Week 10. LF CAS LX 522 Syntax I. The Y model We’re now ready to tackle the most abstract branch of the Y-model, the mapping from SS to LF. Here is where.

Week 10. LFWeek 10. LF

CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax I

The Y modelThe Y model We’re now ready to tackle the most abstract We’re now ready to tackle the most abstract

branch of the Y-model, the mapping from SS branch of the Y-model, the mapping from SS to LF. Here is where we have “movement to LF. Here is where we have “movement that you can’t see”.that you can’t see”.

DS

SS

LFPF

X-bar theory

Covert movement

Phonology/Morphology

TheorySubcategorization

Binding theory

Case theory, EPP

Overt movement,Expletive insertion

DerivationsDerivations

We think of what we’re doing when We think of what we’re doing when we construct abstract structures of we construct abstract structures of sentences this way as being a sentences this way as being a sequence of steps.sequence of steps.

We start with DSWe start with DS We do some movementsWe do some movements We arrive at SSWe arrive at SS We do some more movementsWe do some more movements We arrive at LFWe arrive at LF

DerivationsDerivations The steps are not necessarily a reflection The steps are not necessarily a reflection

of what we are doing of what we are doing onlineonline as we speak— as we speak—what we are doing is what we are doing is characterizing our characterizing our knowledge of languageknowledge of language, and it turns out , and it turns out that we can predict our intuitions about that we can predict our intuitions about what sentences are good and bad and what what sentences are good and bad and what different sentences mean by characterizing different sentences mean by characterizing the relationship between underlying the relationship between underlying thematic relations, surface form, and thematic relations, surface form, and interpretation in terms of movements in an interpretation in terms of movements in an order with constraints on what movements order with constraints on what movements are possible.are possible.


It seems that the simplest explanation for the It seems that the simplest explanation for the complex facts of grammar is in terms of complex facts of grammar is in terms of several small modifications to the DS that several small modifications to the DS that each are subject to certain constraints, each are subject to certain constraints, sometimes even things which seem to sometimes even things which seem to indicate that one operation has to occur indicate that one operation has to occur before another could.before another could.

DS LF


Concerning SS, under this view, languages pick a Concerning SS, under this view, languages pick a point to focus on between DS and LF and point to focus on between DS and LF and pronounce that structure. This is (the basis for) SS.pronounce that structure. This is (the basis for) SS.

There are also certain restrictions on the form SS There are also certain restrictions on the form SS has (e.g., Case, EPP have to be satisfied).has (e.g., Case, EPP have to be satisfied).

DS LFSS


Although speaking sloppily we might say Although speaking sloppily we might say that movements that happen in the part of that movements that happen in the part of the derivation between SS and LF happen the derivation between SS and LF happen “after pronunciation” this doesn’t imply “after pronunciation” this doesn’t imply that that in timein time we arrived at SS, pronounced, we arrived at SS, pronounced, and then did further syntactic computation.and then did further syntactic computation.

DS LFSS


It’s just that parts that happen between SS It’s just that parts that happen between SS and LF are invisible to the pronunciation and LF are invisible to the pronunciation because all of the changes (movements, etc.) because all of the changes (movements, etc.) that occur between DS and SS are reflected in that occur between DS and SS are reflected in the SS representation that we focus on, and the SS representation that we focus on, and none of the changes that occur between SS none of the changes that occur between SS and LF are.and LF are.

DS LFSS

DerivationsDerivations Because we can’t Because we can’t seesee ( (hearhear) them, the ) them, the

things that happen between SS and LF things that happen between SS and LF are more difficult to detect—we have to are more difficult to detect—we have to rely on somewhat indirect evidence. rely on somewhat indirect evidence. That’s what we’ll be focusing on today.That’s what we’ll be focusing on today.

DS LFSS

QuantifiersQuantifiers

We interpret We interpret Bill saw everyoneBill saw everyone as as For every person For every person xx, Bill saw , Bill saw xx..

This is the meaning. This is the This is the meaning. This is the logical formlogical form of the sentence of the sentence Bill saw Bill saw everyoneeveryone. In the notation of formal . In the notation of formal logic, this is written aslogic, this is written asx. Bill saw xx. Bill saw x‘For all ‘For all xx ( (xx a person), Bill saw a person), Bill saw xx.’.’


Every boy hates his roommate.Every boy hates his roommate. Notice that each boy hates a different Notice that each boy hates a different

roommate, the roommates are specific roommate, the roommates are specific to each boy.to each boy.

For every boy For every boy xx, , xx hates hates xx’s ’s roommate.roommate.

This means that This means that every boyevery boy doesn’t just doesn’t just mean the group of boys; rather it goes mean the group of boys; rather it goes through the set of boys and says through the set of boys and says something about each of them something about each of them individually.individually.


These phrases which don’t refer to These phrases which don’t refer to specific people/things in the world specific people/things in the world but rather seem to do things to sets but rather seem to do things to sets of people/things are of people/things are quantifiersquantifiers. . Examples include:Examples include: most studentsmost students twelve angry mentwelve angry men fewer than half of the membersfewer than half of the members some custodiansome custodian nobody in their right mindnobody in their right mind

QPQP What is the category of a What is the category of a

quantifier like quantifier like most studentsmost students?? Well, it goes basically in all the Well, it goes basically in all the

same places a DP goes. Like same places a DP goes. Like which studentwhich student or or whatwhat or or whowho..

So, like what we said for So, like what we said for whwh--phrases, phrases, quantifier phrases are quantifier phrases are really DPs with an extra propertyreally DPs with an extra property (they’re quantificational). (they’re quantificational). Sometimes people write QP, but Sometimes people write QP, but they mean ‘a quantificational they mean ‘a quantificational DP’.DP’.

student

NP

N

N

DP

D

Devery

[+quant]

QPQP

student

NP

N

N

DP

D

Devery

[+quant]

RestrictionsRestrictions To reiterate, quantifiers are used to say To reiterate, quantifiers are used to say

something about something about individuals in a setindividuals in a set.. Most students like syntax.Most students like syntax. The set (sometimes, The set (sometimes, restrictionrestriction) is the set of ) is the set of

students.students. This says that, if you check This says that, if you check allall of the students of the students

individually to see if individually to see if eacheach likes syntax, you’ll likes syntax, you’ll find that most (more than half) of the students find that most (more than half) of the students you checked do.you checked do.

For each x in students, does x like syntax? Did For each x in students, does x like syntax? Did we answer “yes” for most of the ones we we answer “yes” for most of the ones we checked?checked?


To write the logical form (meaning) of a To write the logical form (meaning) of a sentence with one of these, you put the sentence with one of these, you put the quantifier first, and replace where it came quantifier first, and replace where it came from with a variable:from with a variable:

Most students eat at Taco Bell.Most students eat at Taco Bell.For most students For most students xx, , xx eats at Taco Bell eats at Taco Bell

No administrators eat at Taco Bell.No administrators eat at Taco Bell.For no administrator For no administrator xx, , xx eats at Taco Bell eats at Taco Bell

Mary likes every flavor of ice cream.Mary likes every flavor of ice cream.For every flavor of ice cream For every flavor of ice cream xx, Mary likes , Mary likes xx

BindingBinding A quantifier is said to A quantifier is said to bindbind its variable. its variable.

That is, the reference of the variable is That is, the reference of the variable is assigned by the quantifier.assigned by the quantifier.

Bill read every book.Bill read every book.For every book For every book xx, Bill read , Bill read xx

Is this true? Well, let’s go through the Is this true? Well, let’s go through the books. books. Moby DickMoby Dick. Did Bill read . Did Bill read Moby Moby DickDick? Yes. Ok, ? Yes. Ok, War and PeaceWar and Peace. Did Bill . Did Bill read read War and PeaceWar and Peace? Yes. Ok, …? Yes. Ok, …

ScopeScope

A student read every book.A student read every book. When is this true?When is this true?

Mary, it turns out, has read all of the Mary, it turns out, has read all of the books.books.

Nobody has read everything, but Mary read Nobody has read everything, but Mary read half of the books and Bill read the other half of the books and Bill read the other half. Every book was read by a student.half. Every book was read by a student.

There are two meanings here, the There are two meanings here, the sentence is ambiguous between two sentence is ambiguous between two logical forms.logical forms.

ScopeScope

A student read every bookA student read every bookThere is a student There is a student xx such that such that

for every book for every book yy, , xx read read yyororFor every book For every book yy, there is a student , there is a student xx

such that such that xx read read yy It matters which quantifier comes It matters which quantifier comes

first in the logical form.first in the logical form.

ScopeScope This is perfectly logical. A quantifier takes a set This is perfectly logical. A quantifier takes a set

of individuals and checks to see if something is of individuals and checks to see if something is true of the individual members of the set.true of the individual members of the set.

A student read every book.A student read every book. (Namely, Mary)(Namely, Mary) In the set of students, we find that it is true that for In the set of students, we find that it is true that for

at least one student at least one student xx: : xx read every book read every book.. In the set of students, we find that it is true that for In the set of students, we find that it is true that for

at least one student at least one student xx:: In the set of books, we find In the set of books, we find that it is true that for each book that it is true that for each book yy, , xx read read yy..

There is a student There is a student xx such that for every book such that for every book yy, , xx read read yy..

x x students students : : y y booksbooks: : xx read read yy..

ScopeScope A student read every book.A student read every book. (They were all (They were all

covered, though not necessarily by one covered, though not necessarily by one student)student) In the set of books, we find that it is true that In the set of books, we find that it is true that

for each book for each book xx: : a student read a student read xx.. In the set of books, we find that it is true that In the set of books, we find that it is true that

for each book for each book xx:: In the set of students, we find In the set of students, we find that it is true that for at least one student that it is true that for at least one student yy, , yy read read xx..

For every book For every book xx, there is a student , there is a student yy such that such that yy read read xx..

x x booksbooks: : y y studentsstudents: : yy read read xx..

LFLF We think about this kind of ambiguity in We think about this kind of ambiguity in

much the same way we think aboutmuch the same way we think aboutMary heard a dog bark in the house.Mary heard a dog bark in the house. (either Mary was in the house or the dog (either Mary was in the house or the dog

was)was) This (above) is a This (above) is a syntacticsyntactic ambiguity, ambiguity,

depending on where the PP depending on where the PP in the housein the house is attached.is attached.

If there are two different interpretations, If there are two different interpretations, there are two different there are two different structuresstructures..

LFLF

LF is the LF is the structurestructure that we interpret, that we interpret, LF is the LF is the structurestructure that represents that represents the logical form.the logical form.

As syntacticians, we think of this As syntacticians, we think of this structure in the same way we think of structure in the same way we think of DS and SS—as a tree, with DS and SS—as a tree, with constituents and c-command and X-constituents and c-command and X-bar conformity.bar conformity.

QRQR

Sue read every book.Sue read every book.For every book For every book xx, Sue read , Sue read xx..

We need two parts, the We need two parts, the setset and the and the individualindividual..

Between SS and LF, the quantifier Between SS and LF, the quantifier movesmoves to a position above the sentence, so there is to a position above the sentence, so there is then a direct mapping between the then a direct mapping between the structure and the logical form.structure and the logical form.

[every book][every book]ii [ [TPTP Sue read Sue read ttii ]. ].

QRQR



Notice that the Notice that the tracetrace is the variable at is the variable at logical form—moving quantifiers is a logical form—moving quantifiers is a way to establish a quantifier-variable way to establish a quantifier-variable structure.structure.

QRQR



This movement is called This movement is called Quantifier Quantifier RaisingRaising ( (QRQR), and it happens to ), and it happens to everyevery quantifier between SS and quantifier between SS and LF.LF.

Quantifiers and bindingQuantifiers and binding

Every girl aced her exams.Every girl aced her exams. [Every girl][Every girl]ii [ [ ttii aced her aced herii exams] exams] For every girl For every girl xx, , xx aced aced xx’s exams’s exams

Not only the trace of QR, but also Not only the trace of QR, but also pronouns, can be bound by the pronouns, can be bound by the quantifier, their referent determined quantifier, their referent determined by the quantifier.by the quantifier.

Quantifiers and bindingQuantifiers and binding

[Every girl][Every girl]ii [ [ ttii aced her aced herii exams] exams] Binding (assigning reference) is subject to c-Binding (assigning reference) is subject to c-

command. A quantifier can only assign command. A quantifier can only assign reference to a variable (its trace and possibly reference to a variable (its trace and possibly other pronouns) which it c-commands.other pronouns) which it c-commands.

Her brother said that every girl aced her examsHer brother said that every girl aced her exams.. The things which a quantifier c-commands are The things which a quantifier c-commands are

said to be in itssaid to be in its scope. scope.

Quantifiers can only bind variables in their Quantifiers can only bind variables in their scope.scope.

Why believe in QR?Why believe in QR?

The thing is:The thing is: QR is invisibleQR is invisible, it is , it is supposed to happen between SS and supposed to happen between SS and LF, and since SS is (the basis for) LF, and since SS is (the basis for) the structure we the structure we hearhear, we can’t hear , we can’t hear its effects—the effect shows up only its effects—the effect shows up only in the meaning.in the meaning.

So, is QR just gratuitous So, is QR just gratuitous formalization? Syntacticians just not formalization? Syntacticians just not knowing when to knowing when to stop stop already?already?

QRQR

Here’s one reason to think that QR is Here’s one reason to think that QR is real, that QR is actually real, that QR is actually syntactic syntactic movementmovement and not just figments of and not just figments of the imagination of overeager the imagination of overeager syntacticians: syntacticians: QR QR actsacts like like movementmovement..

We can detect QR by meanings in We can detect QR by meanings in sentences with multiple quantifiers—sentences with multiple quantifiers—i.e. in i.e. in someone likes everyonesomeone likes everyone..

QRQR

A doctor assisted every patient.A doctor assisted every patient. Which patient did a doctor assist Which patient did a doctor assist tt??

A doctor spread the rumor that Bill A doctor spread the rumor that Bill immunized every patient.immunized every patient.

*Which patient did a doctor spread the *Which patient did a doctor spread the rumor that Bill immunized rumor that Bill immunized t t ??

A doctor wondered who immunized every A doctor wondered who immunized every patient.patient.

*Which patient did a doctor wonder who *Which patient did a doctor wonder who immunized immunized tt ? ?

QRQR

LF:LF: *[Every patient] *[Every patient]ii [[TPTP a doctor wondered a doctor wondered[[CPCP who whojj [[TPTP ttjj immunized immunized ttii ]]]]]]

LF:LF: *[Every patient] *[Every patient]ii [[TPTP a doctor spread a doctor spread[[DPDP the rumor [ the rumor [CPCP that Bill that Bill

immunized immunized ttii ] ]]]]]

QR obeys island constraintsQR obeys island constraints—like —like whwh--movement, it can’t get out of a complex noun movement, it can’t get out of a complex noun phrase, it can’t get out of a phrase, it can’t get out of a whwh-island.-island.

QRQR

Another reason to believe in QR:Another reason to believe in QR: What did Sue buy?What did Sue buy? Pick the Pick the xx such that Sue bought such that Sue bought xx.. The interpretation of The interpretation of whwh-words has -words has

the same kind of operator-variable the same kind of operator-variable structure that quantifiers do.structure that quantifiers do.

The difference is that The difference is that whwh-movement -movement happens where we can see it, but it happens where we can see it, but it still leaves a variable behind, bound still leaves a variable behind, bound by the quantifier (by the quantifier (whwh-word).-word).

WCOWCO

There is an interesting property of There is an interesting property of this kind of operator-variable this kind of operator-variable formation, which we can see in formation, which we can see in whwh--movement.movement.

Who likes his roommate?Who likes his roommate? Pick the Pick the xx such that such that xx likes likes xx’s ’s

roommate.roommate. WhoWhoii [ [TPTP ttii likes his likes hisii roommate] roommate] Like with quantifiers, it is possible to Like with quantifiers, it is possible to

have a pronoun bound by a have a pronoun bound by a whwh-word.-word.

WCOWCO

But now consider this:But now consider this: Who does his roommate like?Who does his roommate like? Can this mean the same thing as Can this mean the same thing as

Whose roommate likes himWhose roommate likes him?? *Who*Whoii does his does hisii roommate like roommate like ttii ? ? How is this different fromHow is this different from WhoWhoii ttii likes his likes hisii roommate? roommate?

WCOWCO

*Who*Whoii does his does hisii roommate like roommate like ttii ? ? WhoWhoii ttii likes his likes hisii roommate? roommate?

The difference lies in the fact that the The difference lies in the fact that the whwh--phrase had to phrase had to cross overcross over the coindexed the coindexed pronoun on its way to SpecCP. This appears to pronoun on its way to SpecCP. This appears to be impossible, and we can state this as follows:be impossible, and we can state this as follows:

Weak Crossover (WCO):Weak Crossover (WCO): A coindexed pronoun A coindexed pronoun cannot intervene between a quantifier and its cannot intervene between a quantifier and its variable.variable.

WCOWCO

Now, let’s look at quantifiers again.Now, let’s look at quantifiers again. Every girl likes her roommate.Every girl likes her roommate. For every girl For every girl xx, , xx likes likes xx’s roommate.’s roommate. Her roommate likes every girl.Her roommate likes every girl. For every girl For every girl xx, , xx’s roommate likes ’s roommate likes xx.. Why can’t the second sentence have Why can’t the second sentence have

this meaning?this meaning?

WCOWCO

[Every girl][Every girl]ii [ [TPTP ttii likes her likes herii roommate]. roommate]. For every girl For every girl xx, , xx likes likes xx’s roommate.’s roommate.

[Every girl][Every girl]ii [ [TPTP her herii roommate likes roommate likes ttii ]. ]. For every girl For every girl xx, , xx’s roommate likes ’s roommate likes xx..

Answer: WCO again.Answer: WCO again. But WCO is about But WCO is about moving a quantifier over a variable—so if moving a quantifier over a variable—so if WCO rules out this meaning, there must WCO rules out this meaning, there must have been movement. have been movement. There must have been There must have been QRQR. A movement we couldn’t see.. A movement we couldn’t see.

ACDACD

Here’s another reason, Here’s another reason, antecedent antecedent contained deletioncontained deletion. This one’s kind of . This one’s kind of complicated, so hang on tight.complicated, so hang on tight.

First, we need to talk about First, we need to talk about VP VP ellipsisellipsis..

Mary bought a record, and Bill did too.Mary bought a record, and Bill did too. [[TPTP Mary -ed [ Mary -ed [VPVP buy a record]] and buy a record]] and

[[TPTP Bill -ed [ Bill -ed [VPVP buy a record]] too. buy a record]] too.

VP ellipsisVP ellipsis

Mary bought a record and Bill Mary bought a record and Bill bought a tapebought a tape. ≠ . ≠ Mary bought a Mary bought a record and Bill did too.record and Bill did too.

VP ellipsis is allowed VP ellipsis is allowed when a when a preceding VP is identicalpreceding VP is identical..

To To interpretinterpret this, you need to use the this, you need to use the content of the preceding VP.content of the preceding VP.

Mary bought a record and Bill did Mary bought a record and Bill did (buy a record) too.(buy a record) too.

VP ellipsisVP ellipsis We will consider the process of VP ellipsis to We will consider the process of VP ellipsis to

be one of be one of deletion under identitydeletion under identity.. DS:DS:

-ed [-ed [VPVP Mary sleep] and -ed [ Mary sleep] and -ed [VPVP Bill sleep] too. Bill sleep] too. SS:SS:

Mary -ed [Mary -ed [VPVP tt sleep] and Bill -ed [ sleep] and Bill -ed [VPVP tt sleep] too sleep] too LF:LF:

Mary -ed [Mary -ed [VPVP tt sleep] and Bill -ed [ sleep] and Bill -ed [VPVP tt sleep] too sleep] too just after SS on the way to PF:just after SS on the way to PF:

Mary -ed [Mary -ed [VPVP tt sleep] and Bill -ed [ sleep] and Bill -ed [VPVP tt sleep] too sleep] tooMary slept and Bill did tooMary slept and Bill did too


So, as long as two VPs in sequence So, as long as two VPs in sequence look identicallook identical (where traces of (where traces of movement look identical to one movement look identical to one another—they sound the same), another—they sound the same), we we are allowed to pronounce the second are allowed to pronounce the second one one very quietlyvery quietly..

Like an extreme case ofLike an extreme case ofMary bought a record andMary bought a record and

Bill Bill bought a record bought a record too.too.


Note that Note that identityidentity is actually fairly is actually fairly abstract.abstract.

John slept and Mary will too.John slept and Mary will too. John slept and Mary will John slept and Mary will sleepsleep too. too. SS:SS:

John -ed [John -ed [VPVP tt sleep] and Mary will [ sleep] and Mary will [VPVP tt sleep] toosleep] too Also, further support for “affix hopping” being Also, further support for “affix hopping” being

“phonological” (after SS, on the way to PF); “phonological” (after SS, on the way to PF); the V doesn’t the V doesn’t inherentlyinherently have a tense suffix. have a tense suffix.

ACDACD

Now, consider a DP with a relative clause:Now, consider a DP with a relative clause: the record [whichthe record [whichii Mary bought Mary bought ttii ]. ].

Bill likes [the record which Mary bought].Bill likes [the record which Mary bought].

Bill likes the record which Mary bought and Bill likes the record which Mary bought and Sue does too.Sue does too.

Bill likes the record which Mary bought and Bill likes the record which Mary bought and Sue does (like the record which Mary bought) Sue does (like the record which Mary bought) too.too.

ACDACD

Bill likes every book Mary does.Bill likes every book Mary does. Bill [Bill [VPVP likes every book likes every book OpOpii Mary [ Mary [VPVP likes likes ttii ]]. ]]. VP:VP: likes [every book likes [every book OpOp Mary likes Mary likes t t ]] VP:VP: likes likes tt Those aren’t the same. VP ellipsis Those aren’t the same. VP ellipsis shouldn’t shouldn’t

work, but yet it does.work, but yet it does. The deleted VP is The deleted VP is contained contained in the antecedent in the antecedent

VPVP ( (antecedent-contained deletionantecedent-contained deletion))

QR and ACDQR and ACD But now let’s consider what QR would do.But now let’s consider what QR would do. Every book that Mary likesEvery book that Mary likes is a quantifier. is a quantifier. Quantifiers have to move up past the subject by Quantifiers have to move up past the subject by

LF.LF. Bill likes every book Mary does.Bill likes every book Mary does. SS:SS:

Bill [Bill [VPVP likes [every book likes [every book OpOpjj Mary [ Mary [VPVP likes likes ttjj ]]]. ]]]. LF:LF:

[every book [every book OpOpjj Mary [ Mary [VPVP likes likes ttjj ]] ]]ii Bill [ Bill [VPVP likes likes ttii ].].

But now the VPs But now the VPs areare identical. identical. So if we believe in QR, we can explain ACD So if we believe in QR, we can explain ACD

sentences in a natural way.sentences in a natural way.

LFLF

It looks like there is a It looks like there is a syntacticsyntactic structure that is crucial for structure that is crucial for interpretation—it seems to be interpretation—it seems to be derived by derived by movementmovement. . LF is the LF is the syntactic representation from which syntactic representation from which we get the logical formwe get the logical form..

So far, the only “covert” movement So far, the only “covert” movement operation we have seen is QR, but operation we have seen is QR, but we’ll get to another one shortly.we’ll get to another one shortly.

Where do quantifiers go?Where do quantifiers go?

Every student left.Every student left. [Every student][Every student]ii [ [TPTP ttii left ] left ] We need a variable in subject We need a variable in subject

position, so QR must be moving the position, so QR must be moving the quantifier out of TP, to somewhere quantifier out of TP, to somewhere higher then TP.higher then TP.

Believe me that it is also moving Believe me that it is also moving somewhere somewhere lowerlower than CP. than CP.

A new positionA new position

In order to accommodate In order to accommodate this, we need to formulate this, we need to formulate a new position to which a new position to which quantifiers move.quantifiers move.

This position is going to This position is going to be be adjoined to TPadjoined to TP..

This is an extension of the This is an extension of the concept of adjunction to concept of adjunction to X-bar and to X heads, and X-bar and to X heads, and it looks like this.it looks like this.

VPT

T

TP

spec

TP

QP

A new positionA new position This QP is This QP is notnot in SpecTP, it is kind in SpecTP, it is kind

of on the of on the edgeedge of TP, hooked on of TP, hooked on top.top.

There is still only one SpecTP.There is still only one SpecTP. In fact there is really only one TP In fact there is really only one TP

node.node. QP is not dominated by TP QP is not dominated by TP

because it is “partly inside” and because it is “partly inside” and “partly outside” of TP (there is a “partly outside” of TP (there is a segmentsegment of TP which doesn’t of TP which doesn’t dominate QP, hence TP as a whole dominate QP, hence TP as a whole doesn’t dominate QP).doesn’t dominate QP).

QP c-commands the material QP c-commands the material inside TP, but TP does not c-inside TP, but TP does not c-command QP.command QP.

VPT

T

TP

spec

TP

QP

A new positionA new position One difference between QR One difference between QR

(adjunction to TP) and movement to (adjunction to TP) and movement to SpecTP is in the motivations.SpecTP is in the motivations.

Moving to SpecTP or moving to Moving to SpecTP or moving to SpecCP is motivated by some need SpecCP is motivated by some need of Tof T (EPP: SpecTP must be filled)(EPP: SpecTP must be filled) or or CC ([+WH] C needs a [+wh] in its ([+WH] C needs a [+wh] in its specifier)specifier)..

Moving a quantifier (QR) is required Moving a quantifier (QR) is required because the because the quantifierquantifier needs to get needs to get out of the TP (for interpretation). TP out of the TP (for interpretation). TP itself itself has no need for quantifiers.has no need for quantifiers.

VPT

T

TP

spec

TP

QP

A new positionA new position So, we could say that moving to So, we could say that moving to

Spec is something that happens if Spec is something that happens if the moving thing is the moving thing is pulledpulled (T is (T is pulling up a subject to satisfy its pulling up a subject to satisfy its own needs, not the needs of the own needs, not the needs of the moving subject)moving subject) or or pushedpushed (quantifiers move to satisfy their (quantifiers move to satisfy their own needs, not the needs of the own needs, not the needs of the T)T)..

An XP which is An XP which is pulledpulled up goes up goes into Spec.into Spec.

An XP which is An XP which is pushedpushed up up adjoins.adjoins.

VPT

T

TP

spec

TP

QP

The Y modelThe Y model So, we now have a case for there being some So, we now have a case for there being some

movement that happens movement that happens betweenbetween SS (surface form) SS (surface form) and LF (interpretation). Covert movement. Hidden and LF (interpretation). Covert movement. Hidden from view. But still subject to the rules of syntax from view. But still subject to the rules of syntax and movement.and movement.

DS

SS

LFPF

X-bar theory

Overt movement,Expletive insertion

Covert movement

Phonology/Morphology

TheorySubcategorization

Binding theory

Case theory, EPP

Covert Covert whwh-movement-movement

There is another, somewhat related There is another, somewhat related argument for covert movement of argument for covert movement of whwh--phrase as well.phrase as well.

What did Sue buy?What did Sue buy? Pick the Pick the xx such that Sue bought such that Sue bought xx.. The interpretation of The interpretation of whwh-words has the -words has the

same kind of operator-variable structure same kind of operator-variable structure that quantifiers do.that quantifiers do.

However, the difference is that it looks However, the difference is that it looks like this movement happens visibly like this movement happens visibly (“overtly”) between DS and SS. Right?(“overtly”) between DS and SS. Right?

Covert Covert whwh-movement-movement Who bought what?Who bought what? Who gave what to whom?Who gave what to whom? Pick the Pick the xx and pick the and pick the yy such that such that xx

bought bought yy.. Pick the Pick the xx and pick the and pick the yy and pick the and pick the zz

such that such that xx gave gave yy to to zz.. It seems that for It seems that for interpretationinterpretation, we need , we need

to create operator-variable chains for to create operator-variable chains for eacheach whwh-word, yet we only create -word, yet we only create oneone before SS.before SS.

Covert Covert whwh-movement-movement

This suggests that there is covert This suggests that there is covert movement of the other movement of the other whwh-phrases as -phrases as well, like QR…well, like QR…

LF: [LF: [CPCP Who Whoii what whatjj [ [TPTP ttii bought bought ttjj ]] ]]

LF: someoneLF: someoneii everyone everyonejj [ [TPTP ttii met met ttjj ] ]

LF: everyoneLF: everyonejj someone someoneii [ [TPTP ttii met met ttjj ] ]

The The whwh-typology-typology

English:English: One One whwh-phrase moves to the front.-phrase moves to the front. What did Bill give to whom?What did Bill give to whom?

Japanese:Japanese: No No whwh-words move to the front.-words move to the front. Taroo-ga dare-ni nani-o ageta no?Taroo-ga dare-ni nani-o ageta no?

T-nom who-to what-acc gave QT-nom who-to what-acc gave Q‘What did Taroo give to whom?’‘What did Taroo give to whom?’

Bulgarian: Bulgarian: All All whwh-words move to the front.-words move to the front. Kakvo na kogo Ivan dade?Kakvo na kogo Ivan dade?

what to whom Ivan gavewhat to whom Ivan gave‘What did Ivan give to whom?’‘What did Ivan give to whom?’


Yet in all of these languages, the Yet in all of these languages, the meaningmeaning of of What did Bill give to What did Bill give to whom? whom? is the same…is the same…

Pick the Pick the xx, pick the , pick the yy, such that, such thatBill gave Bill gave xx to to yy..

The meaning has a quantificational The meaning has a quantificational (operator-variable) structure, so if the (operator-variable) structure, so if the meaning (logical form) in all of these meaning (logical form) in all of these languages is derived from LF, these languages is derived from LF, these quantifier-variable chains must quantifier-variable chains must be be there there at LF.at LF.

The The whwh-typology-typology In this sense, Bulgarian looks like its SS is quite In this sense, Bulgarian looks like its SS is quite

close to the necessary LF.close to the necessary LF. Bulgarian: Bulgarian: All All whwh-words move to the front.-words move to the front.

Kakvo na kogo Ivan dade?Kakvo na kogo Ivan dade?what to whom Ivan gavewhat to whom Ivan gave‘What did Ivan give to whom?’‘What did Ivan give to whom?’

Pick the Pick the xx, pick the , pick the yy, such that Ivan gave , such that Ivan gave xx to to yy..

We We seesee the the whwh-phrases moving in Bulgarian. -phrases moving in Bulgarian. But we know from the meaning that all of these But we know from the meaning that all of these movements have to happen in all languages.movements have to happen in all languages.


We conclude then that languages We conclude then that languages differ differ notnot in in whetherwhether they move all of they move all of the the whwh-words to the front of the -words to the front of the sentence—they all do—but rather in sentence—they all do—but rather in whenwhen they move them there. they move them there.

Bulgarian:Bulgarian: All between DS and SS.All between DS and SS. Japanese:Japanese: All between SS and LF.All between SS and LF. English:English: One between DS and SS, One between DS and SS,

the rest between SS and LF.the rest between SS and LF.


We can phrase this in terms of overt We can phrase this in terms of overt and covert movement:and covert movement:

Bulgarian:Bulgarian: All All whwh-movement is overt.-movement is overt. Japanese:Japanese: All All whwh-movement is -movement is

covert.covert. English:English: One One whwh-phrase moves -phrase moves

overtly, the rest move covertly.overtly, the rest move covertly.

DerivationsDerivations This allows us a fairly uniform view of This allows us a fairly uniform view of

languages.languages. Across languages, DS is basically the sameAcross languages, DS is basically the same

(theta requirements, functional projections)(theta requirements, functional projections).. Across languages, LF is basically the sameAcross languages, LF is basically the same

(meanings, scope, etc.)(meanings, scope, etc.).. This means that This means that across languages, the across languages, the

movementsmovements that happen between DS and LF that happen between DS and LF are basically the sameare basically the same..

What differs is the What differs is the timingtiming—whether the —whether the movements happen before SS or after SS on movements happen before SS or after SS on the way to LF.the way to LF.


So in terms of So in terms of whwh-movement, we can say -movement, we can say that the languages pick different parts of that the languages pick different parts of the derivation to focus on as SS.the derivation to focus on as SS.

DS LFmove firstwh-word

move secondwh-word

Japanese English Bulgarian

Scope and Scope and whwh-movement-movement

In a In a whwh-question, you have a [+Q], [+WH] C -question, you have a [+Q], [+WH] C and some and some whwh-words.-words.

The The whwh-words have to move up to the [+WH] C. -words have to move up to the [+WH] C. From here they have scope over the rest of the From here they have scope over the rest of the question.question.

Where the [+WH] C is determines the scope of Where the [+WH] C is determines the scope of the the whwh-phrases.-phrases.

WhatWhatii C did John say C did John say ttii that he wanted to buy that he wanted to buy ttii ? ?

John knows whatJohn knows whatii C he wanted to buy C he wanted to buy ttii . .

SuperioritySuperiority

Who did Bill persuade to buy what?Who did Bill persuade to buy what? (Bill persuaded Mary to buy a book, he (Bill persuaded Mary to buy a book, he

persuaded Larry to buy a coffee table, persuaded Larry to buy a coffee table, he persuaded Sue to buy a futon, …)he persuaded Sue to buy a futon, …)

Pick the Pick the xx, pick the , pick the yy, such that, such thatBill persuaded Bill persuaded xx to buy to buy yy..

So both So both whwh-words (-words (whowho and and whatwhat) ) take scope at the matrix clause take scope at the matrix clause SpecCP.SpecCP.


Who did Bill persuade to buy what?Who did Bill persuade to buy what? *What did Bill persuade who to buy?*What did Bill persuade who to buy?

It seems that we can’t just choose It seems that we can’t just choose just any just any whwh-word to move to SpecCP-word to move to SpecCP—one works, one doesn’t. What’s the —one works, one doesn’t. What’s the difference between the two?difference between the two?


Superiority:Superiority: The shortest The shortest whwh-movements -movements have to happen first. have to happen first. ((WhWh-movement isn’t -movement isn’t possible if there was a shorter one).possible if there was a shorter one).

WhoWhoii did Bill persuade did Bill persuade ttii to buy what? to buy what?

*What*Whatii did Bill persuade who to buy did Bill persuade who to buy ttii ? ?


There is also a strict ordering for There is also a strict ordering for languages where all languages where all whwh-words move to -words move to the front. We take this to also be due to the front. We take this to also be due to Superiority:Superiority: cine ce a vazutcine ce a vazut RomanianRomanian

who whom has seenwho whom has seen‘Who saw whom?’‘Who saw whom?’

*ce cine a vazut*ce cine a vazutwhom who has seenwhom who has seen‘Whom did who see?’‘Whom did who see?’

The higher The higher whwh-word has to move first (by -word has to move first (by Superiority) and shows up first.Superiority) and shows up first.

Where have allWhere have allthe the whwh-words gone?-words gone?

This brings up an interesting question This brings up an interesting question which we haven’t addressed yet—if all of which we haven’t addressed yet—if all of the the whwh-words are moving (in all languages, -words are moving (in all languages, some overtly like in Bulgarian and some overtly like in Bulgarian and Romanian), where are they going?Romanian), where are they going?

English moves its one English moves its one whwh-word to SpecCP.-word to SpecCP. There is only one SpecCP.There is only one SpecCP. Are the other Are the other whwh-words not moving to -words not moving to

SpecCP?SpecCP?


Following an influential proposal by Following an influential proposal by Rudin (1988), many people assume that Rudin (1988), many people assume that the other the other whwh-phrases move up and -phrases move up and adjoin to the wh-phrase already in the adjoin to the wh-phrase already in the specifierspecifier..

C

C

DP2

DP1DP1

DP1

CP

who

C

C

CP

who what

DP2what

…


This way, there is still This way, there is still oneone specifier of SpecCP, but the specifier of SpecCP, but the whwh-words are still all in the specifier of SpecCP, one -words are still all in the specifier of SpecCP, one attached to the others. attached to the others. (Things are actually more (Things are actually more complicated than this, but this is a good approximation complicated than this, but this is a good approximation of how one class of languages works—cf. Syntax II!)of how one class of languages works—cf. Syntax II!)

C

C

DP2

DP1DP1

DP1

CP

who

C

C

CP

who what

DP2what

…

Subjacency revisitedSubjacency revisited

Who knows where we bought what?Who knows where we bought what? (Bill does—he knows all about things bought (Bill does—he knows all about things bought

and places those things were bought from).and places those things were bought from). (Bill knows where we bought the coffee (Bill knows where we bought the coffee

table, Mary knows where we bought the table, Mary knows where we bought the futon, …)futon, …)

The second reading presents a problem. The second reading presents a problem. Both Both whowho and and whatwhat take scope at the take scope at the matrix clause’s SpecCP. What’s the matrix clause’s SpecCP. What’s the problem?problem?


The same as the problem withThe same as the problem with ??What??Whatii does Bill know where we bought does Bill know where we bought

ttii ? ? Moving what here to the matrix SpecCP Moving what here to the matrix SpecCP

violates Subjacency, so the sentence violates Subjacency, so the sentence sounds somewhat off. Yet:sounds somewhat off. Yet:

Who knows where we bought what?Who knows where we bought what? ……sounds fine, even on the “list” reading.sounds fine, even on the “list” reading.


What’s different? Why is the reading What’s different? Why is the reading with with whatwhat associated with (moved to) the associated with (moved to) the matrix SpecCP allowed in one case and matrix SpecCP allowed in one case and not the other?not the other?

??What??Whatii does Bill know where we bought does Bill know where we bought ttii ? ?

Who knows where we bought what?Who knows where we bought what?


These sentences would suggest that covert These sentences would suggest that covert whwh-movement is not sensitive to -movement is not sensitive to whwh-islands. A -islands. A very widely adopted assumption about very widely adopted assumption about Subjacency is made to explain this:Subjacency is made to explain this:

Subjacency only holds for overt movement.Subjacency only holds for overt movement.

Because Because whatwhat in in Who knows where we bought Who knows where we bought what?what? moves covertly, it is no longer subject moves covertly, it is no longer subject to Subjacency and can just move directly into to Subjacency and can just move directly into the matrix SpecCP.the matrix SpecCP.


This leaves open some loose ends, and This leaves open some loose ends, and people have not reached their final people have not reached their final conclusions on whether Subjacency conclusions on whether Subjacency does or does not hold of covert does or does not hold of covert movement.movement. For one thing, QR seemed to obey For one thing, QR seemed to obey

Subjacency.Subjacency. On the other hand, it appears that in On the other hand, it appears that in wh-in-wh-in-

situsitu (no overt (no overt whwh-movement) languages, -movement) languages, whwh-words are allowed in islands.-words are allowed in islands.

Wh-in-situ Wh-in-situ languageslanguages

Ni xiang-zhidao Ni xiang-zhidao [[shei mai-le shei mai-le sheme]sheme]??you wonder who bought you wonder who bought whatwhat‘What do you wonder who bought?’‘What do you wonder who bought?’

Mary-wa Mary-wa [[John-ni John-ni naninani-o ageta hito-o ageta hito]]-ni atta no?-ni atta no?M-top J-to M-top J-to whatwhat-acc gave man-dat met Q-acc gave man-dat met Q‘What did Mary meet [the man who gave ‘What did Mary meet [the man who gave tt to to John]?’John]?’

These are sentences which are possible in These are sentences which are possible in Chinese, Japanese, but not in English. They Chinese, Japanese, but not in English. They have have whwh-words inside islands.-words inside islands.

So…So…

We’ve seen some evidence in favor We’ve seen some evidence in favor of the existence of LF and movement of the existence of LF and movement occurring between SS and LF.occurring between SS and LF. QR (moves quantifiers, adjoins to TP)QR (moves quantifiers, adjoins to TP) WhWh-movement (moves -movement (moves whwh-phrases into -phrases into

SpecCP, adjoins SpecCP, adjoins whwh-phrases after the -phrases after the first one to the first first one to the first whwh-phrase.-phrase.

Subjacency? Doesn’t seem to count for Subjacency? Doesn’t seem to count for covert covert whwh-movement, but did seem to -movement, but did seem to count for QR…count for QR…

Week 10. LF CAS LX 522 Syntax I. The Y model We’re now ready to tackle the most abstract branch of the Y-model, the mapping from SS to LF. Here is where.

Documents