1. The computational system 2 A “bottom-up” – merge based procedure

2. The minimal language system PF interfaceC-I interface Sensori-  C HL  Interpretation Motor system system Lexicon - dedicated +dedicated(?) -dedicated

3. Local dependencies Selection: conceptual (semantic-roles) ??Sincerity admires John Subcategorization: formal/arbitrary John loves Mary| Jan houdt van Marie Case He saw her again| *her saw he again Agreement You love(*s) Fluffy| These/*this boys

4. Putting categories together (I saw) John feed Fluffy (bare VP) (I expect) John to feed Fluffy (to + VP but!! mismatch) John will feed Fluffy (T+VP, T takes over, but!! mismatch) John feeds Fluffy (T+VP, but !! mismatch) TP T' TVP will/toV' JohnV feedFluffy

5. Rearranging elements (I saw) [John [feed Fluffy]] (bare VP) ------ [John [to [(John) feed Fluffy]]] (to+VP+rearrangement) [John [will [(John) feed Fluffy]]] ([ T will]+VP+rearrangement) [John [(-s) [ (John) feeds Fluffy]]] ([ T –s] +VP+ rearr.) TP JohnT' TVP to/will/-sV' (John)V feedFluffy

6. Dislocation 1 Dislocation: Mismatch between positions of interpretation and position of realization Metaphorical term: Movement Dislocation/Movement expresses Double Duty: Essence: One and the same element is active in two (or more) positions.

7. Dislocation 2 The specifier of T must be filled: it will rain there arrived a man Dual use: re-use an element from the structure TP HeT' TVP willV' (he)V loveMary

8. Ditransitive constructions Verbs like give, introduce, donate assign three roles: agent, theme, goal (beneficiary) How to represent these verbs? Asymmetries between arguments  hierarchical structure

9. The Force Layer Classical representation: S’  Complementizer S Exocentric like S  NP VP Questions: If S’ is endocentric what should be the head? Candidate: C Leads to: CP  Spec C’ & C’  C TP (in rule notation) Rizzi (1988) explores the empirical consequences of the endocentricity of S and S’ Illustrates general methodological guide line: Hypothesize the most elegant theory: explore its consequences

10. Adding Force: CP 1 (I thought) [that [ TP John would love *(her)]] (........)CPdeclarative marker: that ----C' CTP thatT' JohnTVP wouldV' (John) love V her

11. Expressing questions: CP 2 (Mary wondered) [ CP if C [ TP John would love her]] (........)CPQuestion marker added ----C' CTP ifT' JohnTVP wouldV' (John) love V her

12. How to express dislocation? (Mary wondered) [whom [ TP John would love - ]] (........)CP whomC' CTP -T' JohnTVP wouldV' (-) love V -

13. The canonical trace notation (Mary wondered) [whom i [ TP John would love t i ]] (........)CP whom i C' CTP -T' John j TVP wouldV' t j love V t i

14. The status of traces What do traces represent? What kind of elements are they? Are they needed? If so, why? Answer in Minimalist Program: Double duty can be expressed without an additional element in the theory Copies can do the same job   Why not pronounced? Merge: Internal/External  traces only for convenience

15. Expressing Questions: CP 3 (Mary wondered) [whom [ TP John would love]] (........)CP whomC' CTP -T' JohnTVP wouldV' (John) love V (whom)

16. Questions in root clauses Whom did [John love t] CP whom h C' CTP did j John i T' TVP t j V' t i Vt h love

17. Clausal layers Predicational core: verb + arguments Tense/mood layer: coordinates for evaluation Force layer (C): assertion, question, command Movement enables one and the same element to be used in more than one layer Whom i did [John love t i ] Whom: argument of love in predicational core; signals question in Force domain Did: carrier Tense in Tense/mood layer; identifies C in Force domain

18. Wh-movement: illustrations a.(John was wondering) whom he loved b.(John was wondering) [ --- [he loved whom] ] c.(John was wondering) [whom i [he loved t i ] Possible over an unbounded domain: Whom i did you say that Bill told Mary that he was willing to bet a million bucks that she never considered to promise Cindy she would leave t i alone?

19. Question formation Instruction: Merge a question word (Wh-word) in the position of which you wish to elicit the value, and link it to the Force layer of the clause by moving it there. wh relates to a theta-role but is not a ‘normal’ argument wh is interpreted as an operator the copy is interpreted as a variable (theta-marked) who binds the variable, creating a set {x: x called L.} who x (x called Lucie) Interpretation: the set of all true answers A very similar operation works in relatives

20. Some questions and relatives Wh-movement: Movement to a Force position (non-argument: no semantic role, no Case) Question formation I wonder [ Cp who/which man i [ t i read the book]] I wonder [ Cp what/which book i [the man read t i ]] Relativization: I admired the man [ CP who i [t i wrote the book]] I admired the book [ CP wh i that [the man wrote t i ]]

21. Relativization Lucie saw the man who caught the cat Lucie saw the man who x (x caught the cat) Interpretation as {x: cat catcher x} How semantically integrated? Depends on configuration: Adjunction  modification  intersection of {x: man x} and {x: cat catcher x} Structure: [ NP the [ N’ [ N’ [ N man]] [ CP who ….]]] Or: [ DP the [ NP [ N’ [ N’ [ N man]] [ CP who ….]]]]

22. Intermezzo: the DP Consider the rule for NP NP  Det N’ Problem for interface rule: The in the man is not an argument of man Leads to: D as a functional head in the N-projection DP  Spec D’ & D’  D NP (in rule notation)

23. Alternative forms for relatives Lucie saw the man that - caught the cat Lucie saw the man who(m) the cat scratched – Lucie saw the man that the cat scratched – Lucie saw the man (OP) the cat scratched –  the relative operator may be null As in questions: long-distance relatives Note the following contrast: the fact that John doubted was surprising the fact that John had quit was surprising

24. Wh-movement as a dependency The interpreter must crucially know: i) an operator-element up front of the clause is part of the Force layer, and must therefore interpreted as signalling a question/relative ii) the operator-element up front must be related to a gap (a trace, silent copy, etc.) and his computational system must be able to figure out where that gap is. Requires clues  what are possible clues?

25. Another instance of movement: Passive John discovered *(Mary) Mary was discovered (by John) John fed the cat The cat was fed by John John gave (Mary) *(a book) Mary was given a book (by John) *A book was given Mary (why??) Systematic combination of three factors: i) the verb is in participial form ii) there is a form of to be as a passive auxiliary iii) the object shows up in subject position Question: why dislocation?

26. Case theory An overt DP is marked for Case