1. Week 12. Articulating the tree, and some Applied Syntax CAS LX 522 Syntax I

2. Reminder: Motivating AgrOP +Fin aux/verb: V Adv, V neg Moves to T. +Fin aux/verb: V Adv, V neg Moves to T. –Fin aux: (V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V) (Opt.) Moves to T. –Fin aux: (V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V) (Opt.) Moves to T. –Fin verb: (V) Adv (V), neg V Moves over adv not neg?? –Fin verb: (V) Adv (V), neg V Moves over adv not neg?? We need there to be a head here in the tree for the verb to move to… We need there to be a head here in the tree for the verb to move to… That means we need to insert a whole phrase (heads always head something)… That means we need to insert a whole phrase (heads always head something)… V VP PP T TP DS Neg NegP pas ne T V AdvP souvent Neg DP k V

3. A new FP +Fin aux/verb: V Adv, V neg Moves to (F, then to) T. +Fin aux/verb: V Adv, V neg Moves to (F, then to) T. –Fin aux: (V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V) (Opt.) Moves to (F, then to) T. –Fin aux: (V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V) (Opt.) Moves to (F, then to) T. –Fin verb: (V) Adv (V), neg V (Opt.) Moves to F –Fin verb: (V) Adv (V), neg V (Opt.) Moves to F Now we have a place for nonfinite main verbs to move, past adverbs but under negation. They can move to F. Now we have a place for nonfinite main verbs to move, past adverbs but under negation. They can move to F. V VP PP T TP DS Neg NegP pas ne T V AdvP souvent Neg DP k V F FP F

4. AgrOP AgrOP, Object agreement phrase. AgrOP, Object agreement phrase. Don’t forget, this is French we’re talking about here. In French, V moves to T. Don’t forget, this is French we’re talking about here. In French, V moves to T. As the verb moves up to T, it has to stop off in AgrOP (the Head Movement Constraint requires it), forming successively more complex heads. As the verb moves up to T, it has to stop off in AgrOP (the Head Movement Constraint requires it), forming successively more complex heads. V AgrO+V AgrO+V T+[AgrO+V] T+[AgrO+V] And why does the object have to move to SpecAgrOP? To get accusative Case. And why does the object have to move to SpecAgrOP? To get accusative Case. VP titi T TP SS T V tktk V AgrO AgrOP AgrO C CP C DP k DP i titi

5. Morphology on French verbs Past, varying persons:je mange-ai-s ‘eat’tu mange-ai-s il mange-ai-t Past, varying persons:je mange-ai-s ‘eat’tu mange-ai-s il mange-ai-t Fut, varying persons:je mange-er-ai ‘eat’tu mange-er-as il mange-er-a Fut, varying persons:je mange-er-ai ‘eat’tu mange-er-as il mange-er-a Tense morphology is inside and separate from subject agreement morphology. Tense morphology is inside and separate from subject agreement morphology. Kind of looks like after tense, another, subject-agreeing morpheme is attached… Kind of looks like after tense, another, subject-agreeing morpheme is attached…

6. AgrSP? AgrOP, Object agreement phrase. AgrOP, Object agreement phrase. AgrSP, Subject agreement phrase? AgrSP, Subject agreement phrase? Pleasingly symmetrical! Pleasingly symmetrical! Complex heads: Complex heads: V AgrO+V AgrO+V T+[AgrO+V] T+[AgrO+V] AgrS+[T+[AgrO+V]] AgrS+[T+[AgrO+V]] VP titi T TP T V tktk V AgrO AgrOP AgrO AgrS AgrSP AgrS DP k titi C C

7. Split-INFL The assumption of this structure is sometimes referred to as the “Split-INFL” hypothesis; the INFLectional nodes have been “split” into subject agreement, tense, and object agreement. The assumption of this structure is sometimes referred to as the “Split-INFL” hypothesis; the INFLectional nodes have been “split” into subject agreement, tense, and object agreement. Reminder: AgrSP+TP+AgrOP in the era before the “Split-INFL” was often referred to as INFLP or IP. We’ve called it “TP” (perhaps confusingly, we were really talking about IP before). Reminder: AgrSP+TP+AgrOP in the era before the “Split-INFL” was often referred to as INFLP or IP. We’ve called it “TP” (perhaps confusingly, we were really talking about IP before). VP T TP T V V AgrO AgrOP AgrO AgrS AgrSP AgrS DP C C

8. The EPP & NOM We said before the T needs a specifier (at SS), that’s the essential content of the EPP. Plus, we said before that this is where NOM is assigned. We said before the T needs a specifier (at SS), that’s the essential content of the EPP. Plus, we said before that this is where NOM is assigned. Now there is AgrSP as well. Now there is AgrSP as well. AgrOP is responsible for ACC. AgrOP is responsible for ACC. In a symmetrical world, seems like AgrSP should be responsible for NOM. In a symmetrical world, seems like AgrSP should be responsible for NOM. So, now that (kind of mysterious) double motivation for moving to SpecTP has been clarified: The subject has to move to both SpecTP and SpecAgrSP, but each movement happens for a different reason. T for EPP, AgrSP for NOM. So, now that (kind of mysterious) double motivation for moving to SpecTP has been clarified: The subject has to move to both SpecTP and SpecAgrSP, but each movement happens for a different reason. T for EPP, AgrSP for NOM. VP T TP T V V AgrO AgrOP AgrO AgrS AgrSP AgrS DP C C

9. Adopting the Split-INFL hypothesis Lots of good syntax has been done both adopting the Split-INFL hypothesis (trees contain AgrSP, TP, AgrOP) or not (trees contain only TP, a.k.a. IP). Lots of good syntax has been done both adopting the Split-INFL hypothesis (trees contain AgrSP, TP, AgrOP) or not (trees contain only TP, a.k.a. IP). For many things, it doesn’t matter which you choose— analyses can be directly translated into a Split-INFL tree or vice-versa. For many things, it doesn’t matter which you choose— analyses can be directly translated into a Split-INFL tree or vice-versa. Where it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter, but sometimes it matters. (On the final, for example) Where it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter, but sometimes it matters. (On the final, for example)

10. Adopting the Split-INFL hypothesis The general program is that every dissociable piece of the structure should get its own place in the lexicon, its own functional head… The general program is that every dissociable piece of the structure should get its own place in the lexicon, its own functional head… Subject agreement is basically common across verbs, an independent piece. Subject agreement is basically common across verbs, an independent piece. Tense too is an independent piece. Tense too is an independent piece. And object agreement And object agreement And… plural marking… and progressive -ing, aspectual - en, … And… plural marking… and progressive -ing, aspectual - en, … In Syntax II, we’ll spend a lot of the semester looking at places in the tree where functional projections need to be added. In Syntax II, we’ll spend a lot of the semester looking at places in the tree where functional projections need to be added.

11. Split-INFL In recent literature, almost everything you read will make this assumption, that cross-linguistically, the clause is minimally constructed of these projections, generally in this order: In recent literature, almost everything you read will make this assumption, that cross-linguistically, the clause is minimally constructed of these projections, generally in this order: CP CP AgrSP AgrSP TP TP AgrOP AgrOP VP VP VP T TP T AgrO AgrOP AgrO AgrS AgrSP AgrS C C CP

12. A word about the PP Actually, there is one place where we haven’t unified Case-assignment, namely the oblique Case that is assigned to the complement of P. Actually, there is one place where we haven’t unified Case-assignment, namely the oblique Case that is assigned to the complement of P. For now (this whole semester), we’ll just leave it at that. For now (this whole semester), we’ll just leave it at that. P can assign oblique Case to its sister, although V cannot assign accusative Case to its sister. P can assign oblique Case to its sister, although V cannot assign accusative Case to its sister. So DPs that are objects of prepositions don’t need to go anywhere, they’re fine where they are. So DPs that are objects of prepositions don’t need to go anywhere, they’re fine where they are. Sometimes the distinction is made between structural and inherent Case: Sometimes the distinction is made between structural and inherent Case: Structural Case (NOM, ACC) is assigned by movement to someplace in the structure (SpecAgrOP, SpecAgrSP). Structural Case (NOM, ACC) is assigned by movement to someplace in the structure (SpecAgrOP, SpecAgrSP). Inherent Case is assigned in place, e.g., by P. Inherent Case is assigned in place, e.g., by P.

13. Moving away from English Recall that the model of language we’re working with is one in which languages are for the most part the same, but differ in the settings of certain parameters, such as order between object and verb. What are possible parameter settings? Recall that the model of language we’re working with is one in which languages are for the most part the same, but differ in the settings of certain parameters, such as order between object and verb. What are possible parameter settings? UG Japanese English

14. Moving away from English We’ve seen a couple, but the only way to discover what they are is to look at how other languages differ. We’ve seen a couple, but the only way to discover what they are is to look at how other languages differ. Recall, for example, the V-to-T parameter that differentiated French from English. Recall, for example, the V-to-T parameter that differentiated French from English. UG Japanese English

15. Japanese Taroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta. Taro- NOM that book- ACC buy- PAST ‘Taro bought that book.’ Taroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta. Taro- NOM that book- ACC buy- PAST ‘Taro bought that book.’ Taroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta no? Taro- NOM that book- ACC buy- PAST Q ‘Did Taro buy that book?’ Taroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta no? Taro- NOM that book- ACC buy- PAST Q ‘Did Taro buy that book?’ Hanako-ga [Taroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta to] omotteiru. H.- NOM T.- NOM that book- ACC buy- PAST that thinks ‘Hanako thinks that Taro bought that book.’ Hanako-ga [Taroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta to] omotteiru. H.- NOM T.- NOM that book- ACC buy- PAST that thinks ‘Hanako thinks that Taro bought that book.’

16. Japanese Japanese appears to be quite strictly head-final. The head of an XP comes after the complement. Japanese appears to be quite strictly head-final. The head of an XP comes after the complement. We can draw the structure of a Japanese tree like this, using the same system, only with head-final structures. We can draw the structure of a Japanese tree like this, using the same system, only with head-final structures. (I drew this series of slides for a previous lecture preceding the introduction of the split-INFL hypothesis—what do we think about AgrSP and AgrOP in Japanese?) (I drew this series of slides for a previous lecture preceding the introduction of the split-INFL hypothesis—what do we think about AgrSP and AgrOP in Japanese?) V kat V VP ano hon-o DP T T TP Taroo-ga DP i -ta C C CP to titi

17. Japanese As in English, nominative case (ga) is assigned to the DP in the specifier of TP, accusative case (o) is assigned to the sister of V. As in English, nominative case (ga) is assigned to the DP in the specifier of TP, accusative case (o) is assigned to the sister of V. (Or, in terms of Split-INFL?) (Or, in terms of Split-INFL?) Does the verb move to T? Tough question. Notice that it doesn’t have to to get the word order right. Does the verb move to T? Tough question. Notice that it doesn’t have to to get the word order right. V kat V VP ano hon-o DP T T TP Taroo-ga DP i -ta C C CP to titi

18. Japanese Taroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta. Taro- NOM that book- ACC buy- PAST ‘Taro bought that book.’ Taroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta. Taro- NOM that book- ACC buy- PAST ‘Taro bought that book.’ ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta. that book- ACC Taro- NOM buy- PAST ‘Taro bought that book.’ ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta. that book- ACC Taro- NOM buy- PAST ‘Taro bought that book.’ How might this come about? How might this come about? The  -criterion dictates that the object ano hon-o starts out as the sister of V. Like in What did I buy? The  -criterion dictates that the object ano hon-o starts out as the sister of V. Like in What did I buy?

19. Japanese ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta. that book- ACC Taro- NOM buy- PAST ‘Taro bought that book.’ ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta. that book- ACC Taro- NOM buy- PAST ‘Taro bought that book.’ This must start out the same way as Taroo-ga ano hon-o katta. This must start out the same way as Taroo-ga ano hon-o katta. Thus ano hon-o must move to where we see it. Scrambling. Thus ano hon-o must move to where we see it. Scrambling. So where does it go? So where does it go? V kat V VP ano hon-o DP T T TP Taroo-ga DP i -ta C C CP [-Q] titi

20. Japanese ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta. that book- ACC Taro- NOM buy- PAST ‘Taro bought that book.’ ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta. that book- ACC Taro- NOM buy- PAST ‘Taro bought that book.’ The standard analysis of this is that scrambled arguments move to adjoin to TP—like quantifiers do. Same kind of movement as QR. The standard analysis of this is that scrambled arguments move to adjoin to TP—like quantifiers do. Same kind of movement as QR. V kat V VPT T TP Taroo-ga DP i -ta C C CP [-Q] titi TP ano hon-o DP j tjtj

21. Japanese ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta. that book- ACC Taro- NOM buy- PAST ‘Taro bought that book.’ ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta. that book- ACC Taro- NOM buy- PAST ‘Taro bought that book.’ So languages also differ in whether or not they allow scrambling. So languages also differ in whether or not they allow scrambling. A large majority of the scrambling languages are also SOV languages, although why that would be remains unclear. A large majority of the scrambling languages are also SOV languages, although why that would be remains unclear. V kat V VPT T TP Taroo-ga DP i -ta C C CP [-Q] titi TP ano hon-o DP j tjtj

22. Korean Korean is in many respects structurally very similar to Japanese; strictly head-final, allows scrambling, has Case marking. Korean is in many respects structurally very similar to Japanese; strictly head-final, allows scrambling, has Case marking. Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC read- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu read that book.’ Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC read- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu read that book.’

23. Korean negation Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC read- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu read that book.’ Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC read- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu read that book.’ Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul an-ilk-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC NEG -read- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul an-ilk-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC NEG -read- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC read- CI NEG. do- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC read- CI NEG. do- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’

24. Korean negation Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul an-ilk-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC NEG -read- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul an-ilk-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC NEG -read- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ If this is the DS for the Korean “short negation,” how do we get the right word order? If this is the DS for the Korean “short negation,” how do we get the right word order? V ilk V VP ku chayk-ul DP T T TP C.-ka DP -ess C C CP -ta Neg an Neg NegP DS

25. Korean negation Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul an-ilk-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC NEG -read- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul an-ilk-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC NEG -read- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ If this is the DS for the Korean “short negation,” how do we get the right word order? If this is the DS for the Korean “short negation,” how do we get the right word order? We could head-move the verb up the tree to Neg. We could head-move the verb up the tree to Neg. So what’s happening in “long negation”? So what’s happening in “long negation”? Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC read- CI NEG. do- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC read- CI NEG. do- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ V VP ku chayk-ul DP T T TP C.-ka DP j -ess C C CP -ta Neg+V i an-ilk Neg NegP SS titi tjtj

26. Korean negation Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC read- CI NEG. do- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC read- CI NEG. do- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ Suppose that the DS is the same, except that we now have a special “nominalized” form of the verb (cf. reading, perhaps). Suppose that the DS is the same, except that we now have a special “nominalized” form of the verb (cf. reading, perhaps). Suppose that ilk-ci doesn’t move to Neg. Suppose that ilk-ci doesn’t move to Neg. See how we might analyze this? See how we might analyze this? V ilk-ci V VP ku chayk-ul DP T T TP C.-ka DP -ess C C CP -ta Neg an Neg NegP DS

27. Korean negation Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC read- CI NEG. do- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC read- CI NEG. do- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ At SS, we have a tense morpheme (- ess) which needs to attach to a verb. At SS, we have a tense morpheme (- ess) which needs to attach to a verb. But since ilk-ci didn’t move to an (and in fact probably doesn’t count as a verb anymore, but as a noun), there is no verb in the area. But since ilk-ci didn’t move to an (and in fact probably doesn’t count as a verb anymore, but as a noun), there is no verb in the area. V ilk-ci V VP ku chayk-ul DP T T TP -ess C C CP -ta Neg an Neg NegP SS C.-ka DP j tjtj

28. Korean negation Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC read- CI NEG. do- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta. Chelswu- NOM that book- ACC read- CI NEG. do- PAST - DECL ‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ Hence we insert do (in Korean, ha), which gets contracted as anh. Hence we insert do (in Korean, ha), which gets contracted as anh. Actually, in more literary Korean it is also possible to find an uncontracted form that looks like …ilk-ci ani ha-ess- ta. Actually, in more literary Korean it is also possible to find an uncontracted form that looks like …ilk-ci ani ha-ess- ta. Just like English… Just like English… V ilk-ci V VP ku chayk-ul DP T T TP ha-ess C C CP -ta Neg an Neg NegP PF C.-ka DP j tjtj

29. Dutch Let’s shift gears a bit and look at some Germanic languages. Like Dutch (this works for German too). What’s the word order? Is it head-initial? Head-final? Let’s shift gears a bit and look at some Germanic languages. Like Dutch (this works for German too). What’s the word order? Is it head-initial? Head-final? Wim koopt het boek. Wim buys the book ‘Wim buys the book.’ Wim koopt het boek. Wim buys the book ‘Wim buys the book.’ …dat Wim het boek koopt. …that Wim the book buys ‘…that Wim buys the book’ …dat Wim het boek koopt. …that Wim the book buys ‘…that Wim buys the book’

30. Dutch Dutch main clause sentences are not SVO… Dutch main clause sentences are not SVO… Dat boek kocht Wim gisteren. that book bought Wim yesterday ‘That book Wim bought yesterday.’ Dat boek kocht Wim gisteren. that book bought Wim yesterday ‘That book Wim bought yesterday.’ Gisteren kocht Wim dat boek. yesterday bought Wim that book ‘Yesterday Wim bought that book.’ Gisteren kocht Wim dat boek. yesterday bought Wim that book ‘Yesterday Wim bought that book.’

31. Dutch V2 When there is an auxiliary, the auxiliary goes second, and the verb goes last. When there is an auxiliary, the auxiliary goes second, and the verb goes last. Gisteren heeft Karel dat boek gekocht Yesterday has Karel that book bought ‘Yesterday Karel bought that book.’ Gisteren heeft Karel dat boek gekocht Yesterday has Karel that book bought ‘Yesterday Karel bought that book.’ and when embedded, they both go at the end… and when embedded, they both go at the end… …dat Karel gisteren dat boek gekocht heeft. …that Karel yesterday that book bought has ‘…that Karel bought that book yesterday.’ …dat Karel gisteren dat boek gekocht heeft. …that Karel yesterday that book bought has ‘…that Karel bought that book yesterday.’

32. Dutch V2 XP V S O…C S O V XP V S O…C S O V XP Aux S O V…C S O V Aux XP Aux S O V…C S O V Aux What’s happening here? What’s happening here? Compare: Has Bill gone to the movies? I wonder if Bill has gone to the movies. Compare: Has Bill gone to the movies? I wonder if Bill has gone to the movies.

33. Dutch V2 XP V S O…C S O V XP V S O…C S O V XP Aux S O V…C S O V Aux XP Aux S O V…C S O V Aux It appears that in main clauses the tensed verb moves to C; in embedded clauses it doesn’t. It appears that in main clauses the tensed verb moves to C; in embedded clauses it doesn’t. Like in English questions… Like in English questions…

34. Dutch V2 XP V S O…C S O V XP V S O…C S O V XP Aux S O V…C S O V Aux XP Aux S O V…C S O V Aux So, is Dutch head-initial or head-final? So, is Dutch head-initial or head-final? By now we should be able to tell what VP, TP, and CP look like. By now we should be able to tell what VP, TP, and CP look like.

35. Dutch V2 Dutch appears to be head-final in VP and TP, but head-initial in CP. Dutch appears to be head-final in VP and TP, but head-initial in CP. The (finite) verb moves from V to T and then to C in matrix clauses The (finite) verb moves from V to T and then to C in matrix clauses Then something moves into SpecCP. It could be the subject… Then something moves into SpecCP. It could be the subject… tktk T TP DP DP j V VP koopt Wim C+[V i +T] k C CP het boek titi tjtj tjtj

36. Dutch V2 Dutch appears to be head-final in VP and TP, but head-initial in CP. Dutch appears to be head-final in VP and TP, but head-initial in CP. The (finite) verb moves from V to T and then to C in matrix clauses The (finite) verb moves from V to T and then to C in matrix clauses Then something moves into SpecCP. It could be the object… Then something moves into SpecCP. It could be the object… T TP DP k DP j V VP Wim C CP het boek titi tjtj tktk koopt C+[V i +T] k tktk

37. Dutch V2 When C is filled (in an embedded clause, with dat), the verb moves only to T and nothing moves to SpecCP. When C is filled (in an embedded clause, with dat), the verb moves only to T and nothing moves to SpecCP. T TP DP DP j V VP dat Wim C C CP het boek titi tjtj koopt T+V i

38. V2 So another parameter of variation between languages seems to be whether V moves to C and requires SpecCP to be filled (“V2”). So another parameter of variation between languages seems to be whether V moves to C and requires SpecCP to be filled (“V2”). English has a little bit of what appears to be “residual V2” with negatives. English has a little bit of what appears to be “residual V2” with negatives. Never had I seen such a thing. Never had I seen such a thing. Under no circumstances will I buy that book. Under no circumstances will I buy that book. There are complications with treating this like V2 in German and Dutch (can you think of them?) which will be addressed in Syntax II. There are complications with treating this like V2 in German and Dutch (can you think of them?) which will be addressed in Syntax II.

39. VSO: Reminder about Irish Irish: VSO, Aux SVO. Irish: VSO, Aux SVO. Phóg Máire an lucharachán. Phóg Máire an lucharachán. kissed Mary the leprechaun kissed Mary the leprechaun ‘Mary kissed the leprechaun.’ ‘Mary kissed the leprechaun.’ Tá Máire ag-pógáil an lucharachán. Tá Máire ag-pógáil an lucharachán. Is Mary ing-kiss the leprechaun Is Mary ing-kiss the leprechaun ‘Mary is kissing the leprechaun.’ ‘Mary is kissing the leprechaun.’ We might have also analyzed this as V-to-T-to-C (like German but without the filled SpecCP), but for… We might have also analyzed this as V-to-T-to-C (like German but without the filled SpecCP), but for…

40. VSO order in Irish There seem to be cases when C is filled and the order is still VSO—so the verb doesn’t move to C. There seem to be cases when C is filled and the order is still VSO—so the verb doesn’t move to C. An bhfaca tú an madra? An bhfaca tú an madra? Q See you the dog Q See you the dog ‘Did you see the dog?’ ‘Did you see the dog?’ Duirt mé gur phóg Máire an lucharachán. Duirt mé gur phóg Máire an lucharachán. Said I that kissed Mary the leprechaun Said I that kissed Mary the leprechaun ‘I said that Mary kissed the leprechaun.’ ‘I said that Mary kissed the leprechaun.’

41. VSO order in Irish We had suggested that Irish leaves the subject in VP-internal position. We had suggested that Irish leaves the subject in VP-internal position. In essence, then, Irish seems to be a V-to-T type language—but without the EPP. In essence, then, Irish seems to be a V-to-T type language—but without the EPP. Note: Not everyone likes saying that a language can choose not to obey the EPP. However, if the alternative has EPP universal and some languages can use pro exp to satisfy it, the two alternatives are not different. Note: Not everyone likes saying that a language can choose not to obey the EPP. However, if the alternative has EPP universal and some languages can use pro exp to satisfy it, the two alternatives are not different. We now have an alternative way to analyze this… one that doesn’t require either suspension of the EPP or pro exp. What is it? We now have an alternative way to analyze this… one that doesn’t require either suspension of the EPP or pro exp. What is it? titi V VP … C C CP SS T+V i T TP DP

42. VSO in Std. Arabic Standard Arabic seems to be VSO like Irish, but can provide clearer evidence for this idea that VSO leaves the subject lower than the standard (English-type) subject position. Standard Arabic seems to be VSO like Irish, but can provide clearer evidence for this idea that VSO leaves the subject lower than the standard (English-type) subject position. Std. Arabic: Allows both VSO and SVO orders. Std. Arabic: Allows both VSO and SVO orders. ra?a-a l-?awlaad-u Zayd-an saw- 3S the-boys- NOM Zayd- ACC ‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (VSO) ra?a-a l-?awlaad-u Zayd-an saw- 3S the-boys- NOM Zayd- ACC ‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (VSO) l-?awlaad-u ra?a-w Zayd-an the-boys- NOM saw- 3PL Zayd- ACC ‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (SVO) l-?awlaad-u ra?a-w Zayd-an the-boys- NOM saw- 3PL Zayd- ACC ‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (SVO)

43. VSO in Std. Arabic ra?a-a l-?awlaad-u Zayd-an saw- 3S the-boys- NOM Zayd- ACC ‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (VSO) ra?a-a l-?awlaad-u Zayd-an saw- 3S the-boys- NOM Zayd- ACC ‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (VSO) l-?awlaad-u ra?a-w Zayd-an the-boys- NOM saw- 3PL Zayd- ACC ‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (SVO) l-?awlaad-u ra?a-w Zayd-an the-boys- NOM saw- 3PL Zayd- ACC ‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (SVO) Notice that the verb agrees with the subject in the SVO order—in the VSO order the verb just carries 3sg agreement. Notice that the verb agrees with the subject in the SVO order—in the VSO order the verb just carries 3sg agreement.

44. SVO/VSO order in Std. Arabic That is, there is agreement marking where the subject is in SpecTP. That is, there is agreement marking where the subject is in SpecTP. Where there is nothing (or pro exp ) in SpecTP, the agreement comes out as (a default) 3sg. Where there is nothing (or pro exp ) in SpecTP, the agreement comes out as (a default) 3sg. This looks like an example of Spec-head agreement. Features are checked for identity. This looks like an example of Spec-head agreement. Features are checked for identity. titi V VP … C C CP SS SVO T+V i T TP titi V VP … C C CP SS VSO T+V i T TP DP DP j tjtj

45. SVO/VSO order in Std. Arabic But what if we take our AgrSP and AgrOP phrases into account? But what if we take our AgrSP and AgrOP phrases into account? What is AgrSP after all? What is AgrSP after all? What is the EPP? What is the EPP? Do we need to say that Arabic (or Irish) is a “non- EPP” language, or make use of pro exp ? Do we need to say that Arabic (or Irish) is a “non- EPP” language, or make use of pro exp ? titi V VP … C C CP SS SVO T+V i T TP titi V VP … C C CP SS VSO T+V i T TP DP DP j tjtj

46. SVO/VSO order in Std. Arabic Spec-head agreement is usually considered to be responsible for agreement between subject and verb (via participation of AgrS). Spec-head agreement is usually considered to be responsible for agreement between subject and verb (via participation of AgrS). C has [+wh] feature which needs to match with a feature of its specifier. C has [+wh] feature which needs to match with a feature of its specifier. Spec-head agreement is often taken to be, broadly speaking, a kind of “feature sharing” configuration. Spec-head agreement is often taken to be, broadly speaking, a kind of “feature sharing” configuration. titi V … VP … AgrS+T j +V i AgrS AgrSP SS VSO T TP DP k tktk tjtj titi V … VP … AgrS+T j +V i AgrS AgrSP SS SVO T TP DP k tktk ti’ti’ tk’tk’

47. And back to little v… John gave the book to Mary. John gave the book to Mary. Recall that this is the structure that we came up with to get the word order right, and to comply with X-bar theory. Recall that this is the structure that we came up with to get the word order right, and to comply with X-bar theory. We determined there must be a “little v”, a light verb, to which the V moves overtly. This little v assigns the Agent  -role. So English has a v in its lexicon that assigns the Agent  -role. We determined there must be a “little v”, a light verb, to which the V moves overtly. This little v assigns the Agent  -role. So English has a v in its lexicon that assigns the Agent  -role. A somewhat radical idea occurs… A somewhat radical idea occurs… IO V V VP DO v v vPvP SUB

48. VP shells Let’s go back and consider VP shells a bit in connection with unaccusatives. Let’s go back and consider VP shells a bit in connection with unaccusatives. The ice melted. The ice melted. The boat sank. The boat sank. The door closed. The door closed. The ice, the boat, the door are all Themes, suggesting that the verbs are unaccusative—the argument starts in object position. The ice, the boat, the door are all Themes, suggesting that the verbs are unaccusative—the argument starts in object position. DP V V VP the icemelt

49. VP shells So far, so good. So far, so good. Now, Bill melted the ice. Now, Bill melted the ice. The ice is still Theme. The verb is still melt. The ice is still Theme. The verb is still melt. Uniform Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH) (Baker 1988): Two arguments which fulfill the same thematic function with respect to a given predicate must occupy the same underlying (DS) position in the syntax. Uniform Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH) (Baker 1988): Two arguments which fulfill the same thematic function with respect to a given predicate must occupy the same underlying (DS) position in the syntax. So the ice must still be a complement of the verb at DS. So the ice must still be a complement of the verb at DS. DP V V VP the icemelt

50. VP shells In Bill melted the ice what have we done? In Bill melted the ice what have we done? We’ve added a causer, an agent. We’ve added a causer, an agent. Bill caused [the ice to melt]. Bill caused [the ice to melt]. We’ve already supposed that the light verb v assigns the Agent  -role in ditransitives… We’ve already supposed that the light verb v assigns the Agent  -role in ditransitives… It isn’t much of a jump to think of v as actually having a contribution to the meaning, something like CAUSE. It isn’t much of a jump to think of v as actually having a contribution to the meaning, something like CAUSE. DP V V VP the icemelt

51. VP shells Bill melted the ice. Bill melted the ice. So, something like this, where the main verb moves up to the light verb (which we had evidence for in ditransitives). So, something like this, where the main verb moves up to the light verb (which we had evidence for in ditransitives). Later, Bill will move to SpecTP, SpecAgrSP for Case and EPP reasons. Later, Bill will move to SpecTP, SpecAgrSP for Case and EPP reasons. Why does V move to v? We’ll assume that it does this for a reason analogous to why V moves to T (for French verbs, say). Might be universal, actually. “v needs a V to move to it”. Why does V move to v? We’ll assume that it does this for a reason analogous to why V moves to T (for French verbs, say). Might be universal, actually. “v needs a V to move to it”. v v vPvP DP V V VP the icemelt DP Bill

52. VP shells Note. Even though v may carry a “causative” meaning, this does not mean that it is synonymous with the English word “cause”. There is a difference in the “directness” of the causal connection. What it really seems closest to is “Agent”. Note. Even though v may carry a “causative” meaning, this does not mean that it is synonymous with the English word “cause”. There is a difference in the “directness” of the causal connection. What it really seems closest to is “Agent”. The water boiled. The water boiled. Bill boiled the water Bill boiled the water Bill i T t i v+boil the water Bill i T t i v+boil the water Bill caused the water to boil Bill caused the water to boil Bill cause TP Bill cause TP

53. Back to the radical idea… So, we have v, which assigns an Agent  -role. So, we have v, which assigns an Agent  -role. We have Agent  -roles in clauses other than Bill sank the boat and Bill gave a boat to Edward. We have Agent  -roles in clauses other than Bill sank the boat and Bill gave a boat to Edward. We also have an Agent  -role in sentences like Bill ate the sandwich. We also have an Agent  -role in sentences like Bill ate the sandwich. Are there two ways to assign the Agent  -role? Are there two ways to assign the Agent  -role? What if v is the way the Agent  -role is assigned? What if v is the way the Agent  -role is assigned? What would Bill ate the sandwich look like? What would Bill ate the sandwich look like?

54. Bill ate the sandwich Well, we already saw essentially what it would look like. It looks just like Bill melted the ice. Well, we already saw essentially what it would look like. It looks just like Bill melted the ice. v assigns Agent to Bill, V (eat) assigns Theme to the sandwich. v assigns Agent to Bill, V (eat) assigns Theme to the sandwich. Also note: The subject is still in “SpecVP” except that we’ve sharpened our picture of what “VP” is. A “VP” with an Agent is really a vP and a VP. Also note: The subject is still in “SpecVP” except that we’ve sharpened our picture of what “VP” is. A “VP” with an Agent is really a vP and a VP. v v vPvP DP V V VP the sandwich eat DP Bill

55. Bill lied. In fact, things get weirder… In fact, things get weirder… Consider Bill lied. Consider Bill lied. That’s got an Agent, so it’s got a v. That’s got an Agent, so it’s got a v. So, it could look like this. So, it could look like this. But lie is really (also?) a noun, right? Is this a coincidence? But lie is really (also?) a noun, right? Is this a coincidence? (How about Bill danced, Bill walked, Bill sneezed, …) (How about Bill danced, Bill walked, Bill sneezed, …) v v vPvP V V VP lie DP Bill

56. Bill lied? One proposal out there about this kind of verb is that it really is built from the noun. One proposal out there about this kind of verb is that it really is built from the noun. That is, we have v+N, which would come out to mean something like ‘Bill was the agent of a lie.’ That is, we have v+N, which would come out to mean something like ‘Bill was the agent of a lie.’ If that’s right, it means v really is its own thing, and moreover, it’s responsible for giving these verbs their verby nature. If that’s right, it means v really is its own thing, and moreover, it’s responsible for giving these verbs their verby nature. v v vPvP N N NP lie DP Bill

57. The sandwich was eaten Let’s think about passives. Let’s think about passives. What happens in a passive? What happens in a passive? The Agent  -role is suppressed. The Agent  -role is suppressed. Accusative Case is no longer available to the object. Accusative Case is no longer available to the object. What does that mean in these terms, considering v to be the thing that assigns Agent and AgrOP to be the thing that gives Case? What does that mean in these terms, considering v to be the thing that assigns Agent and AgrOP to be the thing that gives Case? v v vPvP DP V V VP the sandwich eat DP Bill AgrO AgrOP

58. The sandwich was eaten Sure, no vP, no AgrOP. Sure, no vP, no AgrOP. Everything else follows as before: Everything else follows as before: The sandwich needs Case. The sandwich needs Case. SpecTP needs to be filled. SpecTP needs to be filled. The sandwich moves to SpecTP. The sandwich moves to SpecTP. The sandwich moves to SpecAgrSP. The sandwich moves to SpecAgrSP. Burzio’s generalization is now that there is an AgrOP if and only if there is a vP. They come and go together. Burzio’s generalization is now that there is an AgrOP if and only if there is a vP. They come and go together. DP V V VP the sandwich eat

59. The sandwich was eaten So, we end up with something like this, where AspP is where vP used to be. So, we end up with something like this, where AspP is where vP used to be. (Since passive is actually a different sort of thing from aspectual have eaten and be eating, sometimes people call this VoiceP) (Since passive is actually a different sort of thing from aspectual have eaten and be eating, sometimes people call this VoiceP) Asp AspP DP V V VP the sandwich eat -en V V VP be

60. And back to ditransitives In the split-INFL system, we have something like this: In the split-INFL system, we have something like this: The V moves to v, and eventually to AgrO. The V moves to v, and eventually to AgrO. AgrO assigns Case, and it should only be compatible with transitive verbs, so v needs to get close enough to verify that they match (we can think of this as AgrO “pulling up” the v). (Perhaps source of BG?) AgrO assigns Case, and it should only be compatible with transitive verbs, so v needs to get close enough to verify that they match (we can think of this as AgrO “pulling up” the v). (Perhaps source of BG?) The object moves to SpecAgrOP to get/check Case. The object moves to SpecAgrOP to get/check Case. The subject moves up to TP and SpecAgrSP. The subject moves up to TP and SpecAgrSP. IO V V VP DO v v vPvP SUB AgrO AgrOP

61.                       