CAS LX 522 Syntax I

Week 11. Articulating the Week 11. Articulating the treetree

CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax I

PROPROarbarb giving trees to giving trees to ditransitivesditransitives

You may recall our You may recall our discussion of discussion of -theory, -theory, where we where we triumphantly triumphantly classified verbs as classified verbs as coming in three types:coming in three types: IntransitiveIntransitive (1 (1 -role)-role) TransitiveTransitive (2 (2 -roles)-roles) DitransitiveDitransitive (3 (3 -roles)-roles)

Theta roles go to Theta roles go to obligatory arguments, obligatory arguments, not to adjunct.not to adjunct.

PROPROarbarb giving trees to giving trees to ditransitivesditransitives

You may also recall our You may also recall our happy transition to X-bar happy transition to X-bar theory, where:theory, where: All trees are binary All trees are binary

branching.branching. There’s just one complement There’s just one complement

and one specifier.and one specifier. And our discovery that And our discovery that

subjects should start out subjects should start out in the specifier of their in the specifier of their predicate, so that predicate, so that -role -role assignment is strictly assignment is strictly local.local.

PROPROarbarb giving trees to giving trees to ditransitivesditransitives

FantasticFantastic, except that the , except that the two just don’t fit together.two just don’t fit together.

We know what to do with We know what to do with transitive verbs.transitive verbs.

We know what to do with We know what to do with intransitive verbs:intransitive verbs: UnergativesUnergatives UnaccusativesUnaccusatives

But what do we do with But what do we do with ditransitive verbs? We’re ditransitive verbs? We’re out of spaceout of space!!

OBJ

V

V

VP

SUB

V

V

VP

SUB

OBJ

V

V

VP

Problems continue…Problems continue…

I showed Mary to herself.I showed Mary to herself. *I showed herself to Mary.*I showed herself to Mary. I introduced nobody to anybody.I introduced nobody to anybody. *I introduced anybody to nobody.*I introduced anybody to nobody.

This tells us something about the This tells us something about the relationship between the direct and relationship between the direct and indirect object in the structure. indirect object in the structure. (What?)(What?)

Problems continue…Problems continue…

The DO c-commands the The DO c-commands the IO. IO. But how could we But how could we draw a tree like that?draw a tree like that?

Even if we allowed Even if we allowed adjuncts to get adjuncts to get -roles, -roles, the most natural structure the most natural structure would be to make the IO would be to make the IO an adjunct, like this, but an adjunct, like this, but that doesn’t meet the c-that doesn’t meet the c-command requirements.command requirements.

DO

VP

SUB

V

V

V

IO

*

Some clues from idiomsSome clues from idioms

Often idiomatic meanings are Often idiomatic meanings are associated with the verb+object associated with the verb+object complex—the meaning derives both complex—the meaning derives both from the verb and the object together.from the verb and the object together.

We take this as due to the fact that the We take this as due to the fact that the verb and object are sisters at DS.verb and object are sisters at DS. Bill Bill threw a baseballthrew a baseball.. Bill Bill threw his supportthrew his support behind the candidate. behind the candidate. Bill Bill threw the boxing matchthrew the boxing match..

Idioms in ditransitivesIdioms in ditransitives In ditransitives, it seems like this happens In ditransitives, it seems like this happens

with the with the IOIO.. Beethoven Beethoven gavegave the Fifth Symphony the Fifth Symphony to the to the

worldworld.. Beethoven Beethoven gavegave the Fifth Symphony the Fifth Symphony to his to his

patronpatron.. Lasorda Lasorda sentsent his starting pitcher his starting pitcher to the showersto the showers.. Lasorda Lasorda sentsent his starting pitcher his starting pitcher to Amsterdamto Amsterdam.. Mary Mary tooktook Felix Felix to taskto task.. Mary Mary tooktook Felix Felix to the cleanersto the cleaners.. Mary Mary tooktook Felix Felix to his doctor’s appointmentto his doctor’s appointment..

So V and IO are sisters…So V and IO are sisters…

Larson (1988) took this as evidence Larson (1988) took this as evidence that the V is a sister to the IO at DS.that the V is a sister to the IO at DS.

Yet, we see that Yet, we see that on the surface on the surface the DO the DO comes between the verb and the IO.comes between the verb and the IO. Mary sent a letter to Bill.Mary sent a letter to Bill.

Where is the DO?Where is the DO? It must c-command It must c-command the IO, remember.the IO, remember. Why is the V to the Why is the V to the left of the DO at SS?left of the DO at SS?

IO

V

V

Where’s the V? Where’s the Where’s the V? Where’s the DO?DO?

We already know how to deal with We already know how to deal with this kind of question if what we’re this kind of question if what we’re talking about is the verb coming talking about is the verb coming before the subject in Irish, or the before the subject in Irish, or the verb coming before adverbs in verb coming before adverbs in French…French…

The answer: The answer: The verb The verb movesmoves over over the DO. But to where?the DO. But to where?

IO

V

V

Where’s the V? Where’s the Where’s the V? Where’s the DO?DO?

Larson’s answer to this is Larson’s answer to this is obvious, in retrospect. If obvious, in retrospect. If we’re going to have binary we’re going to have binary branching and three positions branching and three positions for XPs (SUB, IO, DO), we for XPs (SUB, IO, DO), we need to have another XP need to have another XP above the VP.above the VP.

Since the subject is in the Since the subject is in the specifier of the higher XP, specifier of the higher XP, that must be a VP too.that must be a VP too.

Ditransitive verbs really Ditransitive verbs really come come in two partsin two parts. They are in a . They are in a ““VP shellVP shell” structure.” structure. IO

V

V

VP

DO

v

v

vP

SUB

Where’s the V? Where’s the Where’s the V? Where’s the DO?DO?

The higher verb is a “light verb” (we’ll The higher verb is a “light verb” (we’ll write it as write it as vvP to signify that)—its P to signify that)—its contribution is to assign the contribution is to assign the -role to the -role to the subject. The lower verb assigns the subject. The lower verb assigns the --roles to the DO and the IO.roles to the DO and the IO.

ATB movement:ATB movement:WhatWhatii did [ did [TPTP Bill buy Bill buy ttii ] ]and [and [TPTP Mary eat Mary eat ttii ]? ]?

Bill gave a book to Mary and a record to Bill gave a book to Mary and a record to Sue.Sue.

Bill gaveBill gaveii [ [VPVP a book a book ttii to Mary] to Mary] and [ and [VPVP a record a record ttii to Sue]. to Sue].

IO

V

V

VP

DO

v

v

vP

SUB

PROPROarbarb sending a letter sending a letter to Billto Bill

So that covers So that covers Mary sent a letter to BillMary sent a letter to Bill, , by saying there are two VPs, by saying there are two VPs, sendsend head-head-moves from the lower one to the upper moves from the lower one to the upper one, over the DO:one, over the DO:

Mary sentMary sentii a letter a letter ttii to Bill to Bill..

Note: You can also say Note: You can also say Mary sent Bill a letterMary sent Bill a letter, , which is one of the major things Larson was which is one of the major things Larson was concerned about. How this works is less well-concerned about. How this works is less well-settled, and will be saved for Syntax II. settled, and will be saved for Syntax II. (Cf. ?(Cf. ?Mary sent me himMary sent me him//Mary sent him to meMary sent him to me))

And so it beginsAnd so it begins The direction that syntactic theory has tended to The direction that syntactic theory has tended to

progress over the years is that as we learn more progress over the years is that as we learn more about how sentences are structured, we begin to about how sentences are structured, we begin to zoom in on the trees, to see finer structure.zoom in on the trees, to see finer structure.

In a sense, the VP we had before was a good In a sense, the VP we had before was a good first approximation, but as we look more closely first approximation, but as we look more closely we see that even the VP has more internal we see that even the VP has more internal structure.structure.

Bits of a sentence that have independent, Bits of a sentence that have independent, separable meanings are “factored out” into their separable meanings are “factored out” into their own phrasesown phrases. In the ditransitives, we “factored . In the ditransitives, we “factored out” the out” the light verblight verb (assigning the Agent (assigning the Agent -role), -role), for example. A similar fate awaits TP.for example. A similar fate awaits TP.

Let’s go back to French…Let’s go back to French…

Jean mange souvent des pommes.Jean mange souvent des pommes.Jean eats often of.the applesJean eats often of.the apples‘Jean often eat apples.’‘Jean often eat apples.’

*Jean souvent mange des pommes.*Jean souvent mange des pommes.

Recall that this was one of our Recall that this was one of our early examples showing verb-early examples showing verb-movement to T. French and movement to T. French and English differ in whether they English differ in whether they move finite main verbs to T. move finite main verbs to T.

ti

V

VP

des pommes

PP

Vi+T

T

TP

JeanDPj

mangeV

AdvPsouvent

SS

tj

French negationFrench negation

This happens with respect This happens with respect to negation too—the finite to negation too—the finite verb move to the left of verb move to the left of negative negative paspas……

Jean ne mange pas des pommes.Jean ne mange pas des pommes.Jean Jean NENE eat eat NEGNEG of.the apples of.the apples‘J doesn’t eat apples.’‘J doesn’t eat apples.’

*Jean pas ne mange des pommes.*Jean pas ne mange des pommes.

But fortunately or But fortunately or unfortunately, things are unfortunately, things are more complex that this…more complex that this…

ti

V

VP

PP

T

TP

DPk

SS

Neg

NegP

pasne mange

[Neg+Vi]j+T

tj

tk

French and a problem…French and a problem… FiniteFinite verbs (main verbs and auxiliaries) in French verbs (main verbs and auxiliaries) in French

precede adverbs and precede negative precede adverbs and precede negative paspas——they they must move to Tmust move to T..

Now let’s look at Now let’s look at infinitivesinfinitives, first the , first the auxiliariesauxiliaries……

N’N’êtreêtre paspas invité, c’est triste. invité, c’est triste.NENE be beinfinf NEGNEG invited, it’s sad invited, it’s sad‘Not to be invited is sad.’‘Not to be invited is sad.’

Ne Ne pas êtrepas être invité, c’est triste. invité, c’est triste. NENE NEGNEG be beinfinf invited, it’s sad invited, it’s sad‘Not to be invited is sad.’‘Not to be invited is sad.’

Nonfinite auxiliaries can either move pastNonfinite auxiliaries can either move past paspas (to T) (to T) or notor not, it appears to be optional., it appears to be optional.

French and a problem…French and a problem… +Fin aux:+Fin aux: V Adv, V neg : V Adv, V neg : Moves to T.Moves to T. +Fin verb:+Fin verb: V Adv, V neg : V Adv, V neg : Moves to T.Moves to T. ––Fin aux:Fin aux: (V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V):(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V): (Opt.) Moves to T.(Opt.) Moves to T.

Nonfinite Nonfinite mainmain verbs…and adverbs… verbs…and adverbs… Souvent paraîtreSouvent paraître triste pendant son voyage de noce, c’est rare. triste pendant son voyage de noce, c’est rare.

Often appearOften appearinfinf sad during one’s honeymoon, it’s rare sad during one’s honeymoon, it’s rare‘To often look sad during one’s honeymoon is rare.’‘To often look sad during one’s honeymoon is rare.’

Paraître souventParaître souvent triste pendant son voyage de noce, c’est rare. triste pendant son voyage de noce, c’est rare. AppearAppearinfinf often sad during one’s honeymoon, it’s rare often sad during one’s honeymoon, it’s rare‘To often look sad during one’s honeymoon is rare.’‘To often look sad during one’s honeymoon is rare.’

Nonfinite main verbs can either move past adverbs Nonfinite main verbs can either move past adverbs or or notnot; optional like with auxiliaries.; optional like with auxiliaries.

French and a problem…French and a problem… +Fin aux:+Fin aux: V Adv, V neg : V Adv, V neg : Moves to T.Moves to T. +Fin verb:+Fin verb: V Adv, V neg : V Adv, V neg : Moves to T.Moves to T. ––Fin aux:Fin aux: (V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V):(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V): (Opt.) Moves to T.(Opt.) Moves to T. ––Fin verb:Fin verb: (V) Adv (V), …(V) Adv (V), …

Nonfinite Nonfinite mainmain verbs…and negation… verbs…and negation… Ne Ne pas semblerpas sembler heureux est une condition pour écrire des heureux est une condition pour écrire des

romans.romans.NENE NEGNEG seemseeminfinf happy is a prerequisite for write happy is a prerequisite for writeinfinf of.the novels of.the novels‘Not to seem happy is a prerequisite for writing novels.’‘Not to seem happy is a prerequisite for writing novels.’

*Ne *Ne sembler passembler pas heureux est une condition pour écrire des heureux est une condition pour écrire des romans.romans. NENE seemseeminfinf NEGNEG happy is a prerequisite for writehappy is a prerequisite for writeinfinf of.the novels of.the novels ‘Not to seem happy is a prerequisite for writing novels.’ ‘Not to seem happy is a prerequisite for writing novels.’

Nonfinite main verbs can Nonfinite main verbs can not not move past negationmove past negation..

French and a problem…French and a problem… +Fin aux/verb:+Fin aux/verb:

V Adv, V neg V Adv, V neg Moves to T.Moves to T.

––Fin aux:Fin aux:(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V)(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V)(Opt.) Moves to T.(Opt.) Moves to T.

––Fin verb:Fin verb:(V) Adv (V), neg V(V) Adv (V), neg VMoves over adv not neg??Moves over adv not neg??

So we have the whole patternSo we have the whole pattern—and we didn’t predict it. —and we didn’t predict it. Where could the verb be Where could the verb be moving?moving? A head can’t adjoin A head can’t adjoin to an XP, it has to be moving to an XP, it has to be moving to a to a head. head. (Must remain X-(Must remain X-bar compliant)bar compliant)

V

VP

PP

T

TP DS

Neg

NegP

pas

ne

T

VAdvPsouvent

Neg

DPk

V

French and a problem…French and a problem… +Fin aux/verb:+Fin aux/verb:

V Adv, V neg V Adv, V neg Moves to T.Moves to T.

––Fin aux:Fin aux:(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V)(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V)(Opt.) Moves to T.(Opt.) Moves to T.

––Fin verb:Fin verb:(V) Adv (V), neg V(V) Adv (V), neg VMoves over adv not neg??Moves over adv not neg??

We need there to be a head We need there to be a head herehere in the tree for the verb to move in the tree for the verb to move to…to…

That means we need to insert a That means we need to insert a whole phrase (heads always head whole phrase (heads always head something)…something)…

V

VP

PP

T

TP DS

Neg

NegP

pas

ne

T

VAdvPsouvent

Neg

DPk

V

A new FPA new FP

+Fin aux/verb:+Fin aux/verb:V Adv, V neg V Adv, V neg Moves to (F, then to) T.Moves to (F, then to) T.

––Fin aux:Fin aux:(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V)(V) Adv (V), (V) neg (V)(Opt.) Moves to (F, then to) T.(Opt.) Moves to (F, then to) T.

––Fin verb:Fin verb:(V) Adv (V), neg V(V) Adv (V), neg V(Opt.) Moves to F(Opt.) Moves to F

Now we have a place for nonfinite Now we have a place for nonfinite main verbs to move, past adverbs main verbs to move, past adverbs but under negation. They can move but under negation. They can move to F.to F. V

VP

PP

T

TP DS

Neg

NegP

pas

ne

T

VAdvPsouvent

Neg

DPk

V

F

FP

F

What is FP?What is FP? Vous avez pris les pommes.Vous avez pris les pommes.

you have taken the applesyou have taken the apples 3MSG 3FPL3MSG 3FPL‘You took the apples.’‘You took the apples.’

Vous les avez prises.Vous les avez prises.you them have taken you them have taken 3PL 3FPL3PL 3FPL‘You took them (3fpl).’‘You took them (3fpl).’

Quelles pommes avez-vous Quelles pommes avez-vous prises?prises?Which apples have you Which apples have you takentaken 3FPL 3FPL 3FPL 3FPL‘Which apples did you take?’‘Which apples did you take?’

Vous avez pris la pomme.Vous avez pris la pomme.you have taken the appleyou have taken the apple 3MSG 3FSG3MSG 3FSG‘You took the apple.’‘You took the apple.’

Vous l’avez prise.Vous l’avez prise.you it have taken you it have taken 3SG 3FSG3SG 3FSG‘You took it (3fsg).’‘You took it (3fsg).’

Quelle pomme avez-vous Quelle pomme avez-vous prise?prise?Which apple have you Which apple have you takentaken 3FSG 3FSG 3FSG 3FSG‘Which apple did you take?’‘Which apple did you take?’

A new FPA new FP As the verb and the As the verb and the

object make their way object make their way up the tree, assuming up the tree, assuming the object moves to the object moves to SpecFP, there is a SpecFP, there is a point where the verb point where the verb and object are in a and object are in a Spec-head Spec-head configuration.configuration.

This is how the verb This is how the verb would check its object would check its object agreement features.agreement features.

Based on this, FP is Based on this, FP is generally called generally called AgrOPAgrOP. . Object Object agreement phraseagreement phrase..

VP

ti

T

TP

SS

T

Vtk

V

F

FP

F

C

CP

C

DPk

DPi

ti

AgrOPAgrOP AgrOPAgrOP, , Object Object

agreement phraseagreement phrase.. As the verb moves up As the verb moves up

to T, it has to stop off to T, it has to stop off in AgrOP in AgrOP (the Head (the Head Movement Constraint Movement Constraint requires it)requires it), forming , forming successively more successively more complex heads.complex heads. VV AgrO+VAgrO+V T+[AgrO+V]T+[AgrO+V]

But why does the But why does the object have to move to object have to move to SpecAgrOP?SpecAgrOP?

VP

ti

T

TP

SS

T

Vtk

V

AgrO

AgrOP

AgrO

C

CP

C

DPk

DPi

ti

AgrOPAgrOP Why does the object have to Why does the object have to

move to SpecAgrOP?move to SpecAgrOP? What makes DPs move? We What makes DPs move? We

know the subject moves. know the subject moves. Partly for the EPP, but Partly for the EPP, but partly partly to get Caseto get Case..

The subject gets Case in The subject gets Case in SpecTP, so we know Case SpecTP, so we know Case can be assigned to a can be assigned to a specifier.specifier.

What if we revise our notion What if we revise our notion of how objects get Case and of how objects get Case and say that they too get Case in say that they too get Case in a specifier, of AgrOP? Then a specifier, of AgrOP? Then it would have to move.it would have to move.

Plus, it’s pleasingly Plus, it’s pleasingly symmetricalsymmetrical (But see a problem? We’ll (But see a problem? We’ll

get to it shortly…)get to it shortly…)

VP

ti

T

TP

SS

T

Vtk

V

AgrO

AgrOP

AgrO

C

CP

C

DPk

DPi

ti

ECMECM AgrOP can solve a AgrOP can solve a

serious problem we serious problem we had in English toohad in English too……

Here’s the current way Here’s the current way we analyzed ECM we analyzed ECM sentences, where sentences, where me me gets Case from gets Case from wantwant because because meme is in the is in the “government radius” of “government radius” of wantwant..

The thing is, the The thing is, the embedded subject embedded subject actually acts like it’s in actually acts like it’s in the the matrix matrix clause clause somewhere.somewhere.

DPiBill

T

V

VP

wants

T

TPSS

VPTto

T

TP

leave

VVtk

DPk1sg

…

ti

V

ECMECM

Mary wants Mary wants herher to leave. to leave. Bill considers Bill considers himself himself to be a genius.to be a genius.

Before we said that the binding domain Before we said that the binding domain for anaphors and pronouns was a for anaphors and pronouns was a clause (say, TP—everything except CP).clause (say, TP—everything except CP).

HerHer and and himself himself above act like they are above act like they are in the higher clause with the matrix in the higher clause with the matrix subject.subject.

ECM vs. BTECM vs. BT Our options are basically toOur options are basically to

complicate the definition of binding domain in complicate the definition of binding domain in Binding TheoryBinding Theory

or toor to suppose the object has really moved out of the suppose the object has really moved out of the

embedded clause.embedded clause.

The textbook had a ridiculous drawing at The textbook had a ridiculous drawing at the end of ch. 9 and again in ch. 10, taking the end of ch. 9 and again in ch. 10, taking the second option and suggesting that we the second option and suggesting that we move the object out of the embedded clause move the object out of the embedded clause and make it a third branch under the matrix and make it a third branch under the matrix VV. This is . This is not not the way to go—We like our X-the way to go—We like our X-bar theory. But, now…bar theory. But, now…

ECMECM

IfIf There is an There is an

AgrOPAgrOP and and Normal objects Normal objects

generally go generally go there there and and

ECM subjects ECM subjects act like objects act like objects

Then Then We can suppose We can suppose

that ECM that ECM subjects move subjects move therethere. . No X-bar No X-bar problems.problems.

AgrO

V

VP

wants

AgrO

AgrOP

VPTto

T

TP

leave

VVtk

ti

DPiBill

T

TP

DPk1sg

tk

V

T

ECMECM

GreatGreat!! Except…Except…

So, true, no X-bar So, true, no X-bar problems.problems.

But this isn’t the But this isn’t the surface word order.surface word order. *Bill me wants to *Bill me wants to

leave.leave.

Where is BT checked? Where is BT checked? When is it important When is it important that pronouns be free that pronouns be free and anaphors be and anaphors be bound?bound?

AgrO

V

VP

wants

AgrO

AgrOP

VPTto

T

TP

leave

VVtk

ti

DPiBill

T

TP

DPk1sg

tk

V

T

ECMECM What’s special about What’s special about

ECM subjects?ECM subjects? CaseCase!!

All accusative objects All accusative objects move to SpecAgrOP move to SpecAgrOP (covertly in English if (covertly in English if they don’t need to move they don’t need to move on)on) to “check” Case. to “check” Case. They appear with a They appear with a Case, but it needs to be Case, but it needs to be verifiedverified by AgrO at LF. by AgrO at LF.

This is the standard This is the standard interpretation of AgrOP.interpretation of AgrOP.

Also another example of Also another example of “covert” movement “covert” movement between SS and LF.between SS and LF.

AgrO

V

VP

wants

AgrO

AgrOP

VPTto

T

TP

leave

VVtk

ti

DPiBill

T

TP

DPk1sg

tk

V

T

A moment of silence for A moment of silence for Case under governmentCase under government

Let’s take stock here for a second.Let’s take stock here for a second. French told us:French told us:

There needs to be an FP between NegP and VP.There needs to be an FP between NegP and VP. Objects that move past FP have to stop there (inducing object Objects that move past FP have to stop there (inducing object

agreement)—so FP is AgrOP.agreement)—so FP is AgrOP. Why do they Why do they havehave to stop in AgrOP? to stop in AgrOP?

They need Case. So AgrOP is what’s responsible for accusative They need Case. So AgrOP is what’s responsible for accusative Case.Case.

But V used to be responsible for thatBut V used to be responsible for that!! Yet now we have a more symmetrical solution; Case is always Yet now we have a more symmetrical solution; Case is always

assigned in the specifier of a functional projection. assigned in the specifier of a functional projection. (just about, (just about, anyway)anyway)

And we have no more need for the “government radius” in Case And we have no more need for the “government radius” in Case assignment now that ECM is taken care of too.assignment now that ECM is taken care of too.

Plus, we have evidence from binding theory that objects Plus, we have evidence from binding theory that objects dodo seem to seem to move by LF to someplace outside the clause in ECM constructions.move by LF to someplace outside the clause in ECM constructions.

A moment of silence for A moment of silence for Case under governmentCase under government

This is a step forward.This is a step forward. We have a simpler theory (Case is assigned in only one We have a simpler theory (Case is assigned in only one

way, we don’t need the strange-looking construct of way, we don’t need the strange-looking construct of “government radius”).“government radius”).

We have an account for why ECM subjects act like We have an account for why ECM subjects act like they’re in the higher clause by LF.they’re in the higher clause by LF.

Moreover, we have yet another reason to think that Moreover, we have yet another reason to think that there there is is an LF level.an LF level.

So what does it mean for a verb to “assign accusative So what does it mean for a verb to “assign accusative case”?case”? Sadly, this is one place where we pay for the elegance elsewhereSadly, this is one place where we pay for the elegance elsewhere

—”verb that assigns accusative case” is now another name for —”verb that assigns accusative case” is now another name for “verb that has an AgrOP above it.”“verb that has an AgrOP above it.”

In Syntax II, we’ll see a potential solution to even this apparent In Syntax II, we’ll see a potential solution to even this apparent inelegance, but for now we just assume that transitive verbs are inelegance, but for now we just assume that transitive verbs are those with an AgrOP above them.those with an AgrOP above them.

An AgrO you can see?An AgrO you can see?

Recall from earlier this semester that Irish is Recall from earlier this semester that Irish is VSO, but yet seems to be SVO at DS:VSO, but yet seems to be SVO at DS:

PhógPhóg Máire an lucharachán. Máire an lucharachán.kissedkissed Mary the leprechaun Mary the leprechaun‘Mary kissed the leprechaun.’‘Mary kissed the leprechaun.’

TáTá Máire ag- Máire ag-pógáilpógáil an lucharachán. an lucharachán.IsIs Mary ing- Mary ing-kisskiss the leprechaun the leprechaun‘Mary is kissing the leprechaun.’‘Mary is kissing the leprechaun.’

If an If an auxiliaryauxiliary occupies the verb slot at the occupies the verb slot at the beginning of the sentence, the main verb appears beginning of the sentence, the main verb appears between the subject and verb. Otherwise, the between the subject and verb. Otherwise, the verb moves to first position.verb moves to first position.

Northern IrishNorthern Irish

So, basically everything points to Irish being a So, basically everything points to Irish being a head-initial language except…head-initial language except…

Ba mhaith liom [Seán an abairt Ba mhaith liom [Seán an abairt a aLL scríobhscríobh]]C good with.C good with.1S 1S S.S.ACCACC the sentence. the sentence.ACCACC PRTPRT write write‘I want S to write the sentence.’‘I want S to write the sentence.’S writing the sentence is good with us (lit.)S writing the sentence is good with us (lit.) (cf. also (cf. also I want him to meet meI want him to meet me))

Ba mhaith liom [Seán fanacht]Ba mhaith liom [Seán fanacht]C good with.C good with.1S 1S S.S.ACCACC wait wait‘I want S to wait.’‘I want S to wait.’

Morphology on French Morphology on French verbsverbs

Past, varying persons:Past, varying persons: je mange-je mange-aiai--ss‘eat’‘eat’ tu mange-tu mange-aiai--ss

il mange-il mange-aiai--tt Fut, varying persons:Fut, varying persons: je mange-je mange-erer--aiai

‘eat’‘eat’ tu mange-tu mange-erer--asasil mange-il mange-erer--aa

Tense morphology is inside and separate Tense morphology is inside and separate from subject agreement morphology.from subject agreement morphology.

Kind of looks like after tense, another, Kind of looks like after tense, another, subjectsubject-agreeing morpheme is attached…-agreeing morpheme is attached…

AgrSP?AgrSP? AgrOPAgrOP, , Object Object

agreement phraseagreement phrase.. AgrSPAgrSP, , Subject Subject

agreement phraseagreement phrase?? Pleasingly Pleasingly

symmetricalsymmetrical!!

Complex heads:Complex heads: VV AgrO+VAgrO+V T+[AgrO+V]T+[AgrO+V] AgrS+[T+AgrS+[T+

[AgrO+V]][AgrO+V]]

VP

ti

T

TP

T

Vtk

V

AgrO

AgrOP

AgrO

AgrS

AgrSP

AgrS

DPk

DPk

ti

C

C

Split-INFLSplit-INFL The assumption of The assumption of

this structure is this structure is sometimes referred sometimes referred to as the “Split-to as the “Split-INFL” hypothesis;INFL” hypothesis; the INFLectional the INFLectional nodes have been nodes have been “split” into “split” into subject subject agreementagreement, , tensetense, , and and object object agreementagreement.. VP

T

TP

T

V

V

AgrO

AgrOP

AgrO

AgrS

AgrSP

AgrS

DP

DP

C

C

The EPPThe EPP& NOM& NOM

We said before the T needs a We said before the T needs a specifier (at SS), that’s the specifier (at SS), that’s the essential content of the EPP. Plus, essential content of the EPP. Plus, we said before that this is where we said before that this is where NOM is assigned.NOM is assigned.

Now there is AgrSP as well.Now there is AgrSP as well. AgrOP is responsible for ACC.AgrOP is responsible for ACC. In a symmetrical world, seems like In a symmetrical world, seems like

AgrSP should be responsible for AgrSP should be responsible for NOM.NOM.

So, now that (kind of mysterious) So, now that (kind of mysterious) double motivation for moving to double motivation for moving to SpecTP has been clarified: The SpecTP has been clarified: The subject has to move to both subject has to move to both SpecTP and SpecAgrSP, but each SpecTP and SpecAgrSP, but each movement happens for a different movement happens for a different reason. T for EPP, AgrSP for NOM.reason. T for EPP, AgrSP for NOM.

VP

T

TP

T

V

V

AgrO

AgrOP

AgrO

AgrS

AgrSP

AgrS

DP

DP

C

C

Adopting the Split-INFL Adopting the Split-INFL hypothesishypothesis

Lots of good syntax has been done both Lots of good syntax has been done both adopting adopting the Split-INFL hypothesis the Split-INFL hypothesis (trees contain AgrSP, (trees contain AgrSP, TP, AgrOP) or TP, AgrOP) or notnot (trees contain only TP). (trees contain only TP).

For many things, it doesn’t matter which you For many things, it doesn’t matter which you choose—analyses can be directly translated into a choose—analyses can be directly translated into a Split-INFL tree or vice-versa.Split-INFL tree or vice-versa.

Where it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter, but Where it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter, but sometimes it matters.sometimes it matters.

Adopting the Split-INFL Adopting the Split-INFL hypothesishypothesis

The general program is that every dissociable The general program is that every dissociable piece of the structure should get its own piece of the structure should get its own place in the lexicon, its own functional head…place in the lexicon, its own functional head… Subject agreement is basically common Subject agreement is basically common acrossacross

verbs, an independent piece.verbs, an independent piece. Tense too is an independent piece.Tense too is an independent piece. And object agreementAnd object agreement And… plural marking… and progressive -And… plural marking… and progressive -inging, ,

aspectual -aspectual -enen, …, … In Syntax II, we’ll spend a lot of the semester In Syntax II, we’ll spend a lot of the semester

looking at places in the tree where functional looking at places in the tree where functional projections need to be added.projections need to be added.

Split-INFLSplit-INFL In recent literature, In recent literature,

almost everything you almost everything you read will make this read will make this assumption, that cross-assumption, that cross-linguistically, the clause linguistically, the clause is minimally constructed is minimally constructed of these projections, of these projections, generally in this order:generally in this order: CPCP AgrSPAgrSP TPTP AgrOPAgrOP VPVP

VP

T

TP

T

AgrO

AgrOP

AgrO

AgrS

AgrSP

AgrS

C

C

CP

A word about the PPA word about the PP Actually, there is one place where we haven’t Actually, there is one place where we haven’t

unified Case-assignment, namely the oblique unified Case-assignment, namely the oblique Case that is assigned to the complement of P.Case that is assigned to the complement of P.

For now (this whole semester), we’ll just leave it For now (this whole semester), we’ll just leave it at that.at that.

P P cancan assign oblique Case to its sister, although V assign oblique Case to its sister, although V cannot assign accusative Case to its sister.cannot assign accusative Case to its sister. So DPs that are objects of prepositions don’t need to go So DPs that are objects of prepositions don’t need to go

anywhere, they’re fine where they are.anywhere, they’re fine where they are. Sometimes the distinction is made between Sometimes the distinction is made between

structuralstructural and and inherentinherent Case: Case: Structural Case (NOM, ACC)Structural Case (NOM, ACC) is assigned by movement to is assigned by movement to

someplace in the structure (SpecAgrOP, SpecAgrSP).someplace in the structure (SpecAgrOP, SpecAgrSP). Inherent CaseInherent Case is assigned in place, e.g., by P. is assigned in place, e.g., by P.

And back to little And back to little vv……

John gave the book to MaryJohn gave the book to Mary..

Recall that this is the structure Recall that this is the structure that we came up with to get the that we came up with to get the word order right, and to comply word order right, and to comply with X-bar theory.with X-bar theory.

We determined there must be a We determined there must be a “little “little vv”, a light verb, to which ”, a light verb, to which the V moves overtly. This little the V moves overtly. This little vv assigns the Agent assigns the Agent -role. So -role. So English has a English has a vv in its lexicon that in its lexicon that assigns the Agent assigns the Agent -role.-role.

A somewhat radical idea occurs…A somewhat radical idea occurs… IO

V

V

VP

DO

v

v

vP

SUB

VP shellsVP shells Let’s go back and consider VP shells a bit in Let’s go back and consider VP shells a bit in

connection with unaccusatives.connection with unaccusatives.

The ice melted.The ice melted. The boat sank. The boat sank. The door closed. The door closed.

The iceThe ice, , the boatthe boat, , the doorthe door are all are all ThemesThemes, , suggesting that the verbs are unaccusative—the suggesting that the verbs are unaccusative—the argument starts in object position.argument starts in object position.

DP

V

V

VP

the icemelt

VP shellsVP shells So far, so good.So far, so good. Now, Now, Bill melted the iceBill melted the ice.. The ice The ice is still is still ThemeTheme. The verb is . The verb is

still still meltmelt.. Uniform Theta Assignment Uniform Theta Assignment

HypothesisHypothesis ( (UTAHUTAH) (Baker 1988):) (Baker 1988): Two arguments which fulfill the Two arguments which fulfill the same thematic function with same thematic function with respect to a given predicate must respect to a given predicate must occupy the same underlying (DS) occupy the same underlying (DS) position in the syntax.position in the syntax.

So So the ice the ice must still be a must still be a complement of the verb at DS.complement of the verb at DS.

DP

V

V

VP

the icemelt

VP shellsVP shells In In Bill melted the iceBill melted the ice what have we what have we

done?done? We’ve added a We’ve added a causercauser, an , an agent.agent. Bill caused [the ice to melt].Bill caused [the ice to melt].

We’ve already supposed that the We’ve already supposed that the light verb light verb vv assigns the assigns the AgentAgent --role in ditransitives…role in ditransitives…

It isn’t much of a jump to think of It isn’t much of a jump to think of vv as actually having a contribution to as actually having a contribution to the the meaning, meaning, something like something like CAUSE.CAUSE.

DP

V

V

VP

the icemelt

VP shellsVP shells Bill melted the iceBill melted the ice.. So, something like this, where So, something like this, where

the main verb moves up to the the main verb moves up to the light verb light verb (which we had (which we had evidence for in ditransitives)evidence for in ditransitives).. Later, Later, BillBill will move to SpecTP, will move to SpecTP,

SpecAgrSP for Case and EPP SpecAgrSP for Case and EPP reasons.reasons.

Why does V move to Why does V move to vv?? We’ll We’ll assume that it does this for a assume that it does this for a reason analogous to why V reason analogous to why V moves to T (for French verbs, moves to T (for French verbs, say). Might be universal, say). Might be universal, actually. “actually. “vv needs a V to move to needs a V to move to it”.it”.

v

v

vP

DP

V

V

VP

the icemelt

DPBill

VP shellsVP shells NoteNote.. Even though Even though vv may carry a may carry a

“causative” meaning, this does “causative” meaning, this does notnot mean mean that it is synonymous with the English that it is synonymous with the English word “word “causecause”. There is a difference in the ”. There is a difference in the “directness” of the causal connection. “directness” of the causal connection. What it really seems closest to is “Agent”.What it really seems closest to is “Agent”.

The water boiled.The water boiled. Bill boiled the waterBill boiled the water

BillBillii T T ttii vv+boil the water+boil the water Bill caused the water to boilBill caused the water to boil

Bill cause TPBill cause TP

Back to the radical Back to the radical idea…idea…

So, we have So, we have vv, which assigns an Agent , which assigns an Agent -role.-role.

We have Agent We have Agent -roles in clauses other than -roles in clauses other than Bill Bill sank the boatsank the boat and and Bill gave a boat to EdwardBill gave a boat to Edward..

We also have an Agent We also have an Agent -role in sentences like -role in sentences like Bill ate the sandwichBill ate the sandwich..

Are there two ways to assign the Agent Are there two ways to assign the Agent -role?-role? What if What if vv is is thethe way the Agent way the Agent -role is assigned?-role is assigned? What would What would Bill ate the sandwichBill ate the sandwich look like? look like?

Bill ate the sandwichBill ate the sandwich Well, we already saw essentially Well, we already saw essentially

what it would look like. It looks what it would look like. It looks just like just like Bill melted the iceBill melted the ice..

vv assigns Agent to assigns Agent to BillBill, V (, V (eateat) ) assigns Theme to assigns Theme to the sandwichthe sandwich..

Also noteAlso note: The subject is still in : The subject is still in “SpecVP” except that we’ve “SpecVP” except that we’ve sharpened our picture of what sharpened our picture of what “VP” is. A “VP” with an Agent is “VP” is. A “VP” with an Agent is really a really a vvP and a VP.P and a VP.

v

v

vP

DP

V

V

VP

thesandwich

eat

DPBill

Bill lied.Bill lied. In fact, things get weirder…In fact, things get weirder… Consider Consider Bill liedBill lied.. That’s got an Agent, so it’s That’s got an Agent, so it’s

got a got a vv..

So, it could look like this.So, it could look like this.

But But lielie is really (also?) a is really (also?) a noun, right? Is this a noun, right? Is this a coincidence?coincidence? (How about (How about Bill dancedBill danced, , Bill Bill

walkedwalked, , Bill sneezedBill sneezed, …), …)

v

v

vP

V

V

VP

lie

DPBill

Bill lied?Bill lied? One proposal out there about One proposal out there about

this kind of verb is that it this kind of verb is that it really really isis built from the noun. built from the noun.

That is, we have That is, we have vv+N, which +N, which would come out to mean would come out to mean something like ‘Bill was the something like ‘Bill was the agent of a lie.’agent of a lie.’

IfIf that’s right, it means that’s right, it means vv really is its own thing, and really is its own thing, and moreover, it’s responsible for moreover, it’s responsible for giving these verbs their verby giving these verbs their verby nature.nature.

v

v

vP

N

N

NP

lie

DPBill

The sandwich was eatenThe sandwich was eaten Let’s think about passives.Let’s think about passives.

What happens in a passive?What happens in a passive? The Agent The Agent -role is suppressed.-role is suppressed. Accusative Case is no longer Accusative Case is no longer

available to the object. available to the object.

What does that mean in What does that mean in these terms, considering these terms, considering vv to to be the thing that assigns be the thing that assigns Agent and AgrOP to be the Agent and AgrOP to be the thing that gives Case?thing that gives Case?

v

v

vP

DP

V

V

VP

thesandwich

eat

DPBill

AgrO

AgrO

AgrOP

The sandwich was eatenThe sandwich was eaten Sure, no Sure, no vvP, no AgrOP.P, no AgrOP.

Everything else follows as Everything else follows as before:before: The sandwichThe sandwich needs Case. needs Case. SpecTP needs to be filled.SpecTP needs to be filled. The sandwichThe sandwich moves to SpecTP. moves to SpecTP. The sandwich The sandwich moves to moves to

SpecAgrSP.SpecAgrSP.

Burzio’s generalization is now Burzio’s generalization is now that there is an AgrOP if and that there is an AgrOP if and only if there is a only if there is a vvP. They P. They come and go together.come and go together.

DP

V

V

VP

thesandwich

eat

The sandwich was eatenThe sandwich was eaten So, we end up with something So, we end up with something

like this, where AspP is where like this, where AspP is where vvP used to be.P used to be.

(Since passive is actually a (Since passive is actually a different sort of thing from different sort of thing from aspectual aspectual have eatenhave eaten and and be be eatingeating, sometimes people call , sometimes people call this VoiceP)this VoiceP)

Asp

Asp

AspP

DP

V

V

VP

thesandwich

eat

-en

V

V

VP

be

And back to ditransitivesAnd back to ditransitives

In the split-INFL system, we In the split-INFL system, we have something like this:have something like this:

The V moves to The V moves to vv, and , and eventually to AgrO.eventually to AgrO.

AgrO assigns Case, and it AgrO assigns Case, and it should only be compatible with should only be compatible with transitive verbs, so transitive verbs, so vv needs to needs to get close enough to verify that get close enough to verify that they match (we can think of they match (we can think of this as AgrO “pulling up” the this as AgrO “pulling up” the vv). ). (Perhaps source of BG?)(Perhaps source of BG?)

The object moves to The object moves to SpecAgrOP to get/check Case.SpecAgrOP to get/check Case.

The subject moves up to TP and The subject moves up to TP and SpecAgrSP.SpecAgrSP.

IO

V

V

VP

DO

v

v

vP

SUB

AgrO

AgrO

AgrOP