Transcript Document

CAS LX 522
Syntax I
Episode 6a. Head movement
5.4-5.5
Recap: features


The lexicon contains bundles of features. These
feature bundles are assembled by a computational
process into syntactic structures for interpretation by
the conceptual-intensional an articulatory-perceptual
systems.
Among these features, we have


Interpretable features (such as the category feature that
determines the category of the lexical item)
Uninterpretable features (such as the selectional feature
[uN] on a transitive verb). Uninterpretable features are
intolerable at the interfaces, and must be removed (by
checking) or the derivation crashes.

Recap: uninterpretable
features
Uninterpretable features vary along two dimensions.
Privative vs. unvalued and strong vs. weak.





Privative features (such as [uN]) which are checked by
matching features (such as [N] or [uN]).
Unvalued features (such as [uInfl:]) which are checked by
features that can provide a value (such as [tense:past]).
Strong uninterpretable features can only be checked if they
are local (sister) to the feature that checks them.
Weak uninterpretable features can be “checked at a
distance.”
Strong features can force movement, but because the
system is economical (lazy), no movement is allowed
just to check a weak feature.


Recap: Matching and
Checking
Checking is relation between an uninterpretable
feature and a matching feature, allowing the
uninterpretable feature to be ignored at the interface.
For two features to match:




One must c-command the other.
There must not be a closer feature that could match.
(p218)
[uF] … [F] … [F]
[F] … [F] … [uF]
If the uninterpretable feature is strong, the matching
feature must be local (e.g., a feature of the sister) in
order for the uninterpretable feature to be checked.


For [uV*] on v, it matches the [V] feature of the verb below
it, then the verb must move up to v to check [uV*].
For [uInfl:*] on an auxiliary, the [tense:past] feature (above
it) matches it and values it, then the auxiliary must move
Recap: Merge


Merge: create a new syntactic object from two existing
syntactic objects, with the label (features) projecting
from one. Merge happens for one of two reasons:
To check an uninterpretable feature: the label of the
one with the uninterpretable feature projects.


Now that we have strong features, we will consider
selectional features to be strong features, i.e. [uN*], checked
locally under sisterhood created by Merge.
To satisfy the Hierarchy of Projections: the label of
the higher one in the hierarchy projects and no
features are checked.

This only happens once all of the strong uninterpretable
features in the non-projecting object have been checked
(and any adjunctions to be done have been done)
Recap: Adjoin, Agree, HoP

Adjoin is like Merge, but it does not result in the
checking of a feature.




Merge always takes priority over Adjoin, so Adjoin only
happens once the (strong) uninterpretable features of
the object being adjoined to are checked.
Adjoining YP to XP results in another XP (the maximal
projection is extended), so YP becomes in essence
both a daughter and a sister to XP.
Agree is the operation that checks (and values
where appropriate) features under c-command.
Hierarchy of Projections:
T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V
Move


There are two basic kinds of movement.
One is head-movement, where a head moves
up to join with another head.


The other is XP-movement, where a maximal
projection moves up to a specifier of a higher
phrase.


Examples: V moves to v, Perf moves to T
Example: The subject moving to SpecTP.
Both happen because a strong uninterpretable
feature needs to be checked.
Pat ate lunch


Yes, again with this sentence, but now with
nearly all of our technology in place. Our
workspace (numeration) starts out as shown
here.
Eat has a Theme q-role to assign.


vagent has an Agent q-role to assign.


v always has a strong uninterpretable [uV*]
feature.
Verbs are inflected for tense.


vagent has a strong uninterpretable [uN*] feature.
V always moves to v.


Eat has strong uninterpretable [uN*] feature.
v always has an unvalued Infl feature [uInfl:].
The subject always moves (in English) to
SpecTP.

T has a strong unintepretable [uN*] feature.
T
[tense:past,
T, uN*, …]
Pat [N]
vagent
[v, uN*,
uInfl:, uV*]
eat
[V, uN*]
lunch [N]
Pat ate lunch

Step 1. Merge eat and lunch.





HoP: T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V
We have to take care of V first.
The [uN*] feature is now c-commanded
by the [N] feature of lunch.
The [uN*] feature is strong, requiring that
it be local to the [N] feature in order to be
checked. Sisters are local, the checking
succeeds.
The features of eat project, since it had
its feature checked. All strong features
are checked, so this is the maximal
projection of V (VP).
T
[tense:past,
T, uN*, …]
Pat [N]
vagent
[v, uN*,
uInfl:, uV*]
VP
V
eat
[V, uN*]
NP
lunch
[N]
Pat ate lunch

Step 2. Merge vagent and VP.


HoP: T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V
V is finished, we have a v, so we need to
Merge them next.

No features are checked as a result
of this step.

The features of vagent project, since
it is higher on the HoP.

T
[tense:past,
T, uN*, …]
Pat [N]
vagent still has unchecked strong
vagent
features, so this is an intermediate
[v, uN*,
projection of v (v).
uInfl:, uV*]
v [uN*, uInfl:,
uV*]
VP
V
eat
[V, uN*]
NP
lunch
[N]
Pat ate lunch

Step 3. Move V to v.





There were two options for this
step, either moving V to v (to check
the [uV*] feature) or Merging Pat
and v (to check the [uN*] feature).
We will suppose that headmovement happens first, as soon
as the head is integrated into the
structure.
T
[tense:past,
T, uN*, …]
Pat [N]
The [uV*] feature of v c-commands
the [V] feature of eat. The [uV*]
feature is strong, so it must be local
to [V] in order to be checked. Headv [uN*, uInfl:,
movement yields a local relation,
uV*]
+
the checking succeeds.
VP
vagent V
The features of v are just the
[v, uN*, eat
features of v, so v also no longer
<V>
NP
[V]
uInfl:,
uV*]
has an unchecked [uV*] feature.
lunch
Nothing new projects…
[N]
Interlude: What happens
when V moves to v?


When V moves to v, they combine in a
way that we have been writing just as
V+v. Let’s be more precise.
In fact, we assume that V head-adjoins
(adjoins, head-to-head) to v. This is the
same sort of structure that Adjoin
creates between maximal projections.


In the structure, the v head is replaced
by the v head with V adjoined.
Adjunction does not change projection
levels—v is still a minimal projection, still
the head of vP. But it is a complex head
(it’s a v with a V adjoined to it).
v
v
V
eat
v
VP
[uV*, …]
<V>
NP
Interlude: What happens
when V moves to v?


We should also consider what happens to the
VP from which the V moved.
It is still a VP, it must still have a head.



The features of the VP are the features of the
head (recall for example, that checking the
uninterpretable feature on the head is the
same as checking the uninterpretable feature
on the projection of the head). The VP is still a
VP, its head is still a verb (with category feature
[V]), and presumably all the rest of the features
as well.
We notate the original location of the V by
writing <V> (standing for the “trace” left
behind by the original V).
But since <V> must still be a bundle of
features, the same one that was there before
movement, <V> is really just another copy (or,
well, the original) of the verb.
v
v
V
eat
v
VP
[uV*, …]
<V>
NP
Interlude: What happens
when V moves to v?

Moral: “Head-movement” can be
viewed as Copy+Adjoin.

A copy is made of V.
The copy of V is adjoined to v.



The original v is replaced by the
syntactic object formed by
Adjoining the copy of V to v.
Preview: we will think of movement
of the subject in the same way (but
as Copy+Merge).
v
v
V
eat
v
VP
[uV*, …]
<V>
NP
Interlude: What happens
when V moves to v?



That’s craziness, isn’t it? Now instead
of one V, we have two identical copies.
Why isn’t this Pat Pat ate ate lunch?
We need both copies (the higher one
v
to check the feature, the lower one to
head the original projection of V). But
v
on the other hand, the verb was picked
from the lexicon just once.
v
VP
V
A-P interface: Only the highest copy is
eat [uV*, …]
pronounced.
<V> NP



This is just a precise way to spell out the
idea that you “move it but leave a trace.”
Highest copy = the one that is not ccommanded by another copy.
A head V adjoined to another head v ccommands the same nodes that v did.
Pat ate lunch

Step 4. Merge Pat and v.





Can’t Merge T (would value and check
[uInfl:]) because T is higher on HoP
and v still has strong features left.
HoP: T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v >
V
T
[tense:past,
T, uN*, …]
The [uN*] feature of v is c-commanded
by the [N] feature of Pat. The [uN*]
feature is strong, so it must be local to
[N] in order to be checked. Sisters are
local, the checking succeeds.
The features of v (a.k.a. v)
NP
project, because it was the
one that had its feature checked. Pat
This is the maximal projection
[N]
of v (vP), because it has no
V
further strong uninterpretable
features to check.
eat
[V]
vP [uN*, uInfl:, uV*]
v
v [uN*, uInfl:,
uV*]
VP
vagent <V>
[v, uN*,
uInfl:, uV*]
NP
lunch
[N]
Pat ate lunch




Step 5. Merge T and vP.
 HoP: T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > v > V
 v is finished, we have a T, so we need to Merge them next.
No features are checked as a result of this step.
The features of T project, because it is higher on the HoP.
It is an intermediate projection (T) because it still has an uninterpretable
feature to check.
T [tense:past, T, uN*, …]
T
[tense:past, T, uN*, …]
vP
v
NP
Pat
[N]
v
V
eat
[V]
VP
vagent <V>
[v, uN*,
uInfl:, uV*]
NP
lunch
[N]
Pat ate lunch

Step 6. Agree between T and v.


T, and its [tense:past] feature, now c-command v and its [uInfl:]
feature.
T values and checks the [uInfl:] feature of v.
T [tense:past, T, uN*, …]
T
[tense:past, T, uN*, …]
vP
v
NP
Pat
[N]
v
V
eat
[V]
VP
vagent <V>
[v, uN*, uV*,
uInfl:past]
NP
lunch
[N]

Pat ate
T has an strong uninterpretable [uN*] feature.
T c-commands Pat (with an [N] feature that can match T’slunch
[uN*]).
Step 7. Move Pat to the specifier of TP.





T also c-commands lunch but Pat is closer (Pat c-commands lunch).
So the NP with the matching feature (Pat) is copied, and Merged.
T projects (it had the feature checked) and it has no strong uninterpretable
features left to check, so it is a maximal projection (TP)
TP
NP
Pat
T
[N]
[tense:past, T, uN*, …]
T [tense:past, T, uN*, …]
vP
v
<Pat>
v
V
eat
[V]
VP
vagent <V>
[v, uN*, uV*,
uInfl:past]
NP
lunch
[N]

Pat ate
lunch
And that’s it. We have a single object, no uninterpretable

features left.
This is the structure for Pat ate lunch.

The final structure? Well, no. There are some changes we will make in
coming weeks, concerning the structure of NP and issues relating to
case. But it’s quite close.
TP
NP
Pat
T
[N]
[tense:past, T, uN*, …]
T [tense:past, T, uN*, …]
vP
v
<Pat>
v
V
eat
[V]
VP
vagent <V>
[v, uN*, uV*,
uInfl:past]
NP
lunch
[N]
Back to our story…

Last time, we looked at data like:






Pat might not be eating lunch.
Pat is not eating lunch.
Pat has not eaten lunch.
Pat did not each lunch.
And concluded that auxiliary verbs (have and be)
move to T (over not, when T isn’t a modal). Main verbs
do not move to T (instead we have do, which we’ll talk
about shortly).
The [uInfl:] on auxiliaries is strong when valued by T
(elsewhere [uInfl:] is weak).

This is not a shining example of the success of our model,
but this has been a thorn in the side of every model that has
ever attempted to explain the special behavior of auxiliaries.
Pat was not eating lunch.

Because [uInfl:] on
TP
Prog is valued by T
(becoming
NP
T
[uInfl:past*]), it must
Pat
NegP
move up to (adjoin
T
to) T.
[tense:past]
Neg
ProgP
not
Prog
vP
be [uInfl:*]
<Pat> v
v+V
eat
VP
<eat>
NP
lunch
French vs. English

In English, adverbs cannot come between the
verb and the object.



In French it’s the other way around.



*Pat eats often apples.
Pat often eats apples.
Jean mange souvent des pommes.
Jean eats often of.the apples
‘Jean often eats apples.’
*Jean souvent mange des pommes.
If we suppose that the basic structures are the
same, why might that be?
French vs. English

Similarly, while only auxiliaries in English show
up before negation (not)…



John does not love Mary.
John has not eaten apples.
…all verbs seem to show up before negation
(pas) in French:


Jean (n’)aime pas Marie.
Jean (ne) loves not Marie
‘Jean doesn’t love Marie.’
Jean (n’)a pas mangé des pommes.
Jean (ne)has not eaten of.the apples
‘Jean didn’t eat apples.’
V raises to T in French

What it looks like is
that both V and
auxiliaries raise to T in
French.

This is a parametric
difference between
English and French.
A kid’s task is to
determine whether V
moves to T and
whether auxiliaries
move to T.

English
French
T values
[uInfl:]
on Aux
Strong
Strong
T values
[uInfl:]
on v
Weak
Strong
Jean (ne) téléphone pas Marie

First, build the vP just as in English.

Merge téléphone and Marie to form the VP, Merge v and VP to satisfy
the HoP, move V to adjoin to v to check v’s [uV*] feature, Merge Jean
and v.
T
[tense:pres, T, uN*, …]
vP
Neg
pas
NP
Jean
[N]
V
téléphone
[V]
v
v
VP
vagent <V>
[v, uN*, uV*,
uInfl:]
NP
Marie
[N]
Jean (ne) téléphone pas Marie

Merge Neg with vP to form NegP (following the HoP).
T
[tense:pres, T, uN*, …]
NegP
Neg
pas
vP
NP
Jean
V
téléphone
v
v
VP
vagent <V>
[v, uN*, uV*,
uInfl:]
NP
Marie
Jean (ne) téléphone pas Marie


Merge T with NegP to form T (again, following the HoP).
Now T with its [tense:pres] feature c-commands v and its
[uInfl:] feature. They Match. But in French, when [uInfl:] on v
is valued by T it is strong. So…
T [tense:pres, T, uN*, …]
T
[tense:pres, T, uN*, …]
NegP
Neg
pas
vP
NP
Jean
V
téléphone
v
v
VP
vagent <V>
[v, uN*, uV*,
uInfl:pres*]
NP
Marie
Jean (ne) téléphone pas Marie

v has to move to T. Notice that at this point v has V adjoined
to it. You can’t take them apart. The whole complex head
moves to T.
T [tense:pres, T, uN*, …]
NegP
T
v
V
téléphone
T
v
[uInfl:pres*]
Neg
pas
NP
Jean
vP
v
<v>
VP
<V>
NP
Marie
Jean (ne) téléphone pas Marie

And then, we move the subject up to SpecTP to check the
final uninterpretable (strong) feature of T, [uN*].
TP
T [tense:pres, T, uN*, …]
NP
Jean
NegP
T
v
V
téléphone
T
v
[uInfl:pres*]
Neg
vP
pas
v
<Jean>
So, French is just like English, except that even
v moves to T.
<v>
VP
<V>
NP
Marie
Swedish

Looking at Swedish, we can see that not only do
languages vary on whether they raise main
verbs to T, languages also vary on whether they
raise auxiliaries to T:



…om hon inte har köpt boken
whether she not has bougt book-the
‘…whether she hasn’t bought the book.’
…om hon inte köpte boken
whether she not bought book-the
‘…whether she didn’t buy the book.’
So both parameters can vary from language to
language.
Typology of verb/aux raising

Interestingly, there don’t
seem to be languages
that raise main verbs
but not auxiliaries.


This double-binary
distinction predicts there
would be.
This is a pattern that we
would like to explain
someday, another
mystery about Aux to
file away.

Sorry, we won’t have any
satisfying explanation for
this gap this semester.
English
French
Swedish
Unatteste
T values
[uInfl:]
on Aux
Strong
Strong
Weak
Weak
T values
[uInfl:]
on v
Weak
Strong
Weak
Strong
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 VOS.
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?
T [tense:pres, T, uN*, …]
vP
T
v
V
téléphone
T
NP
Jean
v
[uInfl:pres*]
v
<v>
VP
<V>
NP
Marie
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
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 don’t get in the way.
PTR

Adger’s proposal:




Pronounce tense on the next head down from T (the
head of T’s sister) if it has a [uInfl:] feature valued by a
feature of T. If not, insert do into T and pronounce the
tense on do.
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.
PTR




There is a link between the [tense:past] feature on T and
the [uInfl:past] feature on v: they were linked by Agree,
when the feature was checked.
Suppose Agree forms an object, a chain, between things
that it applies to.
So T and v form a chain (T, v) because Agree valued and
checked the [uInfl:] feature of v with the [tense:past]
feature of T.
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.

This is not quite correctly stated, though: It doesn’t apply
properly to (166) on p. 193: Gilgamesh hasn’t kissed Ishtar.
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









