Transcript CAS LX 522 Syntax I

CAS LX 522
Syntax I
Episode 7a. Do-support (really), then
subjects, agreement, and case
5.5;6.1-6.3
Typology of verb/aux raising

Interestingly, there don’t
seem to be languages
that raise main verbs but
not auxiliaries.

This is a pattern that we
would like to explain
someday, another mystery
about Aux to file away.
English
T values
[uInfl:] on
Aux
Strong
French
Strong
Strong
Sorry, we won’t have any
satisfying explanation for
this gap this semester.
Swedish
Weak
Weak
Unattested
Weak
Strong


This double-binary
distinction predicts there
would be.
It overgenerates a bit.

T values
[uInfl:] on
v
Weak
Irish

In Irish, the basic word order is VSO (other languages
have this property too, e.g., Arabic)




Phóg Máire an lucharachán.
kissed Mary the leprechaun
‘Mary kissed the leprechaun.’
We distinguish SVO from SOV by supposing that the
head-complement order can vary from language to
language (heads precede complements in English,
heads follow complements in Japanese).
We may also be able to distinguish other languages
(OVS, VOS) by a parameter of specifier order.
But no combination of these two parameters can give
us VSO.
Irish

But look at auxiliary verbs in Irish:



Tá Máire ag-pógáil an lucharachán.
Is Mary ing-kiss the leprechaun
‘Mary is kissing the leprechaun.’
We find that if an auxiliary occupies the verb slot
at the beginning of the sentence, the main verb
appears between the subject and verb:
Aux S V O.
What does this suggest about


The head-parameter setting in Irish?
How VSO order arises?
SVO to VSO




Irish appears to be essentially an SVO
language, like French.
Verbs and auxiliaries raise past the subject to
yield VSO.
We can analyze the Irish pattern as being
minimally different from our existing analysis of
French— just one difference, which we
hypothesize is another parametric difference
between languages.
V and Aux both raise to T (when tense values
the [uInfl:] feature of either one, [uInfl:] is
strong) in Irish, just as in French.
French vs. Irish

Remember this step in the French derivation before?


I’ve omitted negation to make it simpler.
What if we stopped here?



In French it would crash (why?).
But what if it didn’t crash in Irish?
What would have to be different?
T [tense:pres, T, uN*, …]
vP
T
v
V
déteste
T
NP
Zinédine
v
[uInfl:pres*]
v
<v>
VP
<V>
NP
Marco
Parametric differences

We could analyze Irish as being just like French except
without the strong [uN*] feature on T.


Without that feature, the subject doesn’t need to move to SpecTP. The
order would be VSO, or AuxSVO.
So, languages can vary in, at least:





Head-complement order
(Head-specifier order)
Whether [uInfl:] on Aux is strong or weak when valued by T
Whether [uInfl:] on v is strong or weak when valued by T
Whether T has a [uN*] feature or not

Later, when we look at German, we’ll suggest a different analysis of Irish, but
this will work for now.
do-support

In French, verbs move to T.
In English, they don’t move to T.



That’s because in French, when [tense:past] values [uInfl:]
on v, it is strong, and in English, it is weak.
What this doesn’t explain is why do appears
sometimes in English, seemingly doing nothing but
carrying the tense (and subject agreement).
The environments are complicated:




Tom did not commit the crime.
Tom did not commit the crime, but someone did.
Zoe and Danny vowed to prove Tom innocent,
and prove Tom innocent they did.
Tom (has) never committed that crime.
do-support

The environments are complicated:








Tom did not commit the crime.
Tom did not commit the crime, but someone did.
Zoe and Danny vowed to prove Tom innocent,
and prove Tom innocent they did.
Tom (has) never committed that crime.
When not separates T and v, do appears in T to carry the
tense morphology.
When T is stranded due to VP ellipsis or VP fronting, do
appears in T to carry the tense morphology.
When never (or any adverb) separates T and v, tense
morphology appears on the verb (v).
So, do appears when T is separated from the verb, but
adverbs like never aren’t “visible”, they aren’t in the way.
Technical difficulties

How do we generally know to pronounce
V+v as a past tense verb?



T values the [uInfl:] feature of v. The presumption is
that eat+v[uInfl:past] sounds like “ate.” And T doesn’t
sound like anything.
But this happens whether or not v is right next to T. v
still has a [uInfl:] feature that has to be checked.
So, the questions are, how do we:



Keep from pronouncing the verb based on v’s [uInfl:] feature
if T isn’t right next to it?
Keep from pronouncing do at T if v is right next to it?
We need to connect T and v somehow.
Technical difficulties


The connection between T and v is that
(when there are no auxiliaries), T values the
[uInfl:] feature of v.
This sets up a relationship between the two
heads.


Adger calls this relationship a chain.
We want to ensure that tense features are
pronounced in exactly one place in this
chain.

If the ends of the chain are not close enough together,
tense is pronounced on T (as do). If they are close
enough together, tense is pronounced on v+V.
Technical difficulties

Let’s be creative: Suppose that the tense
features on v (the value of the [uInfl:] feature)
“refer back” to the tense features on T.



Agree can see relatively far (so T can value the [uInfl:]
feature of v, even if it has to look past negation).
But “referring back” is more limited, basically only
available to features that are sisters. Negation will get in
the way for this.
So if you try to pronounce tense on v but T is too far away,
the back-reference fails, and v is pronounced as a bare
verb. But the tense features have to be pronounced
somewhere, so they’re pronounced on T (as do).
PTR

Adger’s proposal:




Pronouncing Tense Rule (PTR)
In a chain (T[tense], v[uInfl:tense]), pronounce the tense
features on v only if v is the head of T’s sister
NegP, if there, will be the sister of T (HoP), but
Neg has no [uInfl:] feature. do will be inserted.
Adverbs adjoin to vP, resulting in a vP. v has an
[uInfl:] valued by T and adverbs don’t get in
the way of vP being the sister of T. Tense is
pronounced on the verb (v).
If vP is gone altogether, do is inserted.
Pat did not call Chris

So, here, T and v form a chain because [tense:past]
valued [uInfl:past]. But v is not the head of T’s sister.
TP
T
NP
Pat
T
[tense:past, …]
NegP
Neg
not
vP
v
<Pat>
v
V
call
VP
vagent <V>
[uInfl:past,
…]
NP
Chris
Pat did not call Chris

Do-support comes to the rescue. What this means is just that T is
pronounced as do with the tense specifications on T. According to PTR, we
don’t pronounce them on v. The tree doesn’t change.
TP
NP
Pat
T
T
[tense:past, …]
did Neg
not
NegP
vP
v
<Pat>
v
V
call
VP
vagent <V>
[uInfl:past,
…]
NP
Chris
Pat never called Chris

If there is an adverb like never, PTR still allows tense to be
pronounced on v (so T doesn’t have any pronunciation of its own
at all).
TP
NP
Pat
T
T
[tense:past, …]
vP
AdvP
never
<Pat>
vP
v
v
V
call
VP
vagent <V>
[uInfl:past,
…]
NP
Chris










Historical interlude

Back in the old days, people
hypothesized that Pat will
charm snakes had a structure
NP
like this.


Pat
The subject NP Pat was in the
specifier of “IP” (what we call “TP”),
and the VP contained only the verb
charm and the object NP snakes.
Pat got an Agent q-role by
being in SpecIP, even though
the fact that there is an Agent
q-role to be had is determined
by the verb down in the VP.
IP
I
I
will
VP
V
charm
NP
snakes
Historical interlude

Nevertheless, this predicts the normal
word order pretty well, and so it was
hypothesized that the verb simply
assigned one of its q-roles directly to
SpecIP.
NP
 No big deal, syntax works in strange and
Pat
mysterious ways.

At a certain point, someone started
thinking about sentences like these:



All the students will take the exam.
The students will all take the exam.
It’s fairly clear here that all the students
is an NP, that it forms a coherent unit, a
coherent concept. All really belongs
with the students.
IP
I
I
will
VP
V
charm
NP
snakes
Historical interlude





All the students will take the exam.
The students will all take the exam.
Back in the even older days, the
hypothesis was that there was a
special rule that turned the first
sentence into the second.
The Quantifier Float rule would
move all over to the right, next to
the VP.
all NP … VP  NP … all + VP
IP
NP
Pat
I
I
will
VP
V
charm
NP
snakes
Historical interlude

Not all quantifiers are subject to Quantifier
Float:





Quantifiers: every, some, all, most, several, many,
both, four, …
Every student will take the exam.
*Student will every take the exam.
Several students will take the exam.
*Students will several take the exam.
It works for both and all:
The students will both take the exam.
The students will all take the exam.
What’s a difference between every, some,
several, many and both, all?
IP
NP
Pat
I
I
will
VP
V
charm
NP
snakes
Historical interlude


Upon further reflection, some
enterprising syntacticians hit upon
the idea that rather than floating all
to its position next to VP, all might
instead have been “left behind” by
NP
a subject that had moved.
Pat

will [all [the students]] take the exam.

[all [the students]]i will ti take the exam.

[the students]i will [all ti] take the exam.
And why would all the students
have been down there? Well, that
would simplify assignment of q-roles.
IP
I
I
will
VP
V
charm
NP
snakes
The VP-Internal Subject
Hypothesis


The verb (head of VP)
can assign q-roles to
other things within the
VP, which is a natural
explanation for how
the choice of verb
controls whether an
Agent q-role is assigned
or not.
This idea became
known as the VPInternal Subject
Hypothesis.
IP
NP
Pat
I
I
will
VP
ti
V
V
NP
charm snakes
The VP-Internal Subject
Hypothesis


For us, we’ve supposed
from the beginning that
assignment of q-roles is
necessarily local. This may
not seem like a very
surprising hypothesis.
But it was at the time a
rather unintuitive idea, and
so various people set out to
see if some of the
predictions this makes are
borne out in the
grammatical data.
IP
NP
Pat
I
I
will
VP
ti
V
V
NP
charm snakes
The VP-Internal Subject
Hypothesis

It turns out that as people
looked, there were reasons
to believe this.



The new analysis of Quantifier
Float no longer relies on an
idiosyncratic rule of English, but
more general principles.
The assignment of q-roles can
now be more directly related to
the properties of the verb.
And we can make sense of there
constructions in a more
straightforward way.
IP
NP
Pat
I
I
will
VP
ti
V
V
NP
charm snakes
Back to the present


The basic components of the quantifier
“stranding” phenomenon are:
All the students is a constituent. The
students is an NP inside all the students.



[all [NP the students]]
Either all the students or just the students
can move to SpecTP, to satisfy the [uN*]
feature of T.
So all the students and the students are
both NPs.
 [NP

all [NP the students]]
So all is essentially a noun, but one that
takes an NP complement (all: [N, uN*, …]).

We’re assuming here that all is not an adjunct, but in
fact a head, taking the NP as a complement. Why?
Quantifier
stranding is still
often referred to
as “quantifier
float” to this day,
even though the
name no longer
reflects the
analysis.
NP
all
NP
the
students
All the students will take the exam

We start by building our vP.




Merge the NP the exam and the V take (checks [uN*] on V)
Merge v and VP (HoP)
Move V to v (checks [uV*] on v)
Merge the N all and the NP the students (checks [uN*] on all)
vP
NP
all
v
NP
the
students
v
V
take
VP
vagent <V> NP
[uInfl:, …]
the exam
All the students will take the exam

We Merge the M will with vP (HoP)

This values [uInfl:] on v as [uInfl:M].
M
M
will
[uInfl:, …]
vP
NP
all
v
NP
the
students
v
V
take
VP
vagent <V> NP
[uInfl:M,
…]
the exam
All the students will take the exam

We Merge the T will with MP (HoP)

This values [uInfl:] on M as [uInfl:pres*] (strong).
T
T
MP
[tense:pres,
uN*,…] M
will
[uInfl:pres*, NP
…]
all
NP
the
students
vP
v
v
V
take
VP
vagent <V> NP
[uInfl:M,
…]
the exam
All the students will take the exam

We move M up to T

This checks the strong [uInfl:pres*] on M.
T
T
M
will
[uInfl:pres*,
…]
MP
T
<M>
vP
[tense:pres,
NP
uN*,…]
all
v
NP
V
the
take
students
v
VP
vagent
[uInfl:M,
…]
<V>
NP
the exam
All the students will take the exam

Now, there are two possibilities:


Move the NP all the students.
Move the NP the students.
T
T
M
will
[uInfl:pres*,
…]
MP
T
<M>
Is all the students closer to T
than the students is?
Not if we define “closer” as we
did, in terms of c-command.
Where X c-commands Y and Z,
Y is closer to X than Z is if Y ccommands Z.
vP
[tense:pres,
NP
uN*,…]
all
v
NP
V
the
take
students
v
VP
vagent
[uInfl:M,
…]
<V>
NP
the exam
All the students will take the exam

Now, there are two possibilities:

TP

Move the NP all the students.
Move the NP the students.
NP
all
T
NP
T
the
students
M
will
[uInfl:pres*,
…]
MP
T
<M>
vP
[tense:pres,
<NP>
uN*,…]
v
v
V
take
VP
vagent
[uInfl:M,
…]
<V>
NP
the exam
The students will all take the exam

Now, there are two possibilities:

TP

Move the NP all the students.
Move the NP the students.
NP
T
the
students
T
M
will
[uInfl:pres*,
…]
MP
T
<M>
vP
[tense:pres,
NP
uN*,…]
all
v
<NP>
v
V
take
VP
vagent
[uInfl:M,
…]
<V>
NP
the exam
Expletive constructions

An expletive is an element that can be in
subject position without having received a
q-role from anywhere.



It had been raining.
There were fans rioting on Comm Ave.
We’ve seen it before. But there is also there,
which we’ll concentrate on now. Neither
means anything, neither gets a q-role, both
appear to satisfy the [uN*] feature of T.

Both can be used in other ways: I saw it over there.
Expletive constructions


There were fans rioting on Comm Ave.
Fans were rioting on Comm Ave.
TP
fans
there
T
T
be
TP
T
ProgP
T <be>
be
vP
<fans>
v+V
riot
T
ProgP
T <be>
vP
fans
v
<V>
v+V
riot
v
<V>
Case

Recall that pronouns in English show
distinctions in case:
Subject pronouns are in nominative case
 Object pronouns are in accusative case


I saw her. She saw me. They saw him.

How can we ensure the correlation?
Nom case

Nominative subjects generally appear in the
specifier of a finite T.


Finite T is pretty much any kind of T except the infinitive.
We can treat case like we treated tense
inflection:




Suppose T also has a [ucase:nom] feature.
Suppose nominative NPs have a [ucase:] feature.
Suppose the [ucase:nom] on T can value [ucase:] on
the NP, checking both.
So T needs a nom NP, and a nom NP needs T.
Acc case

Subjects check nominative case with T.
Objects have accusative case, which we
can treat in the same kind of way.




Suppose v has [ucase:acc].
Suppose accusative NPs have [ucase:]
Suppose the [ucase:acc] on v can value the [ucase:]
feature on the NP, checking both.
Nominative case is a relation between
(finite) T and an NP, accusative case is a
relation between v and an NP.
Notes on case

Nominative case is associated with finite T.



She will charm snakes.
I want her to charm snakes.
I expect her to charm snakes.


Non-finite T is not associated with nominative case. It’s not
actually associated with accusative case either, but we’ll
come back to that later.
Because NPs have an unvalued [ucase:]
feature, we can suppose that pronouns
always enter the numeration the same way,
and are valued based on where they are
Merged.

pronoun [N, ucase:, …]
Notes on case

Although in English we only see the
morphological effect of case on pronouns, we
assume that all NPs have an unvalued [ucase:]
feature.


Plenty of languages other than English show case on all NPs,
not just on pronouns. Case is something that goes with being
an NP. It’s just something you often don’t hear in English.
Notational shortcuts:



[nom] is used for [ucase:nom] (on T, or NP when
checked)
[acc] is used for [ucase:acc] (on v, or NP when checked)
[case] is used for [ucase:] (on an NP)
Subject-verb agreement

Recall that in English, the f-features of the
subject have an effect on the morphology of
the verb:



Fans were rioting on Comm Ave.
A fan was rioting on Comm Ave.
While we’re here, we might as well account
for this too. It is also an agreement relation,
between the subject and, eventually, the
verb (or auxiliary, if there is one).
Subject-verb agreement



The verb gets its tense inflection specified by T
when, e.g., the [tense:pres] feature of T values
the [uInfl:] feature of v.
Since the subject already agrees with T (the
[nom] feature of T checks the [case] feature of
the subject), we’ll incorporate subject
agreement into this process.
Notice that we still want this agreement to be
mediated by T (sometimes it values, e.g., Perf):


They have been reading novels.
She has been reading novels.
Subject-verb agreement


Suppose then that T has a [uf:] feature as well.
The subject has (interpretable) f-features that
value the [uf:] feature of T.




Fans were rioting on Comm Ave.
T [T, uN*, uf:, nom]
fans [N, f:pl, case]
So, once T is in the structure, c-commanding
fans in SpecvP, we get:


T [T, uN*, uf:pl, nom]
fans [N, f:pl, nom]
Subject-verb agreement


Finally, we suppose that the (checked) [uf:pl]
feature of T, also values a [uInfl:] feature on a
lower v (or Perf, or Prog).
The rules of pronunciation will tell us that a v
with the verb riot adjoined to it sounds like:



“riots” if v has the feature [uInfl:pres,sg]
“riot” if v has the feature [uInfl:pres,pl].
Notice that T values a [uInfl:] feature all at once,
with any relevant feature(s) it has (so, tense and
f-features both).
She likes them


So, let’s walk through it.
We start by merging like and the 3pl
pronoun.
VP
V
likes
[V]
NP
pronoun
[N, f:3pl, case]
She likes them



v [v, uN*, uInfl:, uV*, acc]
We Merge v with VP (HoP).
The [acc] on v matches, values, and checks the
[case] on the pronoun, checking itself as well.

Agree is lazy, we can do this without any further Merging or
Moving.
v
v
[v, uN*,
uInfl:,
uV*, acc]
VP
V
likes
[V]
NP
pronoun
[N, f:3pl, acc]
She likes them

The V moves up to adjoin to v to check
the [uV*] feature of v.
v
v
V
likes
[V]
VP
v
<V>
[v, uN*,
uInfl:,
uV*, acc]
NP
pronoun
[N, f:3pl, acc]
She likes them


The V moves up to adjoin to v to check
the [uV*] feature of v.
The 3sg feminine pronoun is Merged to
check the [uN*] feature of v.
vP
NP
pronoun
[N, f:3fsg, case]
V
likes
[V]
v
v
VP
v
<V>
[v, uN*,
uInfl:,
uV*, acc]
NP
pronoun
[N, f:3pl, acc]
She likes them


The T is Merged with vP (HoP).
The [nom] feature of T matches, values, and
checks the [case] feature of the pronoun,
checking itself in the process.
T
T
[T, tense:pres,
uf:, uN*, nom] NP
pronoun
[N, f:3fsg, nom]
V
likes
[V]
vP
v
v
VP
v
<V>
[v, uN*,
uInfl:,
uV*, acc]
NP
pronoun
[N, f:3pl, acc]
She likes them

The [f:3fsg] feature of NP values and
checks the [uf:] feature of T.
T
T
[T, tense:pres,
uf:3fsg, uN*, nom] NP
pronoun
[N, f:3fsg, nom]
V
likes
[V]
vP
v
v
VP
v
<V>
[v, uN*,
uInfl:,
uV*, acc]
NP
pronoun
[N, f:3pl, acc]
She likes them

The [uf:3fsg] and [tense:pres] features of T value
and check the [uInfl:] feature of v.

From now on: (Finite) T can only value a lower [uInfl:] feature once
T itself has a value for [f]. Both [tense] and [f] value the lower
[uInfl:] feature. First step is always to check the [uf:] feature on T,
after which T will check the lower [uInfl:] feature.
T
T
[T, tense:pres,
uf:3fsg, uN*, nom] NP
pronoun
[N, f:3fsg, nom]
vP
v
v
VP
V
v
<V>
NP
likes [v, uN*,
pronoun
[V] uInfl:pres3fsg, [N, f:3pl, acc]
uV*, acc]
She likes them

Finally, the NP is moved up and Merged with T
in order to check the EPP feature (the [uN*]
feature) of T.
TP
NP
pronoun
[N, f:3fsg, nom]
T
[T, tense:pres,
uf:3fsg, uN*, nom]
T
vP
<NP>
v
v
VP
V
v
<V>
NP
likes [v, uN*,
pronoun
[V] uInfl:pres3fsg, [N, f:3pl, acc]
uV*, acc]
She likes them

All uninterpretable features are checked, the
pronunciation rules give us she likes them.
TP
NP
pronoun
[N, f:3fsg, nom]
T
[T, tense:pres,
uf:3fsg, uN*, nom]
T
vP
<NP>
v
v
VP
V
v
<V>
NP
likes [v, uN*,
pronoun
[V] uInfl:pres3fsg, [N, f:3pl, acc]
uV*, acc]









