Syntax - Bonus Section Articulating the Tree

Using the microscope CP  Syntax I Bonus section: Articulating the tree Using the microscope We started off with a relatively simple structure, with a CP, an IP, a VP. DP j what As we DP j looked what closer, we had reason to think that the “VP” was more complicated, involving a “little v”. Ii+C IP did DP k I′ Pat I VP ti DP V′ tk V DP tj eat Using the microscope CP  C′ CP  C′ Ii+C IP did DP k I′ Pat I ti DP tk vP v′ Vm+v eat VP V tm DP tj Using the microscope But for many DP j purposes, we what don’t need to focus on the minute details of the VP. In those situations, you’ll find that people still write VPs like this, with the understanding that the vP is there. C′ Ii+C IP did DP k I′ Pat I VP ti DP V′ tk V DP tj eat Let’s go back to French… CP  What we’re going to do now is put DP j what “IP” under the microscope, where we’ll find it is more complicated. For most purposes, we can continue to think about it as “IP”, but this is a preview of where syntax can go from here. C′ Ii+C IP did DP k I′ Pat I VP ti DP V′ tk V DP tj eat  Jean mange souvent des pommes. Jean eats often of.the apples ‘Jean often eat apples.’ DP j Jean *Jean souvent mange des pommes.  Recall that this was one of our early examples showing verbmovement to I. French and English differ in whether they move finite main verbs to I. IP I′ Vi+I VP mange tj V′ V′ AdvP souvent ti PP des pommes 1 French and a problem… French negation  This happens with respect to negation too—the finite verb move to the left of negative pas… Jean ne mange pas des pommes. Jean NE eat NEG of.the apples ‘J doesn’t eat apples.’  DP k Finite verbs (main verbs and auxiliaries) in French precede adverbs and precede negative pas—they must move to I. I′  Now let’s look at infinitives, first the auxiliaries… [Neg+V i]j+I NegP ne mange pas Neg′   *Jean pas ne mange des pommes.   IP tj But fortunately or unfortunately, things are more complex that this… VP tk V′ ti  PP N’être pas invité, c’est triste. NE beinf NEG invited, it’s sad ‘Not to be invited is sad.’ Ne pas être invité, c’est triste. NE NEG beinf invited, it’s sad ‘Not to be invited is sad.’ Nonfinite auxiliaries can either move past pas (to I) or not, it appears to be optional. French and a problem… French and a problem…   +Fin aux: V Adv, V neg : Moves to I. +Fin verb: V Adv, V neg : Moves to I. –Fin aux: (V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V): (Opt.) Moves to I.  +Fin aux: +Fin verb: –Fin aux: –Fin verb:  Nonfinite main verbs…and adverbs…  Nonfinite main verbs…and negation…        Souvent paraître triste pendant son voyage de noce, c’est rare. Often appear inf sad during one’s honeymoon, it’s rare ‘To often look sad during one’s honeymoon is rare.’ Paraître souvent triste pendant son voyage de noce, c’est rare. Appear inf often sad during one’s honeymoon, it’s rare ‘To often look sad during one’s honeymoon is rare.’   Nonfinite main verbs can either move past adverbs or not; optional like with auxiliaries.     +Fin aux/verb: V Adv, V neg Moves to I. –Fin aux: (V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V) (Opt.) Moves to I. –Fin verb: (V) Adv (V), neg V Moves over adv not neg?? So we have the whole pattern—and we didn’t predict it. Where could the verb be moving? A head can’t adjoin to an XP, it has to be moving to a head. (Must remain X-bar compliant) French and a problem…  IP I′ I  NegP  pas Neg′ Neg VP ne DP k Ne pas sembler heureux est une condition pour écrire des romans. NE NEG seeminf happy is a prerequisite for write inf of.the novels ‘Not to seem happy is a prerequisite for writing novels.’ *Ne sembler pas heureux est une condition pour écrire des romans. NE seeminf NEG happy is a prerequisite for writeinf of.the novels ‘Not to seem happy is a prerequisite for writing novels.’ Nonfinite main verbs can not move past negation. French and a problem…  V Adv, V neg : Moves to I. V Adv, V neg : Moves to I. (V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V): (Opt.) Moves to I. (V) Adv (V), … V′ AdvP V′ souvent V PP +Fin aux/verb: V Adv, V neg Moves to I. –Fin aux: (V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V) (Opt.) Moves to I. –Fin verb: (V) Adv (V), neg V Moves over adv not neg?? IP I′ I NegP pas Neg′  We need there to be a head here in the tree for the verb to move to… Neg VP ne  That means we need to insert a whole phrase (heads always head something)… DP k V′ AdvP V′ souvent V PP 2 IP A new FP     +Fin aux/verb: V Adv, V neg Moves to (F, then to) I. –Fin aux: (V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V) (Opt.) Moves to (F, then to) I. –Fin verb: (V) Adv (V), neg V (Opt.) Moves to F What is FP? I′ NegP I Vous avez pris les pommes. you have taken the apples  pas Neg′ Neg ne Vous avez pris la pomme. you have taken the apple 3MSG 3FSG ‘You took the apples.’ FP F ‘You took the apple.’ Vous les avez prises. you them have taken  3PL F′ Now we have a place for nonfinite main verbs to move, past adverbs but under negation. They can move to F.  3MSG 3FPL  3SG ‘You took them (3fpl).’ VP DP k 3FPL V′ 3FSG ‘You took it (3fsg).’ Quelles pommes avez-vous prises? Which apples have you taken  Vous l’avez prise. you it have taken 3FPL  Quelle pomme avez-vous prise? Which apple have you taken 3FPL ‘Which apples did you take?’ 3FSG 3FSG ‘Which apple did you take?’ AdvP V′ souvent V A new FP    As the verb and the object make their way up the tree, assuming the object moves to SpecFP, there is a point where the verb and object are in a Spechead configuration. This is how the verb would check its object agreement features. Based on this, FP is generally called AgrOP. Object agreement phrase. PP AgrOP CP C′ DP i  C IP DP k I′ I FP ti′ F′  F VP V′ tk AgrOP     Why does the object have to move to SpecAgrOP? What makes DPs move? We know the subject moves. Partly for the EPP, but partly to get Case. The subject gets Case in SpecIP, so we know Case can be assigned to a specifier. What if we revise our notion of how objects get Case and say that they too get Case in a specifier, of AgrOP? Then it would have to move. Plus, it’s pleasingly symmetrical C C′ IP DP k I I′ AgrOP ti′ AgrO′ AgrO VP V′ ti ECM  C DP i V CP DP i CP tk ti V  AgrOP, Object agreement phrase. As the verb moves up to I, it has to stop off in AgrOP (the Head Movement Constraint requires it), forming successively more complex heads.  V  AgrO+V  I+[AgrO+V] But why does the object have to move to SpecAgrOP?  C′ IP DP k I  I′ AgrOP ti′ AgrO′ AgrO  VP V′ tk V ti … AgrOP can solve a serious IP problem we had in English too… I′ DP i Here’s the current way we Bill analyzed ECM sentences, I VP where me gets Case from ti V′ want because me is in the “government radius” of V IP want. wants The thing is, the embedded DPk I′ 1sg subject actually acts like it’s I VP in the matrix clause to somewhere. tk V leave 3 IP ECM ECM v. BT      Mary wants her to leave. Bill considers himself to be a genius. Before we said that the binding domain for anaphors and pronouns was a clause (say, IP). Her and himself above act like they are in the higher clause with the matrix subject.    Our options are basically to    complicate the definition of binding domain in Binding Theory suppose the object has really moved out of the embedded clause. I If  There is an AgrOP and Normal objects generally go there and ECM subjects act like objects   Great! Except…  But this isn’t the surface word order.  *Bill me wants to leave.  Where is BT checked? When is it important that pronouns be free and anaphors be bound? I AgrOP   DPk AgrO′ 1sg AgrO VP ti  V′ V IP wants I′ tk′ This is the standard interpretation of AgrOP.  Also another example of “covert” movement between Spellout and LF. V leave Let’s take stock here for a second. French told us:  There needs to be an FP between NegP and VP. Objects that move past FP have to stop there (inducing object agreement)—so FP is AgrOP.  Why do they have to stop in AgrOP?  But V used to be responsible for that!     V IP wants I′ tk′ VP tk V leave They need Case. So AgrOP is what’s responsible for accusative Case. Yet now we have a more symmetrical solution; Case is always assigned in the specifier of a functional projection. (just about, anyway) And we have no more need for the “government radius” in Case assignment now that ECM is taken care of too. Plus, we have evidence from binding theory that objects do seem to move by LF to someplace outside the clause in ECM constructions. I′ DP i Bill All accusative objects move to SpecAgrOP (covertly in English if they don’t need to move on) to “check” Case. They appear with a Case, but it needs to be verified by AgrO at LF. A moment of silence for Case under government  V′ I to What’s special about ECM subjects? Case!  VP tk  ti We can suppose that ECM subjects move there. ECM I to  DPk AgrO′ 1sg AgrO VP IP I′ DP i Bill AgrOP Then IP ECM I′ DP i Bill I AgrOP DPk AgrO′ 1sg AgrO VP ti V′ V IP wants I′ tk′ I to VP tk V′ V leave A moment of silence for Case under government      This is a step forward. We have a simpler theory (Case is assigned in only one way, we don’t need the strange-looking construct of “government radius”). We have an account for why ECM subjects act like they’re in the higher clause by LF. Moreover, we have yet another reason to think that there is an LF level. So what does it mean for a verb to “assign accusative case”?   Sadly, this is one place where we pay for the elegance elsewhere—”verb that assigns accusative case” is now another name for “verb that has an AgrOP above it.” In Syntax II, we’ll see a potential solution to even this apparent inelegance, but for now we just assume that transitive verbs are those with an AgrOP above them. 4 An AgrO you can see?  Recall from earlier this semester that Irish is VSO, but yet seems to be SVO underlyingly:    Northern Irish Phóg Máire an lucharachán. kissed Mary the leprechaun ‘Mary kissed the leprechaun.’  So, basically everything points to Irish being a headinitial language except…  Ba mhaith liom [Seán an abairt aL scríobh] C good with.1S S.ACC the sentence.ACC PRT write ‘I want S to write the sentence.’ Tá Máire ag-pógáil an lucharachán. Is Mary ing-kiss the leprechaun ‘Mary is kissing the leprechaun.’ S writing the sentence is good with us (lit.)  (cf. also I want him to meet me) If an auxiliary occupies the verb slot at the beginning of the sentence, the main verb appears between the subject and verb. Otherwise, the verb moves to first position.  Ba mhaith liom [Seán fanacht] C good with.1S S.ACC wait ‘I want S to wait.’ C′ AgrSP? Morphology on French verbs      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 Tense morphology is inside and separate from subject agreement morphology. Kind of looks like after tense, another, subject-agreeing morpheme is attached…    C AgrOP, Object agreement phrase. AgrSP, Subject agreement phrase? Pleasingly symmetrical! AgrSP DP k AgrS′ AgrS TP T′ ti′ T Complex heads:  V  AgrO+V  T+[AgrO+V]  AgrS+[T+[AgrO+V]] AgrOP DP k AgrO′ AgrO VP V′ tk ti V C′ 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. C The EPP & NOM AgrSP AgrS′ AgrS  TP T′   T AgrOP  AgrO′ AgrO  VP V′ DP V DP C′ C We said before the T needs a specifier, 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. AgrOP is responsible for ACC. In a symmetrical world, seems like AgrSP should be responsible for NOM. So, now that (kind of mysterious) double motivation for moving to SpecIP 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. AgrSP AgrS′ AgrS TP T′ T AgrOP AgrO′ AgrO VP V′ DP V DP 5 Adopting the Split-INFL hypothesis    Adopting the Split-INFL hypothesis  Lots of good syntax has been done both adopting the SplitINFL hypothesis (trees contain AgrSP, TP, AgrOP) or not (trees contain only IP). The general program is that every dissociable piece of the structure should get its own place in the lexicon, its own functional head…  For many things, it doesn’t matter which you choose—analyses can be directly translated into a SplitINFL tree or vice-versa.    Where it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter, but sometimes it matters.  Subject agreement is basically common across verbs, an independent piece. Tense too is an independent piece. And object agreement 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. CP Split-INFL  In recent literature, almost everything you read will make this assumption, that C cross-linguistically, the clause is minimally constructed of these projections, generally in this order:      CP AgrSP TP AgrOP VP Split-INFL CP C′  AgrSP AgrS′ AgrS C Another line of thought (described by Radford in ch. 9) puts them in a different order (with AgrOP between vP and VP), but the same idea:  TP   T′  T  AgrOP  AgrO′ AgrO VP  CP AgrSP TP vP AgrOP VP There are various empirical and theoretical advantages and disadvantages to this order; they jury’s still out. C′ AgrSP AgrS′ AgrS TP T′ T vP v′ v AgrOP AgrO′ AgrO VP 6