doesn’t have any  -roles. We only have it there because sentences need subjects (EPP: T has a [uD*] feature). So what  -roles does seem assign? So what  -roles does seem assign?

6. Seem seems to assign (just) one  -role. What seem (and appear) mean when paired with an embedded sentence is that the proposition expressed by the embedded sentence appears true. What seem (and appear) mean when paired with an embedded sentence is that the proposition expressed by the embedded sentence appears true. There’s only one participant in a seeming, the Proposition. There’s only one participant in a seeming, the Proposition. It seems [that seem assigns one  -role]. It seems [that seem assigns one  -role]. So, seem assigns a Proposition  -role (structurally, to its sister, the CP daughter of V), and nothing else (hence, it is needed to check the EPP feature). So, seem assigns a Proposition  -role (structurally, to its sister, the CP daughter of V), and nothing else (hence, it is needed to check the EPP feature).

7. Back to Charlie It seems [that Charlie dislikes bees]. It seems [that Charlie dislikes bees]. Charlie seems [to dislike bees]. Charlie seems [to dislike bees]. These two sentences mean basically the same thing. These two sentences mean basically the same thing. Dislike assigns two  -roles, we might say Experiencer and Theme. Dislike assigns two  -roles, we might say Experiencer and Theme. It’s the same verb dislike in both sentences. So, we presume that the bottom of both trees will look the same… It’s the same verb dislike in both sentences. So, we presume that the bottom of both trees will look the same…

8. Disliking bees Starting with It seems that Charlie dislikes bees, we would build a vP that looks like this: Starting with It seems that Charlie dislikes bees, we would build a vP that looks like this: V (dislike) assigns a Theme  -role to the DP bees. V (dislike) assigns a Theme  -role to the DP bees. v Experiencer assigns an Experiencer  -role to the DP Charlie. v Experiencer assigns an Experiencer  -role to the DP Charlie. V dislike VP v v vPvP v Experiencer DP NP bees D Ø indef DP NP Charlie D Ø proper

9. Disliking bees And then we add T and C to get that Charlie dislikes bees… And then we add T and C to get that Charlie dislikes bees… The [case] feature of Charlie is valued and checked by the [nom] feature of T. The [case] feature of Charlie is valued and checked by the [nom] feature of T. The [uInfl:] feature of v is valued and checked by T: [uInfl:pres3sg]. The [uInfl:] feature of v is valued and checked by T: [uInfl:pres3sg]. The [uclause-type:] feature of T is valued and checked by the [clause- type:Decl] feature of C. The [uclause-type:] feature of T is valued and checked by the [clause- type:Decl] feature of C. V dislike VP DP bees v v vPvP T T [pres] TP DP Charlie v CP C that

10. Disliking bees And then we add the main clause (seem, v, T, it, C) And then we add the main clause (seem, v, T, it, C) vPvP T T [pres] TP DP Charlie CP C that V seem VP vPvP v v T T [pres] TP DP It CP CØCØ V dislike VP DP bees v v vPvP v

11. Disliking bees vPvP T T [pres] TP DP Charlie CP C that V seem VP vPvP v v T T [pres] TP DP It CP CØCØ V dislike VP DP bees v v vPvP v Now, consider Charlie seems to dislike bees. Now, consider Charlie seems to dislike bees. First, does Charlie get a  - role from seem? First, does Charlie get a  - role from seem? Well, no. Seem only assigns the one  -role. Well, no. Seem only assigns the one  -role. So, unlike in Charlie tried [PRO to elude the bees], we have as many DPs as we have  -roles. So, unlike in Charlie tried [PRO to elude the bees], we have as many DPs as we have  -roles.

12. Disliking bees vPvP T T [pres] TP DP Charlie CP C that V seem VP vPvP v v T T [pres] TP DP It CP CØCØ V dislike VP DP bees v v vPvP v Charlie seems to dislike bees. Charlie seems to dislike bees. So, what  -role does Charlie get? So, what  -role does Charlie get? Still seems to be the Experiencer of dislike. Still seems to be the Experiencer of dislike. So, suppose that Charlie starts out in the same place, SpecvP. So, suppose that Charlie starts out in the same place, SpecvP. But now, after building vP, we add a nonfinite T… But now, after building vP, we add a nonfinite T…

13. Disliking bees So, we have Charlie to dislike bees… So, we have Charlie to dislike bees… The [uInfl:] feature of v is valued and checked by T: [uInfl:none]. The [uInfl:] feature of v is valued and checked by T: [uInfl:none]. Nonfinite T has no [uclause-type:] feature. Nonfinite T has no [uclause-type:] feature. The [case] feature of Charlie is still unchecked, since nonfinite to has no case feature. The [case] feature of Charlie is still unchecked, since nonfinite to has no case feature. V dislike VP DP bees v v vPvP T T to TP DP Charlie v

14. Disliking bees Can we add a C to this? Can we add a C to this? Let’s assume not, by the following reasoning: Let’s assume not, by the following reasoning: The only C that is compatible with a nonfinite T is Ø NULL, that assigns null case to PRO. Charlie is not PRO, so it can’t get null case. So, this is just a TP, not a CP. The only C that is compatible with a nonfinite T is Ø NULL, that assigns null case to PRO. Charlie is not PRO, so it can’t get null case. So, this is just a TP, not a CP. V dislike VP DP bees v v vPvP T T to TP DP Charlie v

15. Disliking bees So, we add seem, taking our TP (Charlie to dislike bees) as its Proposition complement. So, we add seem, taking our TP (Charlie to dislike bees) as its Proposition complement. V dislike VP DP bees v v vPvP T T to TP DP Charlie v V seem VP vPvP v v

16. Disliking bees We add T… We add T… Charlie has [case] to check. Charlie has [case] to check. Checked ([nom]) by T Checked ([nom]) by T T has [nom], [uD*], and [u  :] features to check. T has [nom], [uD*], and [u  :] features to check. [nom] checked valuing case on Charlie. [u  :3sg] matches [  :3sg] feature on Charlie. [uD*] remains. [nom] checked valuing case on Charlie. [u  :3sg] matches [  :3sg] feature on Charlie. [uD*] remains. seem (v) has [uInfl:] to check seem (v) has [uInfl:] to check [uInfl:pres3sg], valued by [tense:pres] and [u  :3sg] on T. [uInfl:pres3sg], valued by [tense:pres] and [u  :3sg] on T. VP bees v V+v dislike vPvP T T to TP DP Charlie V seem VP vPvP v v T T [pres]

17. Disliking bees Finally, we move Charlie up to check the EPP ([uD*]) feature of T. Finally, we move Charlie up to check the EPP ([uD*]) feature of T. (Subject (-to- subject)) Raising (Subject (-to- subject)) Raising VP bees v V+v dislike vPvP T T to TP V seem VP vPvP v v T T [pres] TP DP Charlie

18. Idioms Recall our idea about idioms: For something to have an idiomatic interpretation (an interpretation not literally derivable from its component words), the pieces need to be very close together when initially Merged. Recall our idea about idioms: For something to have an idiomatic interpretation (an interpretation not literally derivable from its component words), the pieces need to be very close together when initially Merged. Ortega took a dive. Ortega took a dive. Now, we have idiomatic interpretations here: Now, we have idiomatic interpretations here: It seems that the jig is up. It seems that the jig is up. It seems that the cat is out of the bag. It seems that the cat is out of the bag. It seems that the cat has your tongue. It seems that the cat has your tongue.

19. Idioms If pieces of the idiom move away after the original Merge, we can still get the idiomatic interpretation: If pieces of the idiom move away after the original Merge, we can still get the idiomatic interpretation: [The cat] i seems t i to have your tongue. [The cat] i seems t i to have your tongue. [The cat] i seems t i to be out of the bag. [The cat] i seems t i to be out of the bag. [The jig] i seems t i to be up. [The jig] i seems t i to be up. The important thing is that they be originally Merged together (the  -role needs to be assigned by the predicate to the noun). Compare: The important thing is that they be originally Merged together (the  -role needs to be assigned by the predicate to the noun). Compare: [The cat] tried to have your tongue. [The cat] tried to have your tongue. [The cat] arranged to be out of the bag. [The cat] arranged to be out of the bag. (What’s different? Why no idiomatic meaning?) (What’s different? Why no idiomatic meaning?)

20. Other raising verbs So far, we’ve only talked about seem, but there are a couple of other raising verbs as well. So far, we’ve only talked about seem, but there are a couple of other raising verbs as well. [The cat] i is likely [ TP t i to be out of the bag]. [The cat] i is likely [ TP t i to be out of the bag]. [The cat] i appears [ TP t i to have his tongue]. [The cat] i appears [ TP t i to have his tongue]. [The jig] i proved [ TP t i to be up]. [The jig] i proved [ TP t i to be up]. [The cat] i began [ TP t i to get his tongue]. [The cat] i began [ TP t i to get his tongue]. What these verbs (in this use, anyway) have in common is that they have no external  -role and an internal Proposition  -role. What these verbs (in this use, anyway) have in common is that they have no external  -role and an internal Proposition  -role.

21. There seems… We also find seem with there. We also find seem with there. There. The other expletive subject. There. The other expletive subject. Vincent seems to be lost. Vincent seems to be lost. It seems that Vincent is lost. It seems that Vincent is lost. There seems to be a dog in the woods. There seems to be a dog in the woods. It is an expletive subject that checks both the EPP and case features of T. There checks only the EPP feature of T (a dog checks T’s case feature). It is an expletive subject that checks both the EPP and case features of T. There checks only the EPP feature of T (a dog checks T’s case feature).

22. *There seems a man to be in the garden. There seems to be a man in the garden. There seems to be a man in the garden. There appears in SpecTP, satisfying the EPP feature. There appears in SpecTP, satisfying the EPP feature. There are two TPs here, and each TP has/had an EPP feature. There are two TPs here, and each TP has/had an EPP feature. [ TP There seems [ TP to be a man in…]] [ TP There seems [ TP to be a man in…]] So, there must have first Merged into the lower SpecTP and then moved to the upper SpecTP. So, there must have first Merged into the lower SpecTP and then moved to the upper SpecTP. [ TP There seems [ TP to be a man in…]] [ TP There seems [ TP to be a man in…]]

23. *There seems a man to be in the garden [ TP There seems [ TP to be a man in…]] [ TP There seems [ TP to be a man in…]] This makes sense, both EPP features aer satisfied, a man gets case from (the higher, finite) T. This makes sense, both EPP features aer satisfied, a man gets case from (the higher, finite) T. But think back to when we were building the structure and had reached this point: But think back to when we were building the structure and had reached this point: [ T to be a man in the garden] [ T to be a man in the garden] We now have to satisfy the [uD*] feature of T. We have there lying around in our numeration. But if we didn’t, we could have just moved a man to SpecTP to satisfy the EPP. We now have to satisfy the [uD*] feature of T. We have there lying around in our numeration. But if we didn’t, we could have just moved a man to SpecTP to satisfy the EPP. [ TP a man to be in the garden] [ TP a man to be in the garden]

24. *There seems a man to be in the garden [ TP a man to be in the garden] [ TP a man to be in the garden] After doing this, we can continue to add on seem, v, T, and then insert there into the higher SpecTP, yielding: After doing this, we can continue to add on seem, v, T, and then insert there into the higher SpecTP, yielding: [ TP there seems [ TP a man to be in…]] [ TP there seems [ TP a man to be in…]] But this is ungrammatical. So what goes wrong? But this is ungrammatical. So what goes wrong? The difference between There seems a man to be in the garden and There seems to be a man in the garden is at the point where we’ve got [ T to be a man in the garden]. Here there’s a choice: Move a man or Merge there. The difference between There seems a man to be in the garden and There seems to be a man in the garden is at the point where we’ve got [ T to be a man in the garden]. Here there’s a choice: Move a man or Merge there. The usual approach here is to say Merge is preferred to Move, so if you have the choice, you always Merge (it’s “easier”). The usual approach here is to say Merge is preferred to Move, so if you have the choice, you always Merge (it’s “easier”).

25. Object control One last type of nonfinite complement, those that appear with verbs like persuade. One last type of nonfinite complement, those that appear with verbs like persuade. Sayid persuaded Kate to stay. Sayid persuaded Kate to stay. Once again, we think through the “participants” to get a handle on whether we have enough DPs for the  - roles. Once again, we think through the “participants” to get a handle on whether we have enough DPs for the  - roles. Stay has only one participant, Kate. Stay has only one participant, Kate. Persuade has three—the one doing the persuading (Sayid), the one being persuaded (Kate), and the proposition in question ( [ TP Kate to stay]). Persuade has three—the one doing the persuading (Sayid), the one being persuaded (Kate), and the proposition in question ( [ TP Kate to stay]). So we don’t have enough DPs for the job— Kate appears to be playing two roles (one from stay, one from persuade). This is a job for PRO. So we don’t have enough DPs for the job— Kate appears to be playing two roles (one from stay, one from persuade). This is a job for PRO.

26. Object control Sayid persuaded Kate to stay. Sayid persuaded Kate to stay. Sayid persuaded Kate [ CP Ø NULL PRO NULL to stay] Sayid persuaded Kate [ CP Ø NULL PRO NULL to stay] Again we have PRO, as we do in Again we have PRO, as we do in Kate tried [ CP Ø NULL PRO NULL to see] Kate tried [ CP Ø NULL PRO NULL to see] But in Sayid persuaded Kate to stay, what “controls” PRO? But in Sayid persuaded Kate to stay, what “controls” PRO?

27. Classes So, we have the following classes: So, we have the following classes: ECM verbs, e.g., believe ECM verbs, e.g., believe I believe [ TP him to have told the truth]. I believe [ TP him to have told the truth]. Subject control verbs, e.g., attempt Subject control verbs, e.g., attempt I k attempted [ CP Ø NULL PRO k to drive to work]. I k attempted [ CP Ø NULL PRO k to drive to work]. Object control verbs, e.g., convince Object control verbs, e.g., convince I convinced her k [ CP Ø NULL PRO k to drive to work]. I convinced her k [ CP Ø NULL PRO k to drive to work]. Raising verbs, e.g., appear Raising verbs, e.g., appear I k appear [ TP t k to be low on time]. I k appear [ TP t k to be low on time].

28.                       