1. Episode 5a. TP, Agree, and our quickly growing tree 5.1-5.3 CAS LX 522 Syntax I

2. On beyond v Our trees have now expanded beyond being mere VPs to being vPs. Our trees have now expanded beyond being mere VPs to being vPs. The Hierarchy of Projections: v > V The Hierarchy of Projections: v > V Once you have finished the VP (uninterpretable selection features are checked), if there’s a v on the workbench, Merge it. Once you have finished the VP (uninterpretable selection features are checked), if there’s a v on the workbench, Merge it. The UTAH: The UTAH: NP, daughter of vP: Agent NP, daughter of vP: Agent NP, daughter of VP: Theme NP, daughter of VP: Theme PP, daughter of V: Goal PP, daughter of V: Goal NP, daughter of V: Possessee NP, daughter of V: Possessee But this is only the beginning. But this is only the beginning.

3. Auxiliaries and modals and verbs Consider the following: Consider the following: I ate. I ate. I could eat. I could eat. I had eaten. I had eaten. I was eating. I was eating. I had been eating. I had been eating. I could have eaten. I could have eaten. I could be eating. I could be eating. I could have been eating. I could have been eating. So: could, have, be, eat. How do we determine what form each verb takes? So: could, have, be, eat. How do we determine what form each verb takes?

4. Auxiliaries and modals and verbs What are these things? What are these things? Have: Perfective (aspect) Have: Perfective (aspect) I have eaten. I had eaten. I have eaten. I had eaten. Be: Progressive (aspect) Be: Progressive (aspect) I am eating. I was eating. I am eating. I was eating. Could: Modal Could: Modal I can eat. I could eat. I shall eat. I should eat. I may eat. I might eat. I will eat. I would eat. I can eat. I could eat. I shall eat. I should eat. I may eat. I might eat. I will eat. I would eat.

5. Auxiliaries and modals and verbs Consider the following: Consider the following: I could have been eating. I could have been eating. *I could be having eaten. *I could be having eaten. *I was canning have eaten. *I was canning have eaten. *I had cannen be eating. *I had cannen be eating. *I was having cannen eat. *I was having cannen eat. *I had been canning eat. *I had been canning eat. It looks like there’s an order: It looks like there’s an order: Modal, Perf, Prog, verb. Modal, Perf, Prog, verb.

6. Auxiliaries and modals and verbs Suppose: Suppose: Have is of category Perf. Have is of category Perf. Be is of category Prog. Be is of category Prog. May, might, can, could are of category M. May, might, can, could are of category M. They are heads from the lexicon, we will Merge them into the tree above vP. Their order is captured by a new improved Hierarchy of Projections: They are heads from the lexicon, we will Merge them into the tree above vP. Their order is captured by a new improved Hierarchy of Projections: Modal > Perf > Prog > v > V Modal > Perf > Prog > v > V Except not every sentence has these. So: Except not every sentence has these. So: (Modal) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V (Modal) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V

7. Negation Consider the following: Consider the following: I did not eat. I did not eat. I could not eat. I could not eat. I had not eaten. I had not eaten. I was not eating. I was not eating. I had not been eating. I had not been eating. I could not have been eating. I could not have been eating. Suppose not is of category Neg. Suppose not is of category Neg. How do we describe where not occurs? How can we fit it into our Hierarchy of Projections? How do we describe where not occurs? How can we fit it into our Hierarchy of Projections?

8. Where does Neg fit? Suppose that we can fit Neg in our Hierarchy of Projections. Just like the other things we just added. Suppose that we can fit Neg in our Hierarchy of Projections. Just like the other things we just added. (Modal) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V (Modal) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V Where would it go in the HoP, and how can we explain the word order patterns? Where would it go in the HoP, and how can we explain the word order patterns? I could not have been eating. I could not have been eating. I had not been eating. I had not been eating. I was not eating. I was not eating. I did not eat. I did not eat. Remember v and how we explained where the verb is in I gave a book to Ed? Remember v and how we explained where the verb is in I gave a book to Ed?

9. A-ha. Picture this: Picture this: I ?+might not have been eating. I ?+might not have been eating. I ?+had not been eating. I ?+had not been eating. I ?+was not eating. I ?+was not eating. So what is ?, then? So what is ?, then? He did not eat. He ate. He did not eat. He ate. He does not eat. He eats. He does not eat. He eats. All that do seems to be doing there is providing an indication of…tense. All that do seems to be doing there is providing an indication of…tense.

10. HoP revisited So, now we know where Neg goes. Above all the other things, but below tense (category T). So, now we know where Neg goes. Above all the other things, but below tense (category T). T > (Neg) > (M) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V T > (Neg) > (M) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V Just as V moves to v, so do Perf, Prog, and M move to T. Just as V moves to v, so do Perf, Prog, and M move to T. If Neg is there, you can see it happen. If Neg is there, you can see it happen. They T+shall not be eating lunch. They T+shall not be eating lunch. They T+shall be eating lunch. They T+shall be eating lunch.

11. What does do do? But what about when there’s just a verb and Neg, but no M, Perf, or Prog? But what about when there’s just a verb and Neg, but no M, Perf, or Prog? I ate lunch. I ate lunch. I did not eat lunch. I did not eat lunch. Eat clearly does not move to T. Eat clearly does not move to T. But not “gets in the way”, so tense cannot “see” the verb. Instead, the meaningless verb do is pronounced, to “support” tense. “Do-support.” But not “gets in the way”, so tense cannot “see” the verb. Instead, the meaningless verb do is pronounced, to “support” tense. “Do-support.” We will return to the details in due course… We will return to the details in due course…

12. So, we have T We’ve just added a category T, tense. We’ve just added a category T, tense. The idea: The tense of a clause (past, present) is the information that T brings to the structure. The idea: The tense of a clause (past, present) is the information that T brings to the structure. T has features like [T, past] or [T, pres] T has features like [T, past] or [T, pres] Or perhaps [T, past] or [T, nonpast]. Or perhaps [T, past] or [T, nonpast]. These features are interpretable on T. T is where tense “lives.” We see reflections of these tense features on verbs (give, gave, go, went) but they are just reflections. Agreement. The interpretable tense features don’t live on verbs, they live on T. These features are interpretable on T. T is where tense “lives.” We see reflections of these tense features on verbs (give, gave, go, went) but they are just reflections. Agreement. The interpretable tense features don’t live on verbs, they live on T.

13. Pat might eat lunch. We already know how this is supposed to work, to a point. We already know how this is supposed to work, to a point. Select: Pat[N, …] v[v, uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Select: Pat[N, …] v[v, uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Merge eat and lunch, checking the uN feature of eat (and assigning a  -role to lunch, namely Theme—this is NP daughter of VP). Merge eat and lunch, checking the uN feature of eat (and assigning a  -role to lunch, namely Theme—this is NP daughter of VP). eat [V, uN, …] lunch [N, …] NPV VPVPv [v, uN, …] NP Pat

14. Pat might eat lunch. Select: Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Select: Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Merge v and the VP eat lunch, in conformance with the Hierarchy of Projections. v projects, and still has a uN feature. Merge v and the VP eat lunch, in conformance with the Hierarchy of Projections. v projects, and still has a uN feature. NPV VPVP v [v, uN, …] eatlunch NP Pat

15. Pat might eat lunch. Select: Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Select: Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Merge v and the VP eat lunch, in conformance with the Hierarchy of Projections. v projects, and still has a uN feature. Merge v and the VP eat lunch, in conformance with the Hierarchy of Projections. v projects, and still has a uN feature. Move the V eat up to v. Move the V eat up to v. NPV VPVP v [v, uN, …] v eatlunch NP Pat

16. Pat might eat lunch. Select: Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Select: Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Merge v and the VP eat lunch, in conformance with the Hierarchy of Projections. v projects, and still has a uN feature. Merge v and the VP eat lunch, in conformance with the Hierarchy of Projections. v projects, and still has a uN feature. Move the V eat up to v. Move the V eat up to v. Merge Pat with v to check the uN feature and assign a  -role (Agent, this is NP daughter of vP). Merge Pat with v to check the uN feature and assign a  -role (Agent, this is NP daughter of vP). NP VPVP v [v, uN, …] vPvP NP Pat v+V eat lunch

17. Pat might eat lunch. Select: Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Select: Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] So, now what do we do with might? So, now what do we do with might? And eat lunch Pat shall. And eat lunch Pat shall. What Pat should do is eat lunch. What Pat should do is eat lunch. It kind of seems like it goes between the subject and the verb, but how? It kind of seems like it goes between the subject and the verb, but how? NP VPVP v [v, uN, …] vPvP lunch v+V eat NP Pat

18. Pat might eat lunch. Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] If we leave everything as it is so far (UTAH, Hierarchy of Projections), the only option is to Merge might with the vP we just built. If we leave everything as it is so far (UTAH, Hierarchy of Projections), the only option is to Merge might with the vP we just built. So, let’s. So, let’s. NP VPVP v [v, uN, …] vPvP lunch M might [M, …] v+V eat NP Pat

19. Pat might eat lunch. Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Now, we have one more thing on our workbench (T) and the HoP says that once we finish with M, we Merge it with T. Now, we have one more thing on our workbench (T) and the HoP says that once we finish with M, we Merge it with T. And so Merge T, we shall. And so Merge T, we shall. NP VPVP v [v, uN, …] vPvP lunch M might [M, …] MP v+V eat NP Pat

20. Pat might eat lunch. Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Then, M moves up to T. Then, M moves up to T. Why? Because M, Perf, and Prog all move up to T. For the same kind of reason that V moves up to v. Why? Because M, Perf, and Prog all move up to T. For the same kind of reason that V moves up to v. Right now we have no way to describe this in our system, except with this “rule from the outside” that stipulates that V moves to v, and {M/Perf/Prog} moves to T. Right now we have no way to describe this in our system, except with this “rule from the outside” that stipulates that V moves to v, and {M/Perf/Prog} moves to T. NP VPVP v [v, uN, …] vPvP lunch M might [M, …] MP v+V eat NP Pat T [T, past] T [TP?]

21. Pat might eat lunch. Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Ok, that’s all fine and good, except that the sentence is Pat might eat lunch not Might Pat eat lunch Ok, that’s all fine and good, except that the sentence is Pat might eat lunch not Might Pat eat lunch How do we get Pat might eat lunch out of this? How do we get Pat might eat lunch out of this? NP VPVP v [v, uN, …] vPvP lunch MP v+V eat NP Pat T+M might T [TP?]

22. Pat might eat lunch. Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past] As previewed in the previous episode, the subject moves to this first position in the sentence, around the modal. As previewed in the previous episode, the subject moves to this first position in the sentence, around the modal. “Moving” Pat here means Merging a copy… “Moving” Pat here means Merging a copy… NP VPVP v vPvP lunch TP v+V eat NP Pat MP T+M might T

23. Pat might eat lunch. Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past, …] Pat[N, …] v[uN, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] might[M, …] T[T, past, …] Great. Why? Great. Why? Jumping ahead, we’re going to say that this is a property of T-type things generally: T needs to have an NP in its specifier. Jumping ahead, we’re going to say that this is a property of T-type things generally: T needs to have an NP in its specifier. We can encode this as a (special type of) uninterpretable feature on T: [uN*]. More on that later. We can encode this as a (special type of) uninterpretable feature on T: [uN*]. More on that later. NP VPVP v vPvP lunch TP v+V eat NP Pat MP T+M might T

24. WARNING-WARNING- WARNING What we’ve done here is not quite the same as what is in the textbook. What we’ve done here is not quite the same as what is in the textbook. (But it’s better, believe me). (But it’s better, believe me). In the textbook, modals are not treated as their own category, but rather as a kind of T. In the textbook, modals are not treated as their own category, but rather as a kind of T. This revision will pay off soon. Keep this difference in mind as you review the textbook on this point. You will see no MPs in the book. But you should see them on the homeworks/tests you turn in. This revision will pay off soon. Keep this difference in mind as you review the textbook on this point. You will see no MPs in the book. But you should see them on the homeworks/tests you turn in.

25. What about I? A side note here, lest there is some confusion amongst those who remember learning something different in the past. A side note here, lest there is some confusion amongst those who remember learning something different in the past. You may have heard in the past that it tense should be of category I (for Inflection), rather than T (For Tense). You may have heard in the past that it tense should be of category I (for Inflection), rather than T (For Tense). Rest easy: T and I are (for current purposes) just two names for the same thing. Rest easy: T and I are (for current purposes) just two names for the same thing. Historically, this was called INFL, then I, and now usually called T. But these are just names. Historically, this was called INFL, then I, and now usually called T. But these are just names. Istanbul vs. Constantinople; St. Petersburg vs. Leningrad. Istanbul vs. Constantinople; St. Petersburg vs. Leningrad.

26. Pat ate lunch Now that we have T in the Hierarchy of Projections, we’re stuck with it. Now that we have T in the Hierarchy of Projections, we’re stuck with it. Yet, where is T in Pat ate lunch or Pat eats lunch? Yet, where is T in Pat ate lunch or Pat eats lunch? It looks like the tense marking is on the verb, we don’t see anything between the subject and the verb where T ought to be. It looks like the tense marking is on the verb, we don’t see anything between the subject and the verb where T ought to be. Now that we have T, this is where tense features belong. We take this to be the thing that determines the tense of the sentence, even if we sometimes see the marking on the verb. Now that we have T, this is where tense features belong. We take this to be the thing that determines the tense of the sentence, even if we sometimes see the marking on the verb.

27. Pat ate lunch Since (most) verbs sound different when in the past and in the present tense, we suppose that there is a [past] or [present] feature on the verb. Since (most) verbs sound different when in the past and in the present tense, we suppose that there is a [past] or [present] feature on the verb. However, to reiterate: tense belongs on T. However, to reiterate: tense belongs on T. The tense features on the verbs are uninterpretable. The tense features on the verbs are uninterpretable.

28. Feature classes You may recall that we at one point talked about divide features into types; now’s the time it matters. You may recall that we at one point talked about divide features into types; now’s the time it matters. There are tense features. Like past, like present. There are case features. Like nom, like acc. There are person features. Like 1st, like 2nd. There are gender features. Like masculine, like feminine. There are tense features. Like past, like present. There are case features. Like nom, like acc. There are person features. Like 1st, like 2nd. There are gender features. Like masculine, like feminine. So, we can think of this as a feature category or feature type that has a value. So, we can think of this as a feature category or feature type that has a value. [Gender: masculine][Person: 1st] [Gender: masculine][Person: 1st] [Tense: past][Case: nom] [Tense: past][Case: nom]

29. Agree T nodes have features of the tense type. Maybe past, maybe present. T nodes have features of the tense type. Maybe past, maybe present. Suppose that v has an uninterpretable feature of the tense type, but unvalued. Suppose that v has an uninterpretable feature of the tense type, but unvalued. What we’re trying to model here is agreement. What we’re trying to model here is agreement. Agree In the configuration X[F: val] … Y[uF: ] F checks and values uF, resulting in X[F: val] … Y[uF: val] Agree In the configuration X[F: val] … Y[uF: ] F checks and values uF, resulting in X[F: val] … Y[uF: val]

30. Unvalued features The idea is that a lexical item might have an unvalued feature, which is uninterpretable as it stands and needs to be given a value in order to be interpretable. The idea is that a lexical item might have an unvalued feature, which is uninterpretable as it stands and needs to be given a value in order to be interpretable. The statement of Agree on the previous slide is essentially saying just that, formally. The statement of Agree on the previous slide is essentially saying just that, formally. This gives us two kinds of uninterpretable features (unvalued and regular-old uninterpretable privative features), and two ways to check them (valuing for unvalued features, checking under sisterhood for the other kind). This gives us two kinds of uninterpretable features (unvalued and regular-old uninterpretable privative features), and two ways to check them (valuing for unvalued features, checking under sisterhood for the other kind). Unvalued [uF: ]. Regular-old [uF]. Unvalued [uF: ]. Regular-old [uF].

31. Pat ate lunch So, back to Pat ate lunch. So, back to Pat ate lunch. T has a tense feature, e.g., [T, past, …]. T has a tense feature, e.g., [T, past, …]. We need to make a connection between the tense feature on T and the tense morphology we see on the verb. We need to make a connection between the tense feature on T and the tense morphology we see on the verb. Here’s how: Here’s how: Little v has an uninterpretable (unvalued) inflectional feature [uInfl: ]. Little v has an uninterpretable (unvalued) inflectional feature [uInfl: ]. It’s “Infl” because we want to include tense, but also other kinds of features later on. But tense features can check and value unvalued Infl-type features. It’s “Infl” because we want to include tense, but also other kinds of features later on. But tense features can check and value unvalued Infl-type features.

32. Pat ate lunch. Pat[N, …] v[uN, uInfl:, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] T[T, tense:past, …] Pat[N, …] v[uN, uInfl:, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] T[T, tense:past, …] NP VPVP v vPvP lunch T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] v[uInfl:]+V eat NP Pat

33. Pat ate lunch. Pat[N, …] v[uN, uInfl:, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] T[T, tense:past, …] Pat[N, …] v[uN, uInfl:, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] T[T, tense:past, …] Agree In the configuration X[F: val] … Y[uF: ] F checks and values uF, resulting in X[F: val] … Y[uF: val] Agree In the configuration X[F: val] … Y[uF: ] F checks and values uF, resulting in X[F: val] … Y[uF: val] NP VPVP v vPvP lunch T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] T [T, uN*, tense:past, …] v[uInfl:past]+V eat NP Pat

34. Pat ate lunch. Pat[N, …] v[uN, uInfl:, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] T[T, tense:past, …] Pat[N, …] v[uN, uInfl:, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] T[T, tense:past, …] Last point, how does this come to be pronounced Pat ate lunch? Last point, how does this come to be pronounced Pat ate lunch? T isn’t pronounced as anything. It was just a pure tense feature. T isn’t pronounced as anything. It was just a pure tense feature. The “past” pronunciation of eat is ate, so v+V is pronounced “ate” here. The “past” pronunciation of eat is ate, so v+V is pronounced “ate” here. NP VPVP v vPvP lunch T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] T [T, uN*, tense:past, …] TP NP Pat v[uInfl:past]+V eat

35. Pat had been eating lunch The auxiliary verbs have and be are used in forming the perfect and progressive, respectively, which are additional forms that a verb can take on. The auxiliary verbs have and be are used in forming the perfect and progressive, respectively, which are additional forms that a verb can take on. Pat has eaten lunch. Pat is eating lunch. Pat has eaten lunch. Pat is eating lunch. The generalization was that have and be each determine the form that the next verb/auxiliary takes. The generalization was that have and be each determine the form that the next verb/auxiliary takes. We have a means of explaining this now: have and be each have a [uInfl: ] feature, like v does, and categories Perf and Prog can value [uInfl: ] features. We have a means of explaining this now: have and be each have a [uInfl: ] feature, like v does, and categories Perf and Prog can value [uInfl: ] features.

36. Valuing [u Infl: ] A concise statement of the things with [uInfl:] and the things that can value [uInfl:]: A concise statement of the things with [uInfl:] and the things that can value [uInfl:]: (So far; there will be small revisions later…) (So far; there will be small revisions later…) These have [uInfl: ] features: These have [uInfl: ] features: v, M, Perf, Prog v, M, Perf, Prog [uInfl: ] features can be valued (via Agree) by: [uInfl: ] features can be valued (via Agree) by: Tense features (past, present) of T. -s or -ed. Tense features (past, present) of T. -s or -ed. Perf feature of Perf. -en. Perf feature of Perf. -en. Prog feature of Prog. -ing. Prog feature of Prog. -ing. M feature of M. -Ø (silent) M feature of M. -Ø (silent) Pat [past] ha-d be-en eat-ing lunch. Pat [past] ha-d be-en eat-ing lunch.

37. Pat had eaten lunch. Pat[N, …] v[uN, uInfl:, …] have[Perf, uInfl:, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] T[T, tense:past, …] Pat[N, …] v[uN, uInfl:, …] have[Perf, uInfl:, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] T[T, tense:past, …] NP VPVP v vPvP lunch T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] T [T, uN*, tense:past, …] TP NP Pat v[uInfl:perf]+V eaten Perf [Perf, uInfl:past] had PerfP

38. Pat was eating lunch. Pat[N, …] v[uN, uInfl:, …] be[Prog, uInfl:, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] T[T, tense:past, …] Pat[N, …] v[uN, uInfl:, …] be[Prog, uInfl:, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] T[T, tense:past, …] NP VPVP v vPvP lunch T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] T [T, uN*, tense:past, …] TP NP Pat v[uInfl:prog]+V eating Prog [Prog, uInfl:past] was ProgP

39. Pat should eat lunch. Pat[N, …] v[uN, uInfl:, …] may [M, uInfl:, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] T[T, tense:past, …] Pat[N, …] v[uN, uInfl:, …] may [M, uInfl:, …] eat[V, uN, …] lunch[N, …] T[T, tense:past, …] NP VPVP v vPvP lunch T [tense:past, T, uN*, …] T [T, uN*, tense:past, …] TP NP Pat v[uInfl:M]+V eat M [M, uInfl:past] might MP

40.                       