University:
Boston University
Course:
CAS WR 699 | Teaching College Writing
Academic year:

2024
Views:

313

Pages:

7
Author:

Lafuentedqri

We give trees to ditransitives  Syntax I You may recall our discussion of θ-theory, where we triumphantly classified verbs as coming in three types:     Intransitive (1 θ-role) Transitive (2 θ-roles) Ditransitive (3 θ-roles) Theta roles go to obligatory arguments, not to adjuncts. We give trees to ditransitives  You may also recall that we believe that trees are binary branching, where:   Syntactic objects are formed by Merge. There’s just one complement and one specifier. We give trees to ditransitives   Fantastic, except that these things just don’t fit together. We know what to do with transitive verbs. VP V′ SUB V  Problems continue…      I showed Mary to herself. *I showed herself to Mary. I introduced nobody to anybody. *I introduced anybody to nobody. This tells us something about the relationship between the direct and to-object in the structure. (What?) OBJ But what do we do with ditransitive verbs? We’re out of space! Problems continue…   The OBJ c-commands the PP. But how could we draw a tree like that? Even if we allowed adjuncts to get θ-roles, the most natural structure would be to make the PP an adjunct, like this, but that doesn’t meet the c-command requirements. VP * V′ SUB V′ V PP OBJ 1 Some clues from idioms   Idioms in ditransitives Often idiomatic meanings are associated with the verb+object complex—the meaning derives both from the verb and the object together.  Beethoven gave the Fifth Symphony to the world. Beethoven gave the Fifth Symphony to his patron.  Lasorda sent his starting pitcher to the showers.  Lasorda sent his starting pitcher to Amsterdam.  Mary took Felix to task.  Mary took Felix to the cleaners.  Mary took Felix to his doctor’s appointment.   Suppose that this is due being Merged into the structure together initially.    In ditransitives, it seems like this happens with the PP. Bill threw a baseball. Bill threw his support behind the candidate. Bill threw the boxing match. So V and PP are sisters… Where’s the V? Where’s the OBJ?    Larson (1988) took this as evidence that the V is a sister to the PP “originally.” Yet, we see that on the surface the OBJ comes between the verb and the PP.     Mary sent a letter to Bill.  Where is the OBJ? It must c-command the PP, remember. Why is the V to the left of the OBJ when we hear it?  V′ V We can paraphrase John gave a book to Mary as John caused a book to go to Mary. Chichewa: Suppose that in both cases Merge puts things together in the same way initially:  PP Mtsikana ana-chit-its-a kuti mtsuku u-gw-e girl agr-do-cause-asp that waterpot agr-fall-asp ‘The girl made the waterpot fall.’ Mtsikana anau-gw-its-a kuti-mtsuku girl agr-fall-cause-asp that waterpot ‘The girl made the waterpot fall.’ [[that waterpot] fall] Causatives     [cause [[that waterpot] fall]] And then it’s Merged with the Agent   [[that waterpot] fall] Then it’s merged with cause (basically transitive: needs a causer and a causee):   Mtsikana ana-chit-its-a kuti mtsuku u-gw-e girl agr-do-cause-asp that waterpot agr-fall-asp ‘The girl made the waterpot fall.’ Mtsikana anau-gw-its-a kuti-mtsuku girl agr-fall-cause-asp that waterpot ‘The girl made the waterpot fall.’ [girl [cause [[that waterpot] fall]]] Ditransitives again  The proposal will be that English ditransitives are really a lot like Chichewa causatives. One moves fall over to cause to get:  Starting with  Merging cause and an Agent  One then moves go over to cause to get:       [girl [cause+fall [[that waterpot] ]]] [[the book] [go [to Mary]] [John [cause [[the book] [go [to Mary]]]]] [John [cause+go [[the book] [ [to Mary]]]]] John “gave” the book to Mary. At which point, one can move fall over to cause.  [girl [cause+fall [[that waterpot] ]]] 2 A very, very little bit of French  A very, very little bit of French If you’ve tried to learn any French at all, you’ve come across this phenomenon:         de ‘of’ à ‘at’   le ‘the (masculine)’ la ‘the (feminine)’ à la biblioteque *à le cinéma au cinema de la mayonnaise *de le lait du lait This is usually taught as:  au = à + le du = de + le  ‘to the library (fem)’ ‘to the movies (masc)’ ‘to the movies (masc)’ ‘of mayonnaise (fem)’ ‘of milk (masc)’ ‘of milk’ (masc)  If your underlying intent is à ‘at’ + le ‘the’, you pronounce it like au. So is au a preposition or an article?    There’s no reason to believe that au cinéma has a different syntactic structure from à la bibliotèque. This is just about how it is pronounced. Au = à + le. Give = cause + go. PP NP P D Where’s the V? Where’s the OBJ?  Larson’s proposal was basically this. Logically, if we’re going to have binary branching and three positions for argument XPs (SUB, OBJ, PP), we need to have another XP above the VP.  Since the subject is in the specifier of the higher XP, that must be a VP too.  Ditransitive verbs really come in two parts. They are in a “VP shell” structure.  Where’s the V? Where’s the OBJ?  vP SUB v′  That is, V has [uP, uN] features, and v has a [uN] feature. OBJ V′ Hierarchy of Projections (so far):  PP   Where we are We’ve just come up with an analysis of sentences with ditransitive verbs, such as Pat vP gave books to Chris that accords with the constraints NP v′ of the syntactic system we Pat have developed so far. VP v  Merge is binary θ-roles are assigned to specifiers and complements. The solution is to assume a two-tiered structure, with a little v in addition to the VP. V′ “V comes with v” PP Where we are  OBJ v>V  V v′ SUB v+V VP  Furthermore, the higher part seems to correlate with a meaning of causation. The higher verb is a “light verb” (we’ll write it as vP to signify that)—its contribution is to assign the θ-role to the subject. The lower verb assigns the θ-roles to the OBJ and the PP. vP VP v N NP books V gave P to  The three θ-roles for give are assigned like this:     V′  The PP gets a Goal θ-role. The lower NP gets a Theme θ-role. The highest NP (in the specifier of vP) gets an Agent θ-role. vP But how did we know that? More importantly, how do kids come to know that? PP NP Chris  v′ NP Pat Do they memorize this list for each verb they learn? v VP NP books V gave P to V′ PP NP Chris 3 Uniformity of Theta Assignment  If kids are really memorizing which θ-role goes where for each verb, there should be some verbs that do it in other ways.   Uniformity of Theta Assignment   ? vP For example, there might be a ditransitive verb with Theme in the specifier of vP, Goal in the specifier of VP, and Agent in the complement of VP. E.g., to tup: Books tup on the shelf Chris ‘Chris put books on the shelf.’ Theme v′ But that just never happens. It seems that all verbs have θ-role assignment that looks pretty much the same.   VP v  V′ Goal V tup Agent   That is, all Agents are structurally in the same place (when first Merged). All Patients are structurally in the same place, etc. We can take this to be a property of the interpretation. When a structure is interpreted, the θrole an argument gets depends on where it was first Merged. Great. So, the Agent (Pat) in Pat gave books to Chris is in the specifier of vP. Because that’s where Agents go. But.. What about structures like the ones we had before for things like Pat called Chris? VP NP Pat V′ V called θ-roles and structure   Well, if we’re serious about working within the constraints of UTAH, we need a v there too— to host the Agent. Hierarchy of Projection: v > V v′ NP Pat v  vP v′ NP Pat V called Agent vP v′ NP Pat VP v NP books ? V′ V gave NP Chris But where’s the Theme? Isn’t that in different places in Pat called Chris and Pat gave books to Chris? PP P to NP Chris V′ PP P to v′ NP Pat v NP Chris vP v′ NP Pat v vP V gave NP Chris V tup Specifier of vP = Agent VP NP books VP V′ Goal θ-roles and structure  v vP VP v θ-roles and structure  The Uniformity of Theta-Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH): Identical thematic relationships between predicates and their arguments are represented syntactically by identical structural relationships when items are Merged.  Theme v′ Given that things seem to be relatively uniform, it has been proposed that this is a fundamental property of the syntactic system. Each θ-role has a consistent place in the structure. UTAH   vP If there’s an Agent, it’s the first (uppermost) NP. If there’s a Theme it’s down close to the verb. VP NP books VP V called V′ V gave NP Chris PP P to NP Chris 4 θ-roles and structure    NP, daughter of vP = Agent NP, daughter of VP = Theme PP, daughter of V′ = Goal  That seems to work, and it seems a reasonable interpretation of UTAH. Unaccusatives vs. unergatives  vP v′ NP Pat v vP VP  v′ NP Pat v NP books VP V called Recall that there are two types of singleargument (intransitive) verbs in terms of the θ-role they assign to their single argument. V′ V gave NP Chris Unaccusatives: Have one, Theme θ-role.  PP P to  Fall, sink, break, close Unergatives: Have one, Agent θ-role. NP Chris  Walk, dance, laugh Unaccusatives vs. unergatives  Unaccusatives: Have one, Theme θ-role.   Fall, sink, break, close Unaccusatives  Unergatives: Have one, Agent θ-role.  Let’s go back and consider VP shells a bit in connection with unaccusatives. vP Walk, dance, laugh    If we adopt the UTAH, then we are forced to a certain view of the original Merges.     If you’re going to be a Theme, you need to be NP daughter of VP. If you’re going to be an Agent, you need to be NP daughter of vP. (Is it bad to be forced into an analysis?) The ice melted. The boat sank. The door closed. v V melt      v′ NP Bill v  VP V melt  Bill was the agent/instigator of a NP melting that affected the ice. the ice  Preview Bill melted the ice. Straightforward enough. The causal v adds an Agent. Why isn’t the unaccusative version Melted the ice, though?  (English being head-initial, after all) NP the ice The ice, the boat, the door are all Themes— the argument starts as NP daughter of VP. Unaccusatives have a relatively “inert” v, no “causal” meaning. There are two kinds of v, the causal one that needs an NP (Agent), and a non-causal one. What if we pick the causal v (and provide an Agent NP)? VP shells vP VP  vP v Why isn’t the unaccusative version Melted the ice, though?  VP V NP melt the ice    (English being head-initial, after all) We will turn to this question more thoroughly next. But to a first approximation, we say that: Sentences need subjects. Subjects come first.   Since there is only one NP here, it has to be the subject, and it has to come first. We suppose that a movement operation (something like what happens to give when it moves up to v) carries the subject over to the left of the vP. 5 Preview   NP the ice Sentences need subjects. Subjects come first.  vP  v+V melt VP V NP  Bill lied.  vP Since there is only one NP here, it has to be the subject, and it has to come first. We suppose that a movement operation (something like what happens to give when it moves up to v) carries the subject over to the left of the vP. v′ NP Bill v  VP lie     Auxiliary selection Molte ragazze telefonano many girls phone ‘Many girls are phoning.’  Molte ragazze arrivano many girls arrive ‘Many girls are arriving.’  Molte ragazze hanno telefonato many girls have phone[past-part.3sg] ‘Many girls phoned.’  Molte ragazze sono arrivate. Many girls are arrive[past-part.3pl] ‘Many girls arrived.’  Double objects Just as you can give a book to Chris, so can you give Chris a book.  But…  If we try to analyze Pat gave Chris a book in the same way, we run into trouble. Molte ragazze telefonano many girls phone ‘Many girls are phoning.’ Molte ragazze arrivano many girls arrive ‘Many girls are arriving.’ Molte ragazze hanno telefonato many girls have phone[past-part.3sg] ‘Many girls phoned.’ Molte ragazze sono arrivate . Many girls are arrive[past-part.3pl] ‘Many girls arrived.’ Pat gave Chris a book  NP, daughter of vP = Agent NP, daughter of VP = Theme PP, daughter of V′ = Goal  See the problem?   So, it would look like this. As for where it goes (how it is integrated into the structure), we’ll concern ourselves more with that next week. Auxiliary selection  Just to address the last case, the unergatives, consider Bill lied. That’s got an Agent, so it’s got a v.   If we believe the UTAH, this can’t be right. ? vP v′ NP Pat v VP V′ NP Chris V NP go a book (“gave”) 6 Two kinds of giving  The two forms of give are not quite equivalent, though:      Pat gave a book to Chris. Pat gave Chris a book. *Pat gave a headache to Chris. Pat gave Chris a headache. To have     NP, daughter of vP = Agent NP, daughter of VP = Theme PP, daughter of V′ = Goal NP, daughter of V′ = Possessee     Pat sent a letter to Chicago. *Pat sent Chicago a letter. Pat taught French to the students. Pat taught the students French. v v′ NP Pat vP Try paraphrasing…  vP This might solve the problem. v VP NP Pat V′ V has NP a book VP V′ NP Chris V NP have a book (“gave”) 7

Syntax The OBJ c-commands the PP

Related Documents

Recommended Documents

Description

Related Documents

Free up your schedule!

Take 5 seconds to unlock