syntax and the pf interface - invited lecture for lin3310...

Syntax and the PF interfaceInvited lecture for LIN3310: Syntactic Theory

Brandon J. [email protected]

Syntax-Semantics Lab, University of Ottawa

April 8, 2016

Road map

1 Word formation

2 PhasesPhases in syntax

3 Phases and PFWord-internal phases

B. J. Fry (Syn-Sem Lab, uOttawa) Syntax and the PF interface April 8, 2016 2 / 29

Word formation

Certain grammatical information is expressed syntactically in somelanguages and morphologically in others.

Causatives in English and Japanese

(1) John made the child cry.

(2) John-ga

John-nom

kodomo-o

child-acc

nak-asi-ta.

cry-cause-past

‘John made the child cry.’ (Pylkkanen 2002:74)

There are certain robust correspondences between syntactic structureand morphological structure.


Word formation

The Mirror Generalization (Baker 1988) refers to the fact thatmorphemes in a word appear in the opposite order of thecorresponding categories in the syntax.

Syntax:T

Subjv

V Obj

Morphology:V v

T

Mirror Principle

(3) John will make the child cry.

(4) John-ga

John-nom

kodomo-o

child-acc

nak-asi-ta.

cry-cause-past

‘John made the child cry.’ (Pylkkanen 2002:74)


Word formation

Apparently related words belonging to different categories seem tohave similar argument structures.

Nominalization and argument structure

(5) a. The Greeks destroyed the city (in three days).b. The Greeks’ destruction of the city (in three days).

(6) a. My neighbour donated forty books to the hospital.b. My neighbour’s donation of forty books to the hospital.


Word formation

Words exhibit scope ambiguities, just like sentences do.

Word-internal ambiguity

(7) unlockable

unlock able

‘unable to be locked’

un lockable

‘able to be unlocked’


Word formation

Distributed Morphology (DM; Halle and Marantz 1993 et seq.)proposes to dispense with the lexicon; specifically for today’s purpose,as the component responsible for word formation.

Word formation takes place in the syntax. Syntactic operations donot apply to word-like elements but rather build these word-likeelements, which are then combined to form complex phrases.

As Siddiqi’s (2010) excellent review makes clear, there are manydebates within DM about just about every aspect of the enterprise,including the nature of the atomic elements and the number ofoperations.In this exposition, I will necessarily make certain decisions ofimplementation without justifying them.


Word formation

Let us accept that a word is composed of an acategorial root and acategory-defining head.

V = [√

v ]N = [

√n ]

A = [√

a ]etc.


Word formation

v versus n

The Greeks destroyed the city.

the GreeksT

the Greeks√

v √

the city

√v↔ destroy

The Greeks’ destruction of the city

the GreeksD

the Greeks√

n √

the city

√n↔ destruction


Word formation

Adjective formation in Ojibwe

(8) waab-i

white-adj

‘white’ (Mathieu et al. to appear:4)

(9) gich-i

big-adj

‘big’ (Mathieu et al. to appear:4)

a√waab

→√waab i

√waab


Word formation

Nominalizing a transitive verb in Ojibwe

(10) bkwezhgan

bakwezhi-ge-ancut.trans-intrans-nom‘bread’ (lit. ‘that which is cut’) (Barrie and Mathieu to appear:12)

ange

v√

bakwezhi

→

√

bakwezhi vge

an

√

bakwezhi vge

√

bakwezhi v

√

bakwezhi


Phases

In mainstream Minimalism (Chomsky 2000 et seq.), the architectureof the grammar is such that syntax builds hierarchical structures thatare then interpreted cyclically by the other components of thegrammar, the phonology and the semantics.

Syntax

PF LF

When the syntactic derivation reaches a certain step, the operationTransfer1 applies, which has the effect that the syntactic informationis transmitted to the interfaces, where the syntactic objects areinterpreted.

Chomsky (2000 et seq.) refers to the points of the derivation whereTransfer applies as phases.

1Also called Spell-Out.B. J. Fry (Syn-Sem Lab, uOttawa) Syntax and the PF interface April 8, 2016 12 / 29

Phases in syntax

Since Transfer has the effect that syntactic material is transformedinto phonological and semantic material, once syntactic materialundergoes Transfer, it cannot be further affected by syntacticoperations; syntactic operations do not apply to semantic orphonological features.

He proposes that CP is a phase.

Notice, however, that it cannot be the whole CP that undergoesTransfer. If this was the case, the syntactic derivation could notcontinue.


Phases in syntax

If the whole CP underwent Transfer, there would be no syntacticmaterial for a matrix verb to Merge to in a sentence like the following.

(11) You think that John devoured the beans.

Merge(think,?)

CP

that

John

T

John

devour v devourthe beans


Phases in syntax

If the whole CP underwent Transfer, there would be no way for awh-phrase to move to a higher clause, as in the following example.

(12) What do you think that John devoured?

CP

that

John

T

John

devour v devour what


Phases in syntax

It is therefore only a part of the CP that undergoes Transfer, inparticular the TP.2

Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC; Chomsky 2000:108)

In phase α with head H, the domain of H is not accessible to operationsoutside α, only H and its edge are accessible to such operations.

2Other proposed phases include vP and DP.B. J. Fry (Syn-Sem Lab, uOttawa) Syntax and the PF interface April 8, 2016 16 / 29

Phases in syntax

When the TP undergoes Transfer, the CP remains accessible toundergo Merge with the matrix verb in the following sentence.

(13) You think that John devoured the beans.

Merge(think,CP)

think CP

that TP

John

T

John

devour v devourthe beans


Phases in syntax

Before the TP undergoes Transfer, the wh-phrase moves to spec-CP,where it can move to the spec-CP of the main clause.This explains why wh-phrases move successive-cyclically: to avoidbeing trapped inside a Transfer domain.

(14) What do you think that John devoured?CP

what

that TP

John

T

John

devour v devour whatB. J. Fry (Syn-Sem Lab, uOttawa) Syntax and the PF interface April 8, 2016 18 / 29

Phases in syntax

What do you think that John devoured?

that TP

John

T

John



Phases in syntax


CP

what

that TP

John

T

John



Phases in syntax


do CTP

you

do

you

think vthink CP

what

that TP

John T devoured what


Phases in syntax


CP

what

do CTP

you

do

you

think vthink CP

what

that TP

John T devoured whatB. J. Fry (Syn-Sem Lab, uOttawa) Syntax and the PF interface April 8, 2016 23 / 29

Phases in syntax


CP

what

do CTP

you

do

you

think vthink CP

what

that TP

John T devoured whatB. J. Fry (Syn-Sem Lab, uOttawa) Syntax and the PF interface April 8, 2016 24 / 29

Phases and PF

If syntactic material is interpreted piece-wise (phase by phase) by theinterfaces, then we expect that the relevant syntactic “chunks”correspond to some relevant units at each of the interfaces.

For example, we expect that phases should determine domains whichare relevant for the application of certain phonological rules.


Word-internal phases

Marantz (2000 et seq.) proposes that phases exist inside words too.

Newell and Piggott (2014) explain an interesting phonologicalproblem in Ojibwe by appealing to phases inside words.

In Ojibwe, vowel hiatus can be resolved by either3:deleting one of the vowels;

(15) no:komis

ni-o:komis

1-grandmother‘my grandmother’ (Newell and Piggott 2014: 349)

or inserting an epenthetic consonant between the two vowels.

(16) nigada:gamose:

ni-ga-a:gam-ose:

1-fut-snowshoe-walk‘I will walk in snowshoes.’ (Newell and Piggott 2014:351)

3Vowel hiatus is tolerated in some contexts. See Newell and Piggott 2014.B. J. Fry (Syn-Sem Lab, uOttawa) Syntax and the PF interface April 8, 2016 26 / 29


Why does deletion take place sometimes whereas epenthesis takesplace other times?

no:komis ‘my grandmother’

DP

ni

D

√o:komis n

√o:komis

PF (after Transfer): nio:komis → no:komis

In this case, the phonology receives both vowels in the same syntactic“chunk” and deletes one of the vowels.



nigada:gamose: ‘I will walk in snowshoes’

ni

ga

a:gam

ni√ose: v

√ose:

PF after Transfer 1: a:gamose:PF after Transfer 2: nigaLinearization: [niga][a:gamose:] → [niga]d[a:gamose:]

In this case, the phonology receives the vowels in different syntactic“chunks” so the phonology cannot change what it already didseparately to each chunk (e.g., delete a vowel). It inserts a segmentbetween the two chunks.


References

Baker, Mark. C. 1988. Incorporation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Barrie, Michael and Eric Mathieu. To appear. Noun incorporation and phrasal movement.NLLT.

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: the framework. In Step by step. Essays on

minimalist syntax in honour of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, andJuan Uriagereka, 89-155. Cambridge, MA MIT Press.

Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. InThe view from Building 20, eds. Kenneth Hale and Samuel J. Keyser, 111-176.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Marantz, Alec. 2000. Words. Ms., MIT.

Mathieu, Eric, Brandon J. Fry, and Michael Barrie. To appear. In Word structure, eds.Heather Newell, Maire Noonan, Glyne Piggott, and Lisa Travis. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Newell, Heather and Glyne Piggott. 2014. Interactions at the syntax-phonology interface:evidence from Ojibwe. Lingua 150:332-362.

Pylkkanen, Liina. 2002. Introducing arguments. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

Siddiqi, Daniel. Distributed Morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass 4: 524-542.


syntax and the pf interface - invited lecture for lin3310...

Documents