1. Phrase structure VP Adv V NP PP* oft smokes a cig in th park VP ADVVP VPPP V NP often sm a cig in the p

2. Test 1: Pro-VP S NP VP1 Adv VP2 VP3 PP VP4 PP V NP Sue often smokes a cig in th p at dusk and Mary does too but Mary rarely does…

3. Test 2: coordination S NP VP1 Adv VP2 VP3 PP VP4 PP V NP Sue often smokes a cig in th p at dusk and rarely drinks a beer in bed after dinner VP2 and VP2VP3 and VP3 VP4 and VP4

4. A left-right asymmetry [ VP Adv VP] [ VP VP PP] [ VP V NP] John often drinks wine in the kitchen after dinner with friends… * John often rarely sometimes… drinks beer * John often drinks wine juice after dinner [ VP Adv V’] [ V’ V’ PP] [ V’ V NP] Non rec.Rec. Non rec.

5. Findings The VP comes in binary branching layers with both recursive and non recursive strata VP = V’’ Adv V’ V’[in the park] PP often V NP smokes [a cigarette]

6. The new format for PS VP  ADV V’[ VP ADV V’]non rec [ VP often [ V’ smokes a cigarette]] V’  V’ PP’[ V’ V’ PP]rec [ V’ [ V’ smokes a cigarette] in the park] [ V’ [ V’ [ V’ smokes a cigarette] in the park] at dusk] V’  V NP[ V’ V NP]non rec [ V’ [ V smokes] [ NP a cigarette] ]

7. Specifiers: VP [Adv V’] Adjuncts: [ V’ V’ PP] Arguments: [ V’ V NP] Specifiers: the left edge i. often smokes a cigarette Arguments: non recursive and closer to the head a. ii. I ate pizzaiii.* I ate lunch pizza iv. I ate pizza in the park v. ? I ate in the park pizza Adjuncts: recursive and freer in order I ate pizza for lunch in the park I ate pizza in the park for lunch

8. A closer look at the NP NP Det N PP PP a few students of physics from Rome I met a few students of physics from Rome I met several ones I met several ones from Palermo I met several ones of literature from Palermo

9. The coordination test confirms NP DetNP NPPP NPP Every [ student of physics from Rome or student of Math from Palermo] gets a discount Every [teacher of physics or student of physics] from Rome gets a discount

10. Recursive vs. non recursive strata * Every some a student Every student of physics from Rome with blue eyes…. * Every student of physics of Latin [ NP Det N’][ N’ N’ PP] [ N’ N PP] Non rec.Rec.Non rec.

11. Isomorphism across categories VP Adv V’ V’[in the park] PP often V NP smokes [a cigarette] NP DetN’ N’ [from Rome] PP every N PP student [of physics]

12. What we expect The argument/adjunct distinction within the NP should work in the same way as within the VP a.i. A student of physics from Rome ii. ? A student from Rome of physics b.i. * A student of physics of mechanics ii. A student from Rome with blue eyes c.A student with blue eyes from Rome

13. AP QP A’ A’[on occasions] PP very A PP proud [of her son] PP QPP’ P’[in some ways] PP so P PP out [of touch] More isomorphism across categories

14. Uniformity across categories Phrases tend to be built through a binary operation (‘merge’) Argument vs. adjuncts Categories are made up of lexical information (N, V, P, A) and a ‘projection’ level (bar-level)

15. The axioms of X’-theory XP SpecX’ X’ADJ X Compl Phrases are layered like Russian dolls Each layer has a center (the head) There is a left edge (Spec) Complements are most closely related to the head Adjuncts are periphereal and recursive MERGE + a uniform labelling device

16. Pushing X’- theory further C’ (CP) C S that [ IP Sue will marry Joe] Bill believes [ CP that [ IP Sue will marry Joe]] Bill wants [ CP for [ IP Sue to marry Joe]] Bill wonders [ CP whether [ IP Sue will marry Joe]]

17. The clause What is the ‘main element’ of a clause? that John leaves * that John to leave for John to leave for John leaves The clause is a projection of Aux

18. Clauses as ‘Tense Phrases’ TP NP T’ T John PastVP kiss Mary simple past = edpresent perfect = has

19. Structural characterization of grammatical relations like subject of or object of TP NP T’ T John PastVP kiss Mary Subject: the Spec of T Object: the complement of V

20. Old ways/new ways [ S NP VP] [ NP Det Adj N PP*] [ VP Adv Aux V NP CP PP*] [ CP [C TP] ] [ TP [T VP]] [ VP [V NP]] [ PP [P NP]] [ NP [Det N’]] [ AP [A PP]]

21. Putting it all together CP (= C’’) CTP (= T’’) NP (= N’’) T’ T VP (= V’’) V’PP (=P’’) that the boss will smoke a cig at dusk

22. Dependencies at a distance and the case for movement a. Head movement i.Every student has left already ii.Has [every student __left already] b. Argument movement i.I believe [the boy to have run away ] ii.The boy is believed [__ to have run away] c. Non Argument movement i.Has John considered buying a car? ii.Has John considered buying what? iii.What has John considered buying__?

23. The organization of grammar LEXICON  [MERGE] BASE STRUCTURE  [MOVE] SPELL OUT STRUCTURE

24. An interesting non argumental displacement: WH-Movement a.Have you met who? b.Who have you met? CP SpecC’ have IP NPI’ you [__ [ VP met who]]

25. Potential unboundedness who should he meet __ in Rome? who do you think [that he should meet __ in Rome]? who do you think [ that it is appropriate [that he should meet __ in Rome]]? who do you think [ that Joan believes [that it is appropriate [that he should meet __ in Rome]]]?

26. Argument 1: Semantic selection I ate a new Italian dish *I ate a new Italian virtue I ate with a fork I ate with great joy I wonder [which new dish you think [John ate __with such joy]] * I wonder [which new virtue you think [John ate __with such joy]] I wonder [ you think [ John ate which new dish with such joy]

27. Argument 1: Semantic selection I ate a new Italian dish *I ate a new Italian virtue I ate with a fork I ate with great joy I wonder [which new dish you think [John ate __with such joy]] * I wonder [which new virtue you think [John ate __with such joy]] I wonder [ you think [ John ate which new dish with such joy]

28. Argument 2: Agreement He likes BillThey like Bill * He like Bill* They likes Bill Agreement is a local phenomenon [ TP NP F T’ F ] which students do you think __ like Bill? * which students do you think __ likes Bill?

29. Argument 3: Case I saw himhe left *I saw he* him left who(m) did you meet?who met you? * whom met you? who do you think [_ should meet M in Rome]? whom do you think [M should meet _ in Rome]? * whom do you think[ _ should meet M in Rome]?

30. Argument 4: Syntactic selection I relied on Bill for advice I turned to Bill for advice * I relied to Bill for advice * I turned on Bill for advice On whom do you think that Bill relies_ for advice? * To whom do you think that Bill relies _ for advice?

31. The logic of movement [ … XP …. Gap… ] the properties of XP are the properties typically associated with the gap position I wonder [who Mary likes]CP who IP Mary VP Mary VP VV NP likes likes who

32. The organization of grammar again LEXICON  [MERGE] BASE STRUCTURE  [MOVE] SPELL OUT STRUCTURE MERGE = X’-theory MOVE = dislocation of constituents

33. Differences and similarities between phonology and syntax s  [+voice] / [+voice] +__# dog+s#  dogz fjor+e#  fjur+i#‘flowers’ NP  NP PP PP  P NP Both rule systems turn physical properties into formal labels = They need to break down a continuum into discrete categories But genuine recursion is found only in syntax