Week 12. Articulating the Week 12. Articulating the tree, and some Applied tree, and some Applied

SyntaxSyntax

CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax I

Reminder: Motivating Reminder: Motivating AgrOPAgrOP +Fin aux/verb:+Fin aux/verb:

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

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

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

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

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

V

VP

PP

T

TP DS

Neg

NegP

pas

ne

T

VAdvPsouvent

Neg

DPk

V

A new FPA new FP

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

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

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

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

VP

PP

T

TP DS

Neg

NegP

pas

ne

T

VAdvPsouvent

Neg

DPk

V

F

FP

F

AgrOPAgrOP AgrOPAgrOP, , Object agreement Object agreement

phrasephrase.. Don’t forget, this is Don’t forget, this is FrenchFrench

we’re talking about here. In we’re talking about here. In French, V moves to T.French, V moves to T.

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

And why does the object And why does the object have to move to have to move to SpecAgrOP? To get SpecAgrOP? To get accusative Case.accusative Case.

VP

ti

T

TP

SS

T

Vtk

V

AgrO

AgrOP

AgrO

C

CP

C

DPk

DPi

ti

Morphology on French Morphology on French verbsverbs

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

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

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

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

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

AgrSP?AgrSP? AgrOPAgrOP, , Object Object

agreement phraseagreement phrase.. AgrSPAgrSP, , Subject Subject

agreement phraseagreement phrase?? Pleasingly Pleasingly

symmetricalsymmetrical!!

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

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

VP

ti

T

TP

T

Vtk

V

AgrO

AgrOP

AgrO

AgrS

AgrSP

AgrS

DPk

DPk

ti

C

C

Split-INFLSplit-INFL The assumption of this The assumption of this

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

Reminder: AgrSP+TP+AgrOP Reminder: AgrSP+TP+AgrOP in the era before the “Split-in the era before the “Split-INFL” was often referred to INFL” was often referred to as INFLP or IP. We’ve called as INFLP or IP. We’ve called it “TP” (perhaps confusingly, it “TP” (perhaps confusingly, we were really talking about we were really talking about IP before).IP before).

VP

T

TP

T

V

V

AgrO

AgrOP

AgrO

AgrS

AgrSP

AgrS

DP

DP

C

C

The EPPThe EPP& NOM& NOM

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

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

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

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

VP

T

TP

T

V

V

AgrO

AgrOP

AgrO

AgrS

AgrSP

AgrS

DP

DP

C

C

Adopting the Split-INFL Adopting the Split-INFL hypothesishypothesis

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

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

Where it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter, but Where it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter, but sometimes it matters. sometimes it matters. (On the final, for example)(On the final, for example)

Adopting the Split-INFL Adopting the Split-INFL hypothesishypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

VP

T

TP

T

AgrO

AgrOP

AgrO

AgrS

AgrSP

AgrS

C

C

CP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving away from Moving away from EnglishEnglish

Recall that the model of language we’re Recall that the model of language we’re working with is one in which languages are for working with is one in which languages are for the most part the most part the samethe same, but differ in the , but differ in the settings of certain settings of certain parametersparameters, such as order , such as order between object and verb. between object and verb. What are possible What are possible parameter settings?parameter settings?

UG Japanese

English

Moving away from Moving away from EnglishEnglish

We’ve seen a couple, but the only way We’ve seen a couple, but the only way to discover what they are is to look at to discover what they are is to look at how other languages differ.how other languages differ. Recall, for example, the V-to-T parameter Recall, for example, the V-to-T parameter

that differentiated French from English.that differentiated French from English.

UG Japanese

English

JapaneseJapanese

Taroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta.Taroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta.Taro-Taro-NOMNOM that book- that book-ACC ACC buy- buy-PASTPAST

‘Taro bought that book.’‘Taro bought that book.’ Taroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta no?Taroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta no?

Taro-Taro-NOMNOM that book- that book-ACC ACC buy- buy-PAST QPAST Q

‘Did Taro buy that book?’‘Did Taro buy that book?’ Hanako-ga Hanako-ga [[Taroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta toTaroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta to]]

omotteiru.omotteiru.H.-H.-NOMNOM T.- T.-NOMNOM that book- that book-ACCACC buy- buy-PASTPAST that thinks that thinks‘Hanako thinks that Taro bought that book.’‘Hanako thinks that Taro bought that book.’

JapaneseJapanese Japanese appears to be quite Japanese appears to be quite

strictly strictly head-finalhead-final. The head of . The head of an XP comes after the an XP comes after the complement.complement.

We can draw the structure of We can draw the structure of a Japanese tree like this, using a Japanese tree like this, using the same system, only with the same system, only with head-final structures.head-final structures.

(I drew this series of slides for a (I drew this series of slides for a previous lecture preceding the previous lecture preceding the introduction of the split-INFL introduction of the split-INFL hypothesis—what do we think hypothesis—what do we think about AgrSP and AgrOP in about AgrSP and AgrOP in Japanese?)Japanese?)

Vkat

V

VP

ano hon-o

DP

T

T

TP

Taroo-ga

DPi

-ta

C

C

CP

to

ti

JapaneseJapanese

As in English, nominative As in English, nominative case (case (gaga) is assigned to ) is assigned to the DP in the specifier of the DP in the specifier of TP, accusative case (TP, accusative case (oo) is ) is assigned to the sister of assigned to the sister of V.V. (Or, in terms of Split-INFL?)(Or, in terms of Split-INFL?)

Does the verb move to T? Does the verb move to T? Tough Tough question. Notice question. Notice that it doesn’t that it doesn’t havehave to to to to get the word order right.get the word order right.

Vkat

V

VP

ano hon-o

DP

T

T

TP

Taroo-ga

DPi

-ta

C

C

CP

to

ti

JapaneseJapanese

Taroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta.Taroo-ga ano hon-o kat-ta.Taro-Taro-NOMNOM that book- that book-ACC ACC buy- buy-PASTPAST

‘Taro bought that book.’‘Taro bought that book.’ ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta.ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta.

that book-that book-ACC ACC Taro-Taro-NOMNOM buy- buy-PASTPAST

‘Taro bought that book.’‘Taro bought that book.’

How might this come about?How might this come about? The The -criterion dictates that the object -criterion dictates that the object ano hon-oano hon-o

starts out as the sister of V. Like in starts out as the sister of V. Like in What did I What did I buy?buy?

JapaneseJapanese

ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta.ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta.that book-that book-ACCACC Taro- Taro-NOM NOM buy-buy-PASTPAST

‘Taro bought that book.’‘Taro bought that book.’

This must start out the This must start out the same way assame way as Taroo-ga ano Taroo-ga ano hon-o kattahon-o katta..

Thus Thus ano hon-o ano hon-o must move must move to where we see it. to where we see it. ScramblingScrambling..

So where does it go?So where does it go?

Vkat

V

VP

ano hon-o

DP

T

T

TP

Taroo-ga

DPi

-ta

C

C

CP

[-Q]

ti

JapaneseJapanese

ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta.ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta.that book-that book-ACCACC Taro- Taro-NOM NOM buy-buy-PASTPAST

‘Taro bought that book.’‘Taro bought that book.’

The standard analysis of The standard analysis of this is that scrambled this is that scrambled arguments move to adjoin arguments move to adjoin to TP—like quantifiers do. to TP—like quantifiers do. Same Same kind kind of movement as of movement as QR.QR.

Vkat

V

VP T

T

TP

Taroo-ga

DPi

-ta

C

C

CP

[-Q]

ti

TP

ano hon-o

DPj

tj

JapaneseJapanese

ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ano hon-o Taroo-ga kat-ta.ta.that book-that book-ACCACC Taro- Taro-NOM NOM buy-buy-PASTPAST

‘Taro bought that book.’‘Taro bought that book.’ So languages also differ So languages also differ

in whether or not they in whether or not they allow allow scramblingscrambling..

A large majority of the A large majority of the scrambling languages scrambling languages are also SOV languages, are also SOV languages, although why that would although why that would be remains unclear.be remains unclear.

Vkat

V

VP T

T

TP

Taroo-ga

DPi

-ta

C

C

CP

[-Q]

ti

TP

ano hon-o

DPj

tj

KoreanKorean

Korean is in many respects structurally Korean is in many respects structurally very similar to Japanese; strictly head-very similar to Japanese; strictly head-final, allows scrambling, has Case final, allows scrambling, has Case marking.marking.

Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ess-ta.Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ess-ta.Chelswu-Chelswu-NOMNOM that book- that book-ACCACC read- read-PASTPAST--DECLDECL

‘Chelswu read that book.’‘Chelswu read that book.’

Korean negationKorean negation

Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ess-ta.Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ess-ta.Chelswu-Chelswu-NOMNOM that book- that book-ACCACC read- read-PASTPAST--DECLDECL

‘Chelswu read that book.’‘Chelswu read that book.’ Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul an-ilk-ess-ta.Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul an-ilk-ess-ta.

Chelswu-Chelswu-NOMNOM that book- that book-ACCACC NEGNEG-read--read-PASTPAST--DECLDECL

‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’ Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-

ta.ta.Chelswu-Chelswu-NOMNOM that book- that book-ACCACC read- read-CICI NEG.NEG.do-do-PASTPAST--DECLDECL

‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’

Korean negationKorean negation

Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul an-ilk-ess-ta.Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul an-ilk-ess-ta.Chelswu-Chelswu-NOMNOM that book- that book-ACCACC NEGNEG-read--read-PASTPAST--DECLDECL

‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’

If this is the DS for the Korean If this is the DS for the Korean “short negation,” how do we get the “short negation,” how do we get the right word order?right word order?

Vilk

V

VP

ku chayk-ul

DP

T

T

TP

C.-ka

DP

-ess

C

C

CP

-ta

Negan

Neg

NegP

DS

Korean negationKorean negation

Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul an-ilk-ess-ta.Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul an-ilk-ess-ta.Chelswu-Chelswu-NOMNOM that book- that book-ACCACC NEGNEG-read--read-PASTPAST--DECLDECL

‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’

If this is the DS for the Korean “short If this is the DS for the Korean “short negation,” how do we get the right negation,” how do we get the right word order?word order?

We could head-move the verb up the We could head-move the verb up the tree to Neg.tree to Neg.

So what’s happening in “long So what’s happening in “long negation”?negation”?

Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta.Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta.Chelswu-Chelswu-NOMNOM that book- that book-ACCACC read- read-CICI NEG.NEG.do-do-PASTPAST--DECLDECL

‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’

V

VP

ku chayk-ul

DP

T

T

TP

C.-ka

DPj

-ess

C

C

CP

-ta

Neg+Vian-ilk

Neg

NegP

SS

ti

tj

Korean negationKorean negation Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta.Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta.

Chelswu-Chelswu-NOMNOM that book- that book-ACCACC read- read-CICI NEG.NEG.do-do-PASTPAST--DECLDECL‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’

Suppose that the DS is the same, Suppose that the DS is the same, except that we now have a special except that we now have a special “nominalized” form of the verb (cf. “nominalized” form of the verb (cf. readingreading, perhaps)., perhaps).

Suppose that Suppose that ilk-ciilk-ci doesn’tdoesn’t move to move to Neg.Neg.

See how we might analyze this?See how we might analyze this?V

ilk-ci

V

VP

ku chayk-ul

DP

T

T

TP

C.-ka

DP

-ess

C

C

CP

-ta

Negan

Neg

NegP

DS

Korean negationKorean negation

Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta.Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta.Chelswu-Chelswu-NOMNOM that book- that book-ACCACC read- read-CICI NEG.NEG.do-do-PASTPAST--DECLDECL

‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’

At SS, we have a tense morpheme (At SS, we have a tense morpheme (--essess) which needs to attach to a verb.) which needs to attach to a verb.

But since But since ilk-ciilk-ci didn’t move to didn’t move to anan (and in fact probably doesn’t count (and in fact probably doesn’t count as a verb anymore, but as a noun), as a verb anymore, but as a noun), there is no verb in the area.there is no verb in the area.

Vilk-ci

V

VP

ku chayk-ul

DP

T

T

TP

-ess

C

C

CP

-ta

Negan

Neg

NegP

SS

C.-ka

DPj

tj

Korean negationKorean negation

Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta.Chelswu-ka ku chayk-ul ilk-ci anh-ess-ta.Chelswu-Chelswu-NOMNOM that book- that book-ACCACC read- read-CICI NEG.NEG.do-do-PASTPAST--DECLDECL

‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’‘Chelswu didn’t read that book.’

Hence we insert Hence we insert dodo (in Korean, (in Korean, haha), ), which gets contracted as which gets contracted as anhanh..

Actually, in more literary Korean it is Actually, in more literary Korean it is also possible to find an uncontracted also possible to find an uncontracted form that looks likeform that looks like …ilk-ci ani ha-…ilk-ci ani ha-ess-taess-ta..

Just like English…Just like English…

Vilk-ci

V

VP

ku chayk-ul

DP

T

T

TP

ha-ess

C

C

CP

-ta

Negan

Neg

NegP

PF

C.-ka

DPj

tj

DutchDutch Let’s shift gears a bit and look at some Let’s shift gears a bit and look at some

Germanic languages. Like Dutch (this works Germanic languages. Like Dutch (this works for German too). for German too). What’s the word order? Is it What’s the word order? Is it head-initial? Head-final?head-initial? Head-final?

Wim koopt het boek.Wim koopt het boek.Wim buys the bookWim buys the book‘Wim buys the book.’‘Wim buys the book.’

……dat Wim het boek koopt.dat Wim het boek koopt.…that Wim the book buys…that Wim the book buys‘…that Wim buys the book’‘…that Wim buys the book’

DutchDutch

Dutch main clause sentences are not Dutch main clause sentences are not SVO…SVO…

Dat boek kocht Wim gisteren.Dat boek kocht Wim gisteren.that book bought Wim yesterdaythat book bought Wim yesterday‘That book Wim bought yesterday.’‘That book Wim bought yesterday.’

Gisteren kocht Wim dat boek.Gisteren kocht Wim dat boek.yesterday bought Wim that bookyesterday bought Wim that book‘Yesterday Wim bought that book.’‘Yesterday Wim bought that book.’

Dutch V2Dutch V2 When there is an auxiliary, the auxiliary goes When there is an auxiliary, the auxiliary goes

second, and the verb goes last.second, and the verb goes last. Gisteren heeft Karel dat boek gekochtGisteren heeft Karel dat boek gekocht

Yesterday has Karel that book boughtYesterday has Karel that book bought‘Yesterday Karel bought that book.’‘Yesterday Karel bought that book.’

and when embedded, they both go at the and when embedded, they both go at the end…end…

……dat Karel gisteren dat boek gekocht heeft.dat Karel gisteren dat boek gekocht heeft.…that Karel yesterday that book bought has…that Karel yesterday that book bought has‘…that Karel bought that book yesterday.’‘…that Karel bought that book yesterday.’

Dutch V2Dutch V2

XP V S OXP V S O …C S O V…C S O V XP Aux S O VXP Aux S O V …C S O V Aux…C S O V Aux

What’s happening here?What’s happening here? Compare:Compare:

Has Bill gone to the movies?Has Bill gone to the movies?I wonder if Bill has gone to the I wonder if Bill has gone to the movies.movies.

Dutch V2Dutch V2

XP V S OXP V S O …C S O V…C S O V XP Aux S O VXP Aux S O V …C S O V Aux…C S O V Aux

It appears that in main clauses the It appears that in main clauses the tensed verb moves to C; in tensed verb moves to C; in embedded clauses it doesn’t.embedded clauses it doesn’t.

Like in English questions…Like in English questions…

Dutch V2Dutch V2

XP V S OXP V S O …C S O V…C S O V XP Aux S O VXP Aux S O V …C S O V Aux…C S O V Aux

So, is Dutch head-initial or head-So, is Dutch head-initial or head-final?final?

By now we should be able to tell By now we should be able to tell what VP, TP, and CP look like.what VP, TP, and CP look like.

Dutch V2Dutch V2

Dutch appears to be Dutch appears to be head-final in VP and head-final in VP and TP, but head-initial in TP, but head-initial in CP.CP.

The (finite) verb The (finite) verb moves from V to T moves from V to T and then to C in and then to C in matrix clausesmatrix clauses

Then Then somethingsomething moves into SpecCP. moves into SpecCP. It could be the It could be the subject…subject…

tk

T

TP

DP

DPj

V

VP

koopt

WimC+[Vi+T]k

C

CP

het boek

ti

tj

tj

Dutch V2Dutch V2

Dutch appears to be Dutch appears to be head-final in VP and head-final in VP and TP, but head-initial in TP, but head-initial in CP.CP.

The (finite) verb The (finite) verb moves from V to T moves from V to T and then to C in and then to C in matrix clausesmatrix clauses

Then Then somethingsomething moves into SpecCP. moves into SpecCP. It could be the It could be the objectobject……

T

TP

DPk

DPj

V

VPWim

C

CP

het boek

ti

tj

tk

kooptC+[Vi+T]k

tk

Dutch V2Dutch V2

When C is filled When C is filled (in an (in an embedded embedded clause, with clause, with datdat), the verb ), the verb moves only to T moves only to T and nothing and nothing moves to moves to SpecCP.SpecCP.

T

TP

DP

DPj

V

VP

dat

Wim

C

C

CP

het boek

ti

tj

kooptT+Vi

V2V2

So another parameter of variation So another parameter of variation between languages seems to be whether between languages seems to be whether V moves to C and requires SpecCP to be V moves to C and requires SpecCP to be filled (“V2”).filled (“V2”).

English has a little bit of what appears English has a little bit of what appears to be “residual V2” with negatives.to be “residual V2” with negatives. Never had I seen such a thing.Never had I seen such a thing. Under no circumstances will I buy that book.Under no circumstances will I buy that book. There are complications with treating this like There are complications with treating this like

V2 in German and Dutch (can you think of V2 in German and Dutch (can you think of them?) which will be addressed in Syntax II.them?) which will be addressed in Syntax II.

VSO: Reminder about VSO: Reminder about IrishIrish

Irish:Irish: VSO, Aux SVO.VSO, Aux SVO. PhógPhóg Máire an lucharachán. Máire an lucharachán. kissedkissed Mary the leprechaun Mary the leprechaun ‘‘Mary kissed the leprechaun.’Mary kissed the leprechaun.’

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

We might have also analyzed this as V-to-T-to-C We might have also analyzed this as V-to-T-to-C (like German but without the filled SpecCP), but (like German but without the filled SpecCP), but for…for…

VSO order in IrishVSO order in Irish

There seem to be cases when C is There seem to be cases when C is filled and the order is still VSO—so filled and the order is still VSO—so the verb doesn’t move to C.the verb doesn’t move to C. AnAn bhfaca tú an madra? bhfaca tú an madra? QQ See you the dog See you the dog ‘‘Did you see the dog?’Did you see the dog?’

Duirt mé Duirt mé gurgur phóg Máire an lucharachán. phóg Máire an lucharachán. Said I Said I thatthat kissed Mary the leprechaun kissed Mary the leprechaun ‘‘I said that Mary kissed the leprechaun.’I said that Mary kissed the leprechaun.’

VSO order in IrishVSO order in Irish We had suggested that Irish We had suggested that Irish leavesleaves

the subject in VP-internal position.the subject in VP-internal position. In essence, then, Irish seems to be In essence, then, Irish seems to be

a V-to-T type language—but a V-to-T type language—but without the EPP.without the EPP.

Note: Not everyone likes saying Note: Not everyone likes saying that a language can choose not to that a language can choose not to obey the EPP. However, if the obey the EPP. However, if the alternative has EPP universal and alternative has EPP universal and some languages can use some languages can use proproexpexp to to satisfy it, the two alternatives are satisfy it, the two alternatives are not different.not different.

We now have an alternative way to We now have an alternative way to analyze this… one that doesn’t analyze this… one that doesn’t require either suspension of the require either suspension of the EPP or EPP or proproexpexp. What is it?. What is it? ti

V

VP

…

C

C

CP SS

T+Vi

T

TP

DP

VSO in Std. ArabicVSO in Std. Arabic

Standard Arabic seems to be VSO like Irish, Standard Arabic seems to be VSO like Irish, but can provide clearer evidence for this but can provide clearer evidence for this idea that VSO leaves the subject lower than idea that VSO leaves the subject lower than the standard (English-type) subject position.the standard (English-type) subject position.

Std. Arabic:Std. Arabic: Allows both VSO and SVO Allows both VSO and SVO orders.orders. ra?a-ara?a-a l-?awlaad-u Zayd-an l-?awlaad-u Zayd-an

saw-saw-3S3S the-boys-the-boys-NOM NOM Zayd- Zayd-ACCACC

‘The boys saw Zayd.’ ‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (VSO)(VSO) l-?awlaad-u l-?awlaad-u ra?a-wra?a-w Zayd-an Zayd-an

the-boys-the-boys-NOMNOM saw-saw-3PL3PL Zayd- Zayd-ACCACC

‘The boys saw Zayd.’ ‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (SVO)(SVO)

VSO in Std. ArabicVSO in Std. Arabic

ra?a-ara?a-a l-?awlaad-u Zayd-an l-?awlaad-u Zayd-ansaw-saw-3S3S the-boys-the-boys-NOM NOM Zayd- Zayd-ACCACC

‘The boys saw Zayd.’ ‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (VSO)(VSO) l-?awlaad-u l-?awlaad-u ra?a-wra?a-w Zayd-an Zayd-an

the-boys-the-boys-NOMNOM saw-saw-3PL3PL Zayd- Zayd-ACCACC

‘The boys saw Zayd.’ ‘The boys saw Zayd.’ (SVO)(SVO) Notice that the verb agrees with the Notice that the verb agrees with the

subject in the SVO order—in the VSO subject in the SVO order—in the VSO order the verb just carries 3sg order the verb just carries 3sg agreement.agreement.

SVO/VSO order in Std. SVO/VSO order in Std. ArabicArabic

That is, there isThat is, there is agreement markingagreement marking where the subject is where the subject is in SpecTP.in SpecTP.

Where there is Where there is nothing (or nothing (or proproexpexp) in ) in SpecTP, the SpecTP, the agreement comes agreement comes out as (a default) out as (a default) 3sg.3sg.

This looks like an This looks like an example ofexample of Spec-Spec-head agreementhead agreement. . Features are Features are checked for identity.checked for identity. ti

V

VP

…

C

C

CP SSSVO

T+Vi

T

TP

ti

V

VP

…

C

C

CP SSVSO

T+Vi

T

TP

DP

DPj

tj

SVO/VSO order in Std. SVO/VSO order in Std. ArabicArabic

But what if we take our But what if we take our AgrSP and AgrOP AgrSP and AgrOP phrases into account?phrases into account?

What is AgrSP after all?What is AgrSP after all?

What is the EPP?What is the EPP?

Do we need to say that Do we need to say that Arabic (or Irish) is a Arabic (or Irish) is a “non-EPP” language, or “non-EPP” language, or make use of make use of proproexpexp??

ti

V

VP

…

C

C

CP SSSVO

T+Vi

T

TP

ti

V

VP

…

C

C

CP SSVSO

T+Vi

T

TP

DP

DPj

tj

SVO/VSO order in Std. SVO/VSO order in Std. ArabicArabic Spec-head agreement is Spec-head agreement is

usually considered to be usually considered to be responsible for agreement responsible for agreement between subject and verb between subject and verb (via participation of AgrS).(via participation of AgrS).

C has [+wh] feature C has [+wh] feature which needs to which needs to matchmatch with a feature of its with a feature of its specifier.specifier.

Spec-head agreement is Spec-head agreement is often taken to be, broadly often taken to be, broadly speaking, a kind of speaking, a kind of “feature sharing” “feature sharing” configuration.configuration.

ti

V

…VP

…

AgrS+Tj+Vi

AgrS

AgrSP

SSVSO

T

TP

DPk

tk

tj

ti

V

…VP

…

AgrS+Tj+Vi

AgrS

AgrSPSSSVO

T

TP

DPk

tk

ti’

tk’

And back to little And back to little vv……

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

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

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

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

V

V

VP

DO

v

v

vP

SUB

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

connection with unaccusatives.connection with unaccusatives.

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

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

DP

V

V

VP

the icemelt

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

still still meltmelt.. Uniform Theta Assignment Uniform Theta Assignment

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

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

DP

V

V

VP

the icemelt

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

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

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

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

DP

V

V

VP

the icemelt

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

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

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

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

v

v

vP

DP

V

V

VP

the icemelt

DPBill

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

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

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

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

Bill cause TPBill cause TP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

v

v

vP

DP

V

V

VP

thesandwich

eat

DPBill

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

got a got a vv..

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

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

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

v

v

vP

V

V

VP

lie

DPBill

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

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

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

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

v

v

vP

N

N

NP

lie

DPBill

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

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

available to the object. available to the object.

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

v

v

vP

DP

V

V

VP

thesandwich

eat

DPBill

AgrO

AgrO

AgrOP

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

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

SpecAgrSP.SpecAgrSP.

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

DP

V

V

VP

thesandwich

eat

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

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

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

Asp

Asp

AspP

DP

V

V

VP

thesandwich

eat

-en

V

V

VP

be

And back to ditransitivesAnd back to ditransitives

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

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

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

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

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

IO

V

V

VP

DO

v

v

vP

SUB

AgrO

AgrO

AgrOP