Transcript Lecture 01
Lecture 1: Trace Theory ADVANCED SYNTAX MOVEMENT We have seen that things move : Arguments move out of the VP into subject position Wh-phrases move out of IP into CP Verbs move from V position to I and C But this can’t be the whole story: It isn’t the case that anything can move anywhere Besides looking at what can move we also need to look at what can’t For a full picture, we also need to know why: Things can and can’t move THE THEORY OF MOVEMENT In the next 3 weeks we will be looking at: What happens to positions that things move out of What restrictions there are on movements Why things move STRUCTURAL PRESERVATION There is a central idea, proposed in the 1970s, that movements do not change structures: If not: • any structure could be produced by a movement • there would be no theory of structure THE PROJECTION PRINCIPLE Another idea is that movements do not alter lexical properties: If not: • There would be no lexical restrictions on structure • Words could change categories or subcategories MOVEMENT DOES NOT ALTER LEXICAL PROPERTIES An intransitive verb cannot become transitive by something moving into its object position He smiled (a smile) at Mary * He smiled Mary at A transitive verb cannot become intransitive by moving its object He smiled a smile (unergative) There arrived a letter (unaccusative) Who did he meet * Who did he meet a meet * Who did there meet a man OTHER THINGS MOVEMENT DOESN’T CHANGE When a subject moves from one clause to another (raising) John seems [ to be intelligent] the clause does not behave as though it has lost its subject: Clauses without subjects are ungrammatical * is intelligent Only the subject of a clause can be the antecedent of a reflexive pronoun in the object position of that clause John thinks [ Bill likes himself] John seems [ to like himself] OTHER THINGS MOVEMENT DOESN’T CHANGE When a verb moves out of V into I, the VP does not behave as though it has lost its head: The heat made [VP the ice melt] The heat melt-ed [VP the ice] Phrases without heads are ungrammatical The inflection can only take a VP complement THE TRACE THEORY OF MOVEMENT In the mid-1970s it was suggested that when something moves, the position that it leaves does not disappear and neither is it left empty A ‘trace’ of the moved element is left behind Traces have the same properties as the moved element (category, reference, etc.) But they are phonologically empty The heat melt–ed [VP the ice [V t] ] Who did he meet [DP t] He seems [IP [DP t] to be intelligent ] A QUESTION If traces are invisible, how do we know they are there? There are three phenomena which seems to support the supposition of traces: ‘Wanna’ contraction Doubling Resumption ‘WANNA’ CONTRACTION When want is followed immediately by to, they can be contracted to the form wanna in informal spoken English: I want to hold your hand I wanna hold your hand Obviously, this can’t happen if there is something between want and to: I want you to hold my hand * I wanna you hold my hand * I you wanna hold my hand ‘WANNA’ CONTRACTION Now consider: who As want and to are adjacent, we might think that they can contract – but they can’t: * do you want to hold your hand who do you wanna hold your hand This can be explained with trace theory: the trace sits between want and to: you want who to hold your hand who do you want t to hold your hand WANNA CONTRACTION AND TRACE THEORY If we did not suppose the presence of a trace in these sentence, it would be difficult to account for why wanna contraction can take place in some cases but not others: I wanna hold your hand * who do you wanna hold your hand From the surface, both these cases look identical. DOUBLING Doubling is a phenomena found in some languages where a moved element is pronounced twice: Once in the position it is moved to Once in the position it is moved from DOUBLING For example, in some dialects of Dutch and Italian, a moved wh-phrase can appear twice: ci alo visto ci? (Italian dialect) whom has-he seen whom “who has he seen?” wie denk je wie ik gezien heb? (Dutch dialect) who think you who I seen have “who do you think I have seen?” DOUBLING Some languages do the same thing with verbs that move: In Gungbe (Togo), to emphasise a verb it is moved to the front of a clause – but it is also pronounced in its normal position inside the clause too: ∂ù Sená ∂ù ble∂ì lo eat Sena eat bread DET “Sena ATE the bread” DOUBLING AND TRACE THEORY Doubling is associated with movement It is not just the repetition of words or phrases One part of the doubled element is pronounced in the ‘extraction site’ Exactly where the trace would be in cases with no doubling Doubling therefore appears to involve the pronunciation of the trace RESUMPTION Resumptive pronouns are pronouns used in positions from which movement has taken place. In English we find them in two contexts: Left dislocation In constructions that would otherwise involve an ungrammatical movement LEFT DISLOCATION Left dislocation is similar to topicalisation Topicalisation involves the movement of an argument to the front of the clause: (Usually, he likes animals but) those hamsters, he won’t go anywhere near With topicalisation the extraction site is left empty LEFT DISLOCATION With left dislocation the argument is moved to the front of the clause, but the extraction site is not empty: The pronoun in the extraction site is called a resumptive pronoun There has been much discussion of the structure of left dislocation That politician, I can’t stand him Whether it involves a single clause Whether it involves movement at all If it is a single clause and it does involve movement, then it seems that traces alternate with resumptive pronouns John, I despise (him) RESCUING UNGRAMMATICAL MOVEMENTS There are some constructions in which movements produce ungrammaticalities which candidate do you know [Bill voted for] * which candidate do you know [why Bill voted for] The syntactic contexts (e.g. a clause which begins with a wh-phrase) which prevent movement are often called Islands UNGRAMMATICAL RELATIVE CLAUSES We know relative clauses begin with a wh-phrase (the relative pronoun), though they are not always pronounced The movement of the relative pronoun is also blocked by Islands the man [(who) you gave the money to] * the man who I wondered why you gave the money to However, this ungrammaticality can often be improved with a resumptive pronoun in the extraction position the man who I wondered why you gave the money to him RESUMPTIVE PRONOUNS AND TRACES Resumption is a little like doubling, though: Instead of the trace being pronounced as a full DP, a pronoun is used instead Resumption is a more common phenomena (English doesn’t have doubling, but it does use resumptive pronouns, for example) It has been claimed that a resumptive pronoun is a partial pronunciation of a trace The pronoun realises the category and the reference of the trace, but not its full lexical content Again, resumptive pronouns are visible traces MULTIPLE MOVEMENT = MULTIPLE TRACES A sentence can contain several movement and a single element can move several times Each movement leaves behind a trace So we need to keep track of which trace belongs to which moved element INDICIES To do this we use indices: [CP - [IP - past [VP -en [VP who see]]]] Movements: Object moves to subject position Wh-phrase moves to specifier of CP Verb moves to passive morpheme Auxiliary moves to C (after insertion to support tense) S-structure [CP who1 was3 [IP t1 t3 [VP see2 -en [VP t1 t2]]]] SUMMARY Traces are (usually) unpronounced elements left behind by movements They preserve the structure of the sentence and the lexical properties of the elements in the sentence We have phonological evidence of their existence They can be pronounced They block certain phonological processes They are indexed with the moved element