Episode 6b. Head movement, feature strength, parametric variation, and do-support 5.4-5.5 CAS LX 522 Syntax I

Episode 6b. Head movement,Episode 6b. Head movement,feature strength, parametric feature strength, parametric variation, and variation, and dodo-support-support

5.4-5.55.4-5.5

CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax I

Recap: featuresRecap: features

The The lexiconlexicon contains bundles of features. contains bundles of features. These feature bundles are assembled by a These feature bundles are assembled by a computational process into syntactic computational process into syntactic structures for interpretation by the structures for interpretation by the conceptual-intensional an articulatory-conceptual-intensional an articulatory-perceptual systems.perceptual systems.

Among these features, we haveAmong these features, we have Interpretable featuresInterpretable features (such as the category (such as the category feature that determines the category of the lexical feature that determines the category of the lexical item)item)

Uninterpretable featuresUninterpretable features (such as the selectional (such as the selectional feature [feature [uuN*] on a transitive verb). N*] on a transitive verb). Uninterpretable features are intolerable at the Uninterpretable features are intolerable at the interfaces, and must be removed (by interfaces, and must be removed (by checkingchecking) or ) or the derivation crashes.the derivation crashes.

Recap: uninterpretable Recap: uninterpretable featuresfeatures

Uninterpretable features vary along two Uninterpretable features vary along two dimensions. dimensions. PrivativePrivative//unvaluedunvalued ; ; strongstrong//weakweak.. Privative featuresPrivative features (such as [ (such as [uuN*]) which are N*]) which are checked by matching features (such as [N] or checked by matching features (such as [N] or [[uuN*]).N*]).

Unvalued featuresUnvalued features (such as [uInfl:]) which are (such as [uInfl:]) which are checked by features that can provide a value (such checked by features that can provide a value (such as [tense:past]).as [tense:past]).

StrongStrong uninterpretable features can only be checked uninterpretable features can only be checked if they are if they are locallocal (sister) to the feature that (sister) to the feature that checks them.checks them.

WeakWeak uninterpretable features can be “checked at a uninterpretable features can be “checked at a distance.”distance.”

Strong features can force movement, but Strong features can force movement, but because the system is economical (lazy), no because the system is economical (lazy), no movement is allowed just to check a weak movement is allowed just to check a weak feature.feature.

Recap: Matching and Recap: Matching and CheckingChecking

CheckingChecking relates an uninterpretable feature relates an uninterpretable feature and a and a matchingmatching feature, allowing the feature, allowing the uninterpretable feature to be ignored at the uninterpretable feature to be ignored at the interface.interface.

If the uninterpretable feature is strong, the If the uninterpretable feature is strong, the matching feature must be matching feature must be locallocal (e.g., a (e.g., a feature of the sister) in order for the feature of the sister) in order for the uninterpretable feature to be checked.uninterpretable feature to be checked. For [For [uuV*V*] on ] on vv, it matches the [V] feature of the , it matches the [V] feature of the verb below it, then the verb must move up to verb below it, then the verb must move up to vv to to check [check [uuV*V*].].

For [For [uuInfl:Infl:] on an auxiliary, the [tense:past] ] on an auxiliary, the [tense:past] feature (above it) matches it and values it as feature (above it) matches it and values it as strong (in English), then the auxiliary must move strong (in English), then the auxiliary must move up to T for the feature to be checked.up to T for the feature to be checked.

Recap: AgreeRecap: Agree If:If:

X has feature [F1], Y has feature [F2]X has feature [F1], Y has feature [F2] X c-commands Y or Y c-commands XX c-commands Y or Y c-commands X [F1] and/or [F2] are/is uninterpretable.[F1] and/or [F2] are/is uninterpretable. [F1] matches [F2][F1] matches [F2] X and Y are close enough, meaning:X and Y are close enough, meaning:

There is no closer matching feature between X and Y.There is no closer matching feature between X and Y. If [F1] or [F2] is strong, X and Y share the same If [F1] or [F2] is strong, X and Y share the same mother nodemother node

Then:Then: Any unvalued feature ([F1] or [F2]) is Any unvalued feature ([F1] or [F2]) is valued.valued.

The uninterpretable feature(s) is/are The uninterpretable feature(s) is/are checked.checked.

Recap: MergeRecap: Merge MergeMerge: create a new syntactic object from two : create a new syntactic object from two existing syntactic objects, with the label existing syntactic objects, with the label (features) (features) projectingprojecting from one. Merge happens: from one. Merge happens:

To check an uninterpretable featureTo check an uninterpretable feature: the label : the label of the one with the uninterpretable feature of the one with the uninterpretable feature projects.projects. Example: c-selection features, such as the [Example: c-selection features, such as the [uuN*] N*] feature of P.feature of P.

To satisfy the Hierarchy of ProjectionsTo satisfy the Hierarchy of Projections: the : the label of the higher one in the hierarchy label of the higher one in the hierarchy projects and no features are checked.projects and no features are checked. This only happens once all of the strong This only happens once all of the strong uninterpretable features in the non-projecting uninterpretable features in the non-projecting object have been checked (and any adjunctions to be object have been checked (and any adjunctions to be done have been done)done have been done)

Recap: Adjoin, Agree, Recap: Adjoin, Agree, HoPHoP

AdjoinAdjoin (of an XP) is like Merge, but it (of an XP) is like Merge, but it does not result in the checking of a does not result in the checking of a feature.feature. Merge always takes priority over Adjoin, so Merge always takes priority over Adjoin, so Adjoin only happens once the (strong) Adjoin only happens once the (strong) uninterpretable features of the object being uninterpretable features of the object being adjoined to are checked.adjoined to are checked.

Adjoining YP to XP results in another XP (the Adjoining YP to XP results in another XP (the maximal projection is extended), so YP becomes maximal projection is extended), so YP becomes in essence both a daughter and a sister to XP.in essence both a daughter and a sister to XP.

AgreeAgree is the operation that checks (and is the operation that checks (and values where appropriate) features under values where appropriate) features under c-command.c-command.

Hierarchy of Projections:Hierarchy of Projections:T > (Neg) > (M) > (Perf) > (Prog) > T > (Neg) > (M) > (Perf) > (Prog) > vv > V > V

Recap: MoveRecap: Move There are two basic kinds of There are two basic kinds of movement.movement.

One is One is head-movementhead-movement, where a head , where a head moves up to join with another head.moves up to join with another head. Examples: V moves to Examples: V moves to vv, Perf moves to T, Perf moves to T

The other is The other is XP-movementXP-movement, where a , where a maximal projection moves up to a maximal projection moves up to a specifier of a higher phrase.specifier of a higher phrase. Example: The subject moving to SpecTP.Example: The subject moving to SpecTP.

Both happen because a strong Both happen because a strong uninterpretable feature needs to be uninterpretable feature needs to be checked.checked.

Recap: UTAHRecap: UTAH The Uniformity of Theta-assignment The Uniformity of Theta-assignment Hypothesis determines the Hypothesis determines the -role of -role of an argument based on its position in an argument based on its position in the structure.the structure. NP daughter of NP daughter of vvP: P: AgentAgent ( (vvAgentAgent)) NP daughter of NP daughter of vvP: P: ExperiencerExperiencer ( (vvExperiencerExperiencer)) NP daughter of VP: NP daughter of VP: ThemeTheme PP daughter of VPP daughter of V: : GoalGoal NP daughter of VNP daughter of V: : Possessee (a thing Possessee (a thing possessed)possessed)

TP sister of V: TP sister of V: PropositionProposition

Valuing [Valuing [u u Infl: ]Infl: ]

A concise statement of the things with A concise statement of the things with [[uuInfl:] and the things that can value Infl:] and the things that can value [[uuInfl:]:Infl:]:

(So far; there will be small revisions later…)(So far; there will be small revisions later…)

These have [These have [uuInfl: ] features:Infl: ] features: vv, M, Perf, Prog, M, Perf, Prog

[[uuInfl: ] features can be valued (via Agree) Infl: ] features can be valued (via Agree) by:by: Tense features (past, present) of T. Tense features (past, present) of T. --ss or or -ed-ed.. Perf feature of Perf. Perf feature of Perf. -en-en.. Prog feature of Prog. Prog feature of Prog. -ing-ing.. M feature of M. M feature of M. --ØØ (silent) (silent)

Pat [past] ha-d be-en eat-ing lunch.Pat [past] ha-d be-en eat-ing lunch.

Pat was eating lunch.Pat was eating lunch. PatPat [N, …][N, …]

vv [[uuN, N, uuInfl:, Infl:, …]…]bebe [Prog, [Prog, uuInfl:, …]Infl:, …]eateat [V, [V, uuN, …]N, …]lunchlunch [N, …][N, …]TT [T, [T, tense:past, …]tense:past, …]

NP

VP

v

vP

<Pat>

lunch

T[tense:past, T, uN*, …]

T [T, uN*, tense:past, …]

TP

<eat>

NPPat

v[uInfl:prog]+Veating

Prog[Prog, uInfl:past]

was

ProgP

What happens when V What happens when V moves to moves to vv??

When V moves to When V moves to vv, they combine in , they combine in a way that we have been writing a way that we have been writing just as V+just as V+vv. Let’s be more precise.. Let’s be more precise.

In fact, we assume that V In fact, we assume that V head-head-adjoinsadjoins (adjoins, head-to-head) to (adjoins, head-to-head) to vv. This is the same sort of . This is the same sort of structure that Adjoin creates structure that Adjoin creates between maximal projections.between maximal projections. In the structure, the In the structure, the vv head is head is

replaced by the replaced by the vv head with V head with V adjoined.adjoined.

Adjunction does not change Adjunction does not change projection levels—projection levels—vv is still a is still a minimal projection, still the head minimal projection, still the head of of vvP. But it is a P. But it is a complex headcomplex head (it’s a (it’s a vv with a V adjoined to it). with a V adjoined to it).

VP

NP

v

eatv

v

V[uV*, …]

<V>

What happens when V What happens when V moves to moves to vv?? We should also consider what happens We should also consider what happens

to the VP from which the V moved.to the VP from which the V moved. It is still a VP, it must still have a It is still a VP, it must still have a

head.head. The features of the VP are the features The features of the VP are the features

of the head (recall for example, that of the head (recall for example, that checking the uninterpretable feature on checking the uninterpretable feature on the head is the same as checking the the head is the same as checking the uninterpretable feature on the uninterpretable feature on the projection of the head). The VP is projection of the head). The VP is still a still a VVP, its head is still a verb P, its head is still a verb (with category feature [V]), and (with category feature [V]), and presumably all the rest of the features presumably all the rest of the features as well.as well.

We notate the original location of the We notate the original location of the V by writing <V> (standing for the V by writing <V> (standing for the “trace” left behind by the original “trace” left behind by the original V).V).

But since <V> must still be a bundle But since <V> must still be a bundle of features, the same one that was of features, the same one that was there before movement, <V> is really there before movement, <V> is really just another copy (or, well, the just another copy (or, well, the original) of the verb.original) of the verb.

VP

NP

v

eatv

v

V[uV*, …]

<V>


Moral:Moral: “Head-movement” can be “Head-movement” can be viewed as viewed as CopyCopy++AdjoinAdjoin.. A copy is made of V.A copy is made of V. The copy of V is adjoined to The copy of V is adjoined to vv.. The original The original vv is replaced by the is replaced by the syntactic object formed by syntactic object formed by Adjoining the copy of V to Adjoining the copy of V to vv..

If If vv has a [ has a [uuV*] feature, this V*] feature, this puts V close enough to puts V close enough to vv to check to check that feature. This is that feature. This is why why we move we move V.V.

Note: Note: This appears to make a This appears to make a change change insideinside the object. Merge the object. Merge always happens at the root. always happens at the root. However:However: Think about the root. It Think about the root. It has the features of has the features of vv, its head. , its head. It is a projection of It is a projection of vv. There is . There is a sense in which this is still a sense in which this is still affecting only the root node, it’s affecting only the root node, it’s adjunction to its head.adjunction to its head.

VP

NP

v

eatv

v

V[uV*, …]

<V>


We always move V to We always move V to vv..

Reason:Reason:vv always has a [ always has a [uuV*] feature.V*] feature.

But why wasn’t this checked when But why wasn’t this checked when we Merged we Merged vv and VP? (Like the and VP? (Like the [[uuN*] feature of P is checked N*] feature of P is checked when we Merge P and NP…)when we Merge P and NP…)

The Hierarchy of Projections says The Hierarchy of Projections says that that vv > VP: When you finish VP, > VP: When you finish VP, you Merge it with you Merge it with vv. Only then do . Only then do you Move and Merge with other you Move and Merge with other things. The HoP takes priority.things. The HoP takes priority. When you Merge two nodes in order When you Merge two nodes in order

to satisfy the HoP, you don’t get to satisfy the HoP, you don’t get to Agree. You have to move to the to Agree. You have to move to the next step (Merge or Move).next step (Merge or Move).

VP

NP

v

eatv

v

V[uV*, …]

<V>

A note on node labelsA note on node labels

A node is labeled as a maximal A node is labeled as a maximal projection (XP) if there are no projection (XP) if there are no more more strongstrong features left to features left to check.check. Notice that Notice that v v has [has [uuInfl:] even when Infl:] even when we’re finished with it and Merge it we’re finished with it and Merge it with the next head up (M, Perf, Prog, with the next head up (M, Perf, Prog, Neg, or T). But we still want there to Neg, or T). But we still want there to be a be a vvP.P.

C-selection features (like the [C-selection features (like the [uuN*] N*] feature(s) of V, or the [feature(s) of V, or the [uuN*] feature N*] feature of P) are always strong.of P) are always strong.

Movement of the subjectMovement of the subject We’ve now looked at the details of why we We’ve now looked at the details of why we do head movement:do head movement: V moves to V moves to vv because because vv has a [ has a [uuV*] feature.V*] feature.

The other kind of movement we’ve seen is The other kind of movement we’ve seen is movement of the subject, from Specmovement of the subject, from SpecvvP to P to SpecTP.SpecTP. This will be handled the same way: T has a [This will be handled the same way: T has a [uuN*] N*] feature (always). Moving the subject (making a feature (always). Moving the subject (making a copy and Merging it with T) put the N feature of copy and Merging it with T) put the N feature of the subject close enough to T for the [the subject close enough to T for the [uuN*] N*] feature to be checked.feature to be checked. As for why you don’t satisfy the [As for why you don’t satisfy the [uuV*] feature of V*] feature of vv the same way, by moving VP into Specthe same way, by moving VP into SpecvvP, we could P, we could speculate, but there’s no particularly satisfying speculate, but there’s no particularly satisfying answer. We’ll set that aside.answer. We’ll set that aside.

Auxiliaries moving to TAuxiliaries moving to T

One last case, that introduces a wrinkle.One last case, that introduces a wrinkle. I do not eat green eggs and ham.I do not eat green eggs and ham. I have not eaten green eggs and ham.I have not eaten green eggs and ham. I have not been eating green eggs and ham.I have not been eating green eggs and ham. I would not have been eating green eggs and I would not have been eating green eggs and ham.ham.

Notice:Notice: There is a set of things that move to T.There is a set of things that move to T. Auxiliaries: Auxiliaries: havehave, , bebe, modals., modals. Main verbs Main verbs do notdo not move to T. move to T. Only the Only the toptop auxiliary moves to T. auxiliary moves to T.

Movement is driven by strong features.Movement is driven by strong features.

Auxiliaries moving to TAuxiliaries moving to T Auxiliaries: Auxiliaries: havehave, , bebe, modals., modals. The top auxiliary moves to T.The top auxiliary moves to T. Main verbs Main verbs do notdo not move to T. move to T.

Auxiliaries must be differentiated from Auxiliaries must be differentiated from main verbs.main verbs.

Thus: They have the feature [Aux]Thus: They have the feature [Aux] ““they have the property of being they have the property of being auxiliaries”auxiliaries”

Movement is driven by a strong feature.Movement is driven by a strong feature. [[uuAux*] on T? No. That does not work.Aux*] on T? No. That does not work. [[uuT*] on Aux? No. That would not be T*] on Aux? No. That would not be promising.promising.


Auxiliaries have a [Auxiliaries have a [uuInfl:] feature, Infl:] feature, valued by the next thing up.valued by the next thing up.

The topmost auxiliary has its [The topmost auxiliary has its [uuInfl:] Infl:] feature valued by T.feature valued by T.

The topmost auxiliary is the only The topmost auxiliary is the only auxiliary that moves to T.auxiliary that moves to T.

An auxiliary whose [An auxiliary whose [uuInfl:] feature is Infl:] feature is valued by T will move to T.valued by T will move to T.



An auxiliary whose [An auxiliary whose [uuInfl:] feature is valued by T Infl:] feature is valued by T will move to T.will move to T.


It appears that we need to say this:It appears that we need to say this: If a head has the feature [Aux], andIf a head has the feature [Aux], and If that head’s [If that head’s [uuInfl:] feature is valued by Infl:] feature is valued by T,T,

Then the feature is Then the feature is valued as strongvalued as strong.. The auxiliary must move to T to be checked.The auxiliary must move to T to be checked.

T[tense:pres] … T[tense:pres] … bebe[Aux, [Aux, uuInfl:]Infl:] T[tense:pres] … T[tense:pres] … bebe[Aux, [Aux, uuInfl:pres*]Infl:pres*] T[tense:pres]+T[tense:pres]+bebe[Aux, [Aux, uuInfl:pres*] … < Infl:pres*] … < be be >>

French vs. EnglishFrench vs. English In English, adverbs cannot come In English, adverbs cannot come between the verb and the object.between the verb and the object. *Pat *Pat eatseats oftenoften apples. apples. Pat Pat oftenoften eatseats apples. apples.

In French it’s the other way around.In French it’s the other way around. Jean Jean mangemange souventsouvent des pommes. des pommes.Jean eats often of.the applesJean eats often of.the apples‘Jean often eats apples.’‘Jean often eats apples.’

*Jean *Jean souventsouvent mangemange des pommes. des pommes. If we suppose that the basic If we suppose that the basic structures are the same, why might structures are the same, why might that be?that be?

French vs. EnglishFrench vs. English Similarly, while only auxiliaries in Similarly, while only auxiliaries in English show up before negation (English show up before negation (notnot))…… John does John does notnot lovelove Mary. Mary. John John hashas notnot eaten apples. eaten apples.

……all verbs seem to show up before all verbs seem to show up before negation (negation (paspas) in French:) in French: Jean (n’)Jean (n’)aimeaime paspas Marie. Marie.Jean (ne) loves not MarieJean (ne) loves not Marie‘Jean doesn’t love Marie.’‘Jean doesn’t love Marie.’

Jean (n’)Jean (n’)aa paspas mangé des pommes.mangé des pommes.Jean (ne)has not eaten of.the applesJean (ne)has not eaten of.the apples‘Jean didn’t eat apples.’‘Jean didn’t eat apples.’

V raises to T in FrenchV raises to T in French What it looks like What it looks like is that both V and is that both V and auxiliaries raise auxiliaries raise to T in French.to T in French.

This is a This is a parametric parametric differencedifference between between English and French.English and French.

A kid’s task is to A kid’s task is to determine whether V determine whether V moves to T and moves to T and whether auxiliaries whether auxiliaries move to T.move to T.

T values [uInfl:] on Aux

T values [uInfl:] on v

English Strong Weak

French Strong Strong

vv

ZinZinédineédine (n’) aime pas (n’) aime pas MarcoMarco

First, build the First, build the vvP just as in English.P just as in English. Merge Merge appelle appelle and and MarcoMarco to form the VP, Merge to form the VP, Merge vv and and VP to satisfy the HoP, move V to adjoin to VP to satisfy the HoP, move V to adjoin to vv to to check check vv’s [’s [uuV*] feature, Merge V*] feature, Merge ZinZinédine édine and and vv..

NPMarco[N]

<V>vagent[v, uN*, uV*,uInfl:]

VPv

Vaime[V]

vvPP

NPZinédine

[N]

Negpas

T[tense:pres, T, uN*, …]

vv

ZinZinédineédine (n’) aime pas (n’) aime pas MarcoMarco

Merge Neg with Merge Neg with vvP to form NegP (following the P to form NegP (following the HoP).HoP).


NPMarco

<V>vagent[v, uN*, uV*,uInfl:]

VPv

V aime

vvPP

NPZinédine

NegPNegP

Negpas

vv

ZinZinédineédine (n’) aime pas (n’) aime pas MarcoMarco Merge T with NegP to form TMerge T with NegP to form T (again, following the (again, following the

HoP).HoP). Now T with its [tense:pres] feature c-commands Now T with its [tense:pres] feature c-commands vv and and its [its [uuInfl:] feature. They Match. Infl:] feature. They Match. But But in French, in French, when [when [uuInfl:] on Infl:] on vv is valued by T it is is valued by T it is strongstrong. So…. So…


NPMarco

<V>vagent[v, uN*, uV*,uInfl:pres*]

VPv

V aime

vvPP

NPZinédine

Negpas

NegPNegP

TT [tense:pres, T, uN*, …]

vv

ZinZinédineédine (n’) aime pas (n’) aime pas MarcoMarco vv has to move to T. Notice that at this point has to move to T. Notice that at this point

vv has V adjoined to it. has V adjoined to it. You can’t take them You can’t take them apart.apart. The whole The whole complex headcomplex head moves to T. moves to T.

NPMarco

<V>

VP<v>

vvPP

NPZinédine

Negpas

NegPNegP

v[uInfl:pres*]

v

V aime

T

T


vv

ZinZinédineédine (n’) aime pas (n’) aime pas MarcoMarco And then, we move the subject up to SpecTP to And then, we move the subject up to SpecTP to

check the final uninterpretable (strong) check the final uninterpretable (strong) feature of T, [feature of T, [uuN*].N*].

NPMarco

<V>

VP<v>

vvPP

<NP>

Negpas

NegPNegP

v[uInfl:pres*]

v

V aime

T

T

TT [tense:pres, T, uN*, …]NPZinédine

TP

So, French is just like English, except that evenv moves to T.

SwedishSwedish Looking at Swedish, we can see that not Looking at Swedish, we can see that not only do languages vary on whether they only do languages vary on whether they raise main verbs to T, languages also vary raise main verbs to T, languages also vary on whether they raise auxiliaries to T:on whether they raise auxiliaries to T: ……om hon om hon inteinte harhar köpt boken köpt boken whether she not has bougt book-the whether she not has bougt book-the‘…whether she hasn’t bought the book.’‘…whether she hasn’t bought the book.’

……om hon om hon inteinte köpteköpte boken bokenwhether she not bought book-thewhether she not bought book-the‘…whether she didn’t buy the book.’‘…whether she didn’t buy the book.’

So both parameters can vary.So both parameters can vary. Remember the light box: By saying these were Remember the light box: By saying these were parameters, we predicted that we would find these parameters, we predicted that we would find these languages.languages.

Typology of verb/aux Typology of verb/aux raisingraising

Interestingly, there Interestingly, there don’t seem to be don’t seem to be languages that raise languages that raise main verbs but not main verbs but not auxiliaries.auxiliaries. This double-binary This double-binary

distinction predicts distinction predicts there would be.there would be.

It overgenerates a It overgenerates a bit.bit.

This is a pattern This is a pattern that we would like to that we would like to explain someday, explain someday, another mystery about another mystery about Aux to file away.Aux to file away. Sorry, we won’t have Sorry, we won’t have

any satisfying any satisfying explanation for this explanation for this gap this semester.gap this semester.

T values [uInfl:] on Aux

T values [uInfl:] on v

English Strong Weak

French Strong Strong

Swedish Weak Weak

Unattested

Weak Strong

IrishIrish In Irish, the basic word order is VSO (other In Irish, the basic word order is VSO (other languages have this property too, e.g., Arabic)languages have this property too, e.g., Arabic) PhógPhóg Máire an lucharachán. Máire an lucharachán.kissed Mary the leprechaunkissed Mary the leprechaun‘Mary kissed the leprechaun.’‘Mary kissed the leprechaun.’

We distinguish SVO from SOV by supposing that We distinguish SVO from SOV by supposing that the head-complement order can vary from the head-complement order can vary from language to language (heads precede complements language to language (heads precede complements in English, heads follow complements in in English, heads follow complements in Japanese).Japanese).

We may also be able to distinguish other We may also be able to distinguish other languages (OVS, VOS) by a parameter of languages (OVS, VOS) by a parameter of specifier order.specifier order.

But But nono combination of these two parameters can combination of these two parameters can give us VSO.give us VSO.

IrishIrish But look at auxiliary verbs in Irish:But look at auxiliary verbs in Irish:

TáTá Máire ag- Máire ag-pógáilpógáil an lucharachán. an lucharachán.Is Mary ing-kiss the leprechaunIs Mary ing-kiss the leprechaun‘Mary is kissing the leprechaun.’‘Mary is kissing the leprechaun.’

We find that if an We find that if an auxiliaryauxiliary occupies occupies the verb slot at the beginning of the the verb slot at the beginning of the sentence, the main verb appears between sentence, the main verb appears between the subject and verb:the subject and verb:Aux S V OAux S V O..

What does this suggest aboutWhat does this suggest about The head-parameter setting in Irish?The head-parameter setting in Irish? How VSO order arises?How VSO order arises?

SVO to VSOSVO to VSO Irish appears to be essentially an SVO Irish appears to be essentially an SVO language, like French.language, like French.

Verbs and auxiliaries raise past the Verbs and auxiliaries raise past the subject to yield VSO.subject to yield VSO.

We can analyze the Irish pattern as being We can analyze the Irish pattern as being minimally different from our existing minimally different from our existing analysis of French— just one difference, analysis of French— just one difference, which we hypothesize is another which we hypothesize is another parametric difference between languages.parametric difference between languages.

V and Aux both raise to T (when tense V and Aux both raise to T (when tense values the [values the [uuInfl:] feature of either Infl:] feature of either one, [one, [uuInfl:] is strong) in Irish, just Infl:] is strong) in Irish, just as in French.as in French.

vv

French vs. IrishFrench vs. Irish Remember this step in the French derivation before?Remember this step in the French derivation before?

I’ve omitted negation to make it simpler.I’ve omitted negation to make it simpler. What if we stopped here?What if we stopped here?

In French it would crash (why?).In French it would crash (why?). But what if it didn’t crash in Irish?But what if it didn’t crash in Irish? What would have to be different?What would have to be different?

NPMarco

<V>

VP<v>

vvPP

NPZinédine

v[uInfl:pres*]

v

Vdéteste

T

T


Parametric differencesParametric differences We could analyze Irish as being just like French We could analyze Irish as being just like French except without the strong [except without the strong [uuN*N*] feature on T.] feature on T. Without that feature, the subject doesn’t need to move Without that feature, the subject doesn’t need to move to SpecTP. The order would be VSO, or AuxSVO.to SpecTP. The order would be VSO, or AuxSVO.

So, languages can vary in, at least:So, languages can vary in, at least: Head-complement orderHead-complement order (Head-specifier order)(Head-specifier order) Whether [Whether [uuInfl:] on Aux is strong or weak when valued by Infl:] on Aux is strong or weak when valued by TT

Whether [Whether [uuInfl:] on Infl:] on vv is strong or weak when valued by T is strong or weak when valued by T Whether T has a [Whether T has a [uuN*] feature or notN*] feature or not

Later, when we look at German, we’ll suggest a different Later, when we look at German, we’ll suggest a different analysis of Irish, but this will work for now.analysis of Irish, but this will work for now.

dodo-support-support In French, verbs move to In French, verbs move to TT..In English, they In English, they dodon’t move to n’t move to TT.. That’s because in French, when [tense:past] That’s because in French, when [tense:past] values [values [uuInfl:Infl:] on ] on vv, it is strong, and in , it is strong, and in English, it is weak.English, it is weak.

What this What this doesdoesn’tn’t explain is why explain is why dodo appears appears sometimes in English, seemingly doing sometimes in English, seemingly doing nothing but carrying the tense (and subject nothing but carrying the tense (and subject agreement).agreement).

The environments are complicated:The environments are complicated: Tom Tom diddid not not commitcommit the crime. the crime. Tom did not Tom did not commitcommit the crime, but someone the crime, but someone diddid.. Zoe and Danny vowed to Zoe and Danny vowed to proveprove Tom innocent, Tom innocent,and prove Tom innocent they and prove Tom innocent they diddid..

Tom (has) never Tom (has) never committedcommitted that crime. that crime.

dodo-support-support The environments are complicated:The environments are complicated:

Tom Tom diddid not not commitcommit the crime. the crime. Tom did not Tom did not commitcommit the crime, but someone the crime, but someone diddid.. Zoe and Danny vowed to Zoe and Danny vowed to proveprove Tom innocent, Tom innocent,and prove Tom innocent they and prove Tom innocent they diddid..

Tom (has) never Tom (has) never committedcommitted that crime. that crime. When When notnot separates T and separates T and vv, , dodo appears in T to appears in T to carry the tense morphology.carry the tense morphology.

When T is stranded due to VP ellipsis or VP When T is stranded due to VP ellipsis or VP fronting, fronting, dodo appears in T to carry the tense appears in T to carry the tense morphology.morphology.

When When nevernever (or any adverb) separates T and (or any adverb) separates T and vv, , tense morphology appears on the verb (tense morphology appears on the verb (vv).).

So, So, dodo appears when T is separated from the appears when T is separated from the verb, but adverbs like verb, but adverbs like nevernever aren’t “visible”, aren’t “visible”, they aren’t in the way.they aren’t in the way.

Technical difficultiesTechnical difficulties How do we generally know to pronounce V+How do we generally know to pronounce V+vv as a past tense verb?as a past tense verb? T values the [T values the [uuInfl:] feature of Infl:] feature of v. v. The The presumption is that presumption is that eat+veat+v[[uuInfl:past] sounds Infl:past] sounds like “ate.” And T doesn’t sound like anything.like “ate.” And T doesn’t sound like anything.

But this happens whether or not But this happens whether or not v v is right is right next to T. next to T. vv still has a [ still has a [uuInfl:] feature that Infl:] feature that has to be checked.has to be checked.

So, the questions are, how do we:So, the questions are, how do we: Keep from pronouncing the verb based on Keep from pronouncing the verb based on vv’s [’s [uuInfl:] Infl:] feature if T feature if T isn’tisn’t right next to it? right next to it?

Keep from pronouncing Keep from pronouncing do do at T if at T if vv isis right next to right next to it?it?

We need to connect T and We need to connect T and vv somehow. somehow.

Technical difficultiesTechnical difficulties The connection between T and The connection between T and vv is that is that (when there are no auxiliaries), T (when there are no auxiliaries), T values the [values the [uuInfl:] feature of Infl:] feature of vv..

This sets up a relationship between This sets up a relationship between the two heads.the two heads. Adger calls this relationship a Adger calls this relationship a chainchain..

We want to ensure that tense features We want to ensure that tense features are pronounced in exactly one place in are pronounced in exactly one place in this chain.this chain. If the ends of the chain are not close If the ends of the chain are not close enough together, tense is pronounced on T enough together, tense is pronounced on T (as (as dodo). If they ). If they areare close enough close enough together, tense is pronounced on together, tense is pronounced on vv+V.+V.

Technical difficultiesTechnical difficulties Let’s be creative: Suppose that the tense Let’s be creative: Suppose that the tense features on features on vv (the value of the [ (the value of the [uuInfl:] Infl:] feature) “refer back” to the tense features on feature) “refer back” to the tense features on T.T. Agree can see relatively far (so T can value the Agree can see relatively far (so T can value the [[uuInfl:] feature of Infl:] feature of vv, even if it has to look past , even if it has to look past negation).negation).

But “referring back” is more limited, basically But “referring back” is more limited, basically only available to features that are sisters. only available to features that are sisters. Negation will get in the way for this.Negation will get in the way for this.

So if you try to pronounce tense on So if you try to pronounce tense on v v but T is too but T is too far away, the back-reference fails, and far away, the back-reference fails, and v v is is pronounced as a bare verb. But the tense features pronounced as a bare verb. But the tense features have to be pronounced somewhere, so they’re have to be pronounced somewhere, so they’re pronounced on T (as pronounced on T (as dodo).).

PTRPTR Adger’s proposal:Adger’s proposal:

Pronouncing Tense Rule (PTR)Pronouncing Tense Rule (PTR)In a chain (T[tense], In a chain (T[tense], vv[[uuInfl:tense]), pronounce Infl:tense]), pronounce the tense features on the tense features on vv only if only if vv is the head of is the head of T’s sisterT’s sister

NegP, if there, will be the sister of T NegP, if there, will be the sister of T (HoP), but Neg has no [(HoP), but Neg has no [uuInfl:Infl:] feature. ] feature. dodo will be inserted.will be inserted.

Adverbs adjoin to Adverbs adjoin to vvP, resulting in a P, resulting in a vvP. P. vv has an [has an [uuInfl:Infl:] valued by T and adverbs ] valued by T and adverbs don’t get in the way of don’t get in the way of vvP being the sister P being the sister of T. Tense is pronounced on the verb (of T. Tense is pronounced on the verb (vv).).

If If vvP is gone altogether, P is gone altogether, dodo is inserted. is inserted.

vv

Pat did not call ChrisPat did not call Chris So, here, T and So, here, T and vv form a chain because form a chain because [tense:past] valued [[tense:past] valued [uuInfl:past]. But Infl:past]. But vv is is not the head of T’s sister.not the head of T’s sister.

T[tense:past, …]

NPChris

<V>vagent[uInfl:past,…]

VPv

Vcall

vvPP

<Pat>

Negnot

NegPNegP

TTNPPat

TP

vv

Pat did not call ChrisPat did not call Chris DoDo-support comes to the rescue. What this means is just that -support comes to the rescue. What this means is just that

T is T is pronouncedpronounced as as dodo with the tense specifications on T. with the tense specifications on T. According to PTR, we don’t pronounce them on According to PTR, we don’t pronounce them on vv. . The tree The tree doesn’t changedoesn’t change..

T[tense:past, …]

did

NPChris


VPv

Vcall

vvPP

<Pat>

Negnot

NegPNegP

TTNPPat

TP

vv

Pat never called ChrisPat never called Chris If there is an adverb like If there is an adverb like nevernever, PTR still allows , PTR still allows

tense to be pronounced on tense to be pronounced on vv (so T doesn’t have any (so T doesn’t have any pronunciation of its own at all).pronunciation of its own at all).

T[tense:past, …]

NPChris


VPv

Vcall

vvPP

<Pat>

AdvPnever

vvPP

TTNPPat

TP

The Big PictureThe Big Picture Now that we’ve gotten some idea of how the Now that we’ve gotten some idea of how the system works, let’s back up a bit to system works, let’s back up a bit to remind ourselves a bit about why we’re remind ourselves a bit about why we’re doing what we’re doing.doing what we’re doing.

People have (unconscious) knowledge of the People have (unconscious) knowledge of the grammar of their native language (at grammar of their native language (at least). They can judge whether sentences least). They can judge whether sentences are good examples of the language or not.are good examples of the language or not.

Two questions:Two questions: What is that we know?What is that we know? How is it that we came to know what we know?How is it that we came to know what we know?

HistoryHistory In trying to model what we know (since it In trying to model what we know (since it isn’t conscious knowledge) some of the first isn’t conscious knowledge) some of the first attempts looked like this (Chomsky 1957):attempts looked like this (Chomsky 1957): Phrase Structure RulesPhrase Structure RulesS S NP (Aux) VP NP (Aux) VP VP VP V (NP) (PP) V (NP) (PP)

NP NP (Det) (Adj+) N (Det) (Adj+) N PP PP P NP P NPAux Aux (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Prog) (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Prog)N N Pat, lunch, … Pat, lunch, … P P at, in, to, … at, in, to, …Tns Tns Past, Present Past, Present Modal Modal can, can, should, …should, …Perf Perf have -en have -en Prog Prog be -ing be -ing

An S can be rewritten as an NP, optionally an Aux, An S can be rewritten as an NP, optionally an Aux, and a VP. An NP can be rewritten as, optionally a and a VP. An NP can be rewritten as, optionally a determiner, optionally one or more adjectives, and a determiner, optionally one or more adjectives, and a noun. …noun. …

What we know is that an S has an NP, a VP, and What we know is that an S has an NP, a VP, and sometimes an Aux between them, and that NPs can have sometimes an Aux between them, and that NPs can have a determiner, some number of adjectives, and a noun.a determiner, some number of adjectives, and a noun.

HistoryHistory

Phrase Structure RulesPhrase Structure RulesS S NP (Aux) VP NP (Aux) VPVP VP V (NP) (PP) V (NP) (PP) NP NP (Det) (Adj+) N (Det) (Adj+) NPP PP P NP P NPAux Aux (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Prog)(Prog)N N Pat, lunch, … Pat, lunch, …P P at, in, to, … at, in, to, …Tns Tns Past, Present Past, PresentModal Modal can, should, … can, should, …Perf Perf have -en have -enProg Prog be -ing be -ing

In this way, many sentences In this way, many sentences can be can be derivedderived, starting , starting from S.from S.

The tree-style structure is The tree-style structure is a way to record the history a way to record the history of the derivation from S to of the derivation from S to the words in the sentence.the words in the sentence.

We model our knowledge of We model our knowledge of English as a machine that English as a machine that (ideally, when it’s (ideally, when it’s finished) will generate all finished) will generate all of the sentences of English of the sentences of English and no others.and no others.

NPV

VP

S

eat

lunch

NP

N

Pat N

Aux

Modal

might

Affix Affix HoppingHopping

So, Chomsky proposed:So, Chomsky proposed:Aux Aux (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Prog)(Prog)Tns Tns Past, Present Past, PresentModal Modal can, should, … can, should, …Perf Perf have -en have -enProg Prog be -ing be -ingPast Past -ed -ed

Yielding something Yielding something like this:like this:

If you build a If you build a sentence this way, sentence this way, things aren’t in the things aren’t in the right order, but right order, but there’s a simple there’s a simple transformationtransformation that that can be done to the can be done to the structure to get it structure to get it right.right.

Empirically, tense, Empirically, tense, perfect perfect havehave, and , and progressive progressive bebe each each control the form of control the form of the verbal element the verbal element to their to their rightright..

NPV

VP

S

eat lunch

NP

N

Pat

N

Aux

Tns

Past

Perf

have -en

Prog

be -ing-ed

Affix Affix HoppingHopping

So, Chomsky proposed:So, Chomsky proposed:Aux Aux (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Prog)(Prog)Tns Tns Past, Present Past, PresentModal Modal can, should, … can, should, …Perf Perf have -en have -enProg Prog be -ing be -ingPast Past -ed -ed

Yielding something Yielding something like this:like this:

Affix HoppingAffix HoppingSD: afx verbSD: afx verbSC: verb+afxSC: verb+afx

The affixes all “hop to The affixes all “hop to the right” and attach the right” and attach to the following word.to the following word.

An ancestor to the An ancestor to the kinds of movement rules kinds of movement rules and of course the Agree and of course the Agree operation we’ve beoperation we’ve beenen talktalkinging about. about.

NPV

VP

S

eat+inglunch

NP

N

Pat

N

Aux

Tns

Past

Perf

have+ed

Prog

be+en

History continuesHistory continues Through the 60s there Through the 60s there

were good people working were good people working hard, figuring out what hard, figuring out what kinds of phrase structure kinds of phrase structure rules and transformations rules and transformations are needed for a are needed for a comprehensive description comprehensive description on English.on English.

As things developed, two As things developed, two things became clear:things became clear: A lot of the PSRs look A lot of the PSRs look

pretty similar.pretty similar. There’s no way a kid There’s no way a kid

acquiring language can be acquiring language can be learning these rules.learning these rules.

Chomsky (1970) Chomsky (1970) proposed that there proposed that there actually is only a actually is only a limited set of limited set of phrase structure phrase structure rule types.rule types.

For any categories For any categories X, Y, Z, W, there X, Y, Z, W, there are only rules are only rules like:like:XP XP YP X YP XXX X X WP WPXX X ZP X ZP

X-bar theoryX-bar theory If drawn out as a If drawn out as a tree, you may tree, you may recognize the kind of recognize the kind of structures this structures this proposal entails. proposal entails. These are structures These are structures based on the “X-bar based on the “X-bar schema”.schema”. XP XP YP X YP XXX X X WP WPXX X ZP X ZP

YP being the YP being the “specifier”, WP being an “specifier”, WP being an “adjunct”, ZP being the “adjunct”, ZP being the “complement”. Adjuncts “complement”. Adjuncts were considered to have were considered to have a slightly different a slightly different configuration then.configuration then.

WP

ZPX

X

YP X

XP

Why is this better? The types ofrules are much more constrained.AND it also makes predictionsabout structure and constituencythat turn out to be more accurate.

GBGB Around 1981, the view Around 1981, the view

shifted from thinking of shifted from thinking of the system as constructing the system as constructing all and only structures all and only structures with PSRs and with PSRs and transformations to a view transformations to a view in which structures and in which structures and transformations could transformations could apply freely, but the apply freely, but the grammatical structures grammatical structures were those that satisfied were those that satisfied constraints on (various constraints on (various stages of) the stages of) the representation.representation.

First, a “deep structure” (DS) First, a “deep structure” (DS) tree is built, however you like tree is built, however you like butbut Selectional restrictions must be Selectional restrictions must be

satisfiedsatisfied -roles must be assigned-roles must be assigned Etc.Etc.

Then, adjustments are made to Then, adjustments are made to get the “surface structure” get the “surface structure” (SS)(SS) Things more or less like Affix Things more or less like Affix

Hopping, or moving V to Hopping, or moving V to vv, or , or moving the subject to SpecTP.moving the subject to SpecTP.

Further constraints are verified Further constraints are verified here: Is there a subject in here: Is there a subject in SpecTP? Etc.SpecTP? Etc.

Finally, the result is assigned Finally, the result is assigned a pronunciation (PF), and, a pronunciation (PF), and, possibly after some further possibly after some further adjustments, an interpretation adjustments, an interpretation (LF).(LF).

Why is this better? Most of the construction-specific rules were made to follow from more general principles, interacting. ANDagain, it caused us to look for predictions, which were better met.

Which brings us to 1993Which brings us to 1993 The most recent change The most recent change

in viewpoint was to the in viewpoint was to the system we’re working system we’re working with now (arising from with now (arising from the Minimalist Program the Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory).for Linguistic Theory).

The constraints that The constraints that applied to the applied to the structures in GB were structures in GB were getting to be rather getting to be rather esoteric and numerous, esoteric and numerous, to the extent that it to the extent that it seemed we were missing seemed we were missing generalizations.generalizations.

The goal of MPLT was to “start The goal of MPLT was to “start over” in a sense, to try to over” in a sense, to try to make the constraints follow make the constraints follow from some more natural from some more natural assumptions that we would need assumptions that we would need to make anyway.to make anyway.

This new view has the This new view has the computational system working computational system working at a very basic level, forcing at a very basic level, forcing structures to obey the structures to obey the constraints of GB by enforcing constraints of GB by enforcing them locally as we assemble them locally as we assemble the structure from the bottom the structure from the bottom up.up.

Why is this better? It’s a further reduction to even more generalprinciples. The idea is that you need a few things to construct a language-like system—and there’s nothing else.

Features and technologyFeatures and technology The use of features to The use of features to

drive the system drive the system (uninterpretable features (uninterpretable features force Merge, because if force Merge, because if they are not checked, the they are not checked, the resulting structure will resulting structure will be itself uninterpretable) be itself uninterpretable) is a way to encode the is a way to encode the notion that lexical items notion that lexical items need other lexical items.need other lexical items.

What the system is What the system is designed to do is assemble designed to do is assemble grammatical structures grammatical structures where possible, given a where possible, given a set of lexical items to set of lexical items to start with.start with.

A comment about the A comment about the technology here:technology here:

The operations of Merge, The operations of Merge, Adjoin, Agree, and Adjoin, Agree, and feature checking, the feature checking, the idea that features can idea that features can be interpretable or not be interpretable or not (or, strong or weak) are (or, strong or weak) are all all formalizationsformalizations of an of an underlying system, used underlying system, used so that we can so that we can describe describe the system preciselythe system precisely enough to understand its enough to understand its predictionspredictions about our about our language knowledge.language knowledge.

Features and the moonFeatures and the moon We can think of this We can think of this

initially as the same initially as the same kind of model as this:kind of model as this:

The Earth and the Moon The Earth and the Moon don’t compute this. But don’t compute this. But if we write it this way, if we write it this way, we can predict where the we can predict where the Moon will be.Moon will be.

Saying lexical items Saying lexical items have uninterpretable have uninterpretable features that need to be features that need to be checked, and checked, and hypothesizing mechanisms hypothesizing mechanisms (matching, valuing) by (matching, valuing) by which they might be which they might be checked is similarly a checked is similarly a way to formalize the way to formalize the behavior of the behavior of the computational system computational system underlying language in a underlying language in a way that allows us way that allows us deeper understanding of deeper understanding of the system and what it the system and what it predicts about language.predicts about language.

€

f =Gm1m2r2

The “Minimalist Program”The “Minimalist Program” The analogy The analogy with the with the gravitationgravitational force al force equation equation isn’t quite isn’t quite accurate, accurate, given the given the underlying underlying philosophy philosophy of the MP.of the MP.

The The Minimalist Minimalist Program in Program in fact is fact is trying to trying to do this:do this:

Suppose that we have a cognitive system for Suppose that we have a cognitive system for language, which has to interact with at language, which has to interact with at least two other cognitive systems, the least two other cognitive systems, the conceptual-intensionalconceptual-intensional and the and the articulatory-perceptualarticulatory-perceptual..

Whatever it produces needs to be Whatever it produces needs to be interpretable (in the vernacular of) each interpretable (in the vernacular of) each of these cognitive systems for the of these cognitive systems for the representation to be of any use.representation to be of any use.

Suppose that the properties of these Suppose that the properties of these external systems are your boundary external systems are your boundary conditions, your specifications.conditions, your specifications.

The hypothesis of the MPLT is that The hypothesis of the MPLT is that the the computational system underlying language is computational system underlying language is an optimal solution to those design an optimal solution to those design specificationsspecifications. So everything is thought of . So everything is thought of in terms of the creation of interpretable in terms of the creation of interpretable representations.representations.

Documents

Episode 6b. Head movement, feature strength, parametric variation, and do-support 5.4-5.5 CAS LX 522 Syntax I