CAS LX 522 Syntax IFall 2001 December 11, 2001Paul Hagstrom Week 14: Final reviewX-bar Theory(1) XP maximal projection3specifier WP X′ intermediate projection (X-bar)3head XZP complement(2) XPru u adjunct XP adjunction to XP3Spec X′3adjunct X′ adjunction to X′3X complementru u YX adjunction to X°Note: To be a valid X-bar structure, every phrase must:• Have exactly one head (X).• Have at least one single-bar node (X′′′′).• Have one maximal node (XP).• Have no more than one specifier.• Have no more than one complement.• Have no nodes with more than two daughter nodes.• Have an entire XP in the specifier if there is a specifier.(not just a head, or just an X′′′′)• Have an entire XP in the complement if there is a complement(not just a head, or just an X′′′′)θθθθ-TheoryA θ-role represents the semantic role (thematic role) played by the argument in the event.The predicate (e.g., verb) assigns θ-roles to its syntactic arguments.(3) The goalie kicked the ball."11"z--------mz----mAgent Theme/PatientThe θθθθ-criterioni) Each argument must be assigned exactly one a θ-role.ii) Each θ-role must be assigned to exactly one argument.θθθθ-roles are assigned at DS—prior to any movement.All θθθθ-roles are assigned within the XP of the X assigning θθθθ-roles.(4) VP Internal means “internal to the V′”3 External means “external to the V′”External V′3V InternalIn particular—no θ-roles can be assigned out past the VP, or inside spec or comp.There are basically two places a θ-role can be assigned: spec and comp.Transitive verbs: Have both an internal and external argument (e.g., kick)Unergative verbs: Have just an external argument (e.g., run, dance, jump).Unaccusative verbs: Have just an internal argument (e.g., sneeze, fall, sink)Case TheoryChains: The collection of positions occupied by a single argument.(5) Maryi seems [TP ti to have solved the problem]].Chain: {Maryi, ti }(6) Case FilterA DP chain must be Case-marked.(That is, a DP must get Case at some point, between DS and SS).A single chain cannot have Case assigned to it twice.Case is assigned within the “government radius” of a Case assigner.This includes the sister (e.g., lunch gets Case from eat),the specifier (e.g., he gets Case from T)and the sister’s specifier (e.g., in He considers me to be a genius).(7) TP Finite T assigns nominative CaseqpDPiT′ Eat assigns accusative CaseHe qp[NOM]T VP-s qp[Nom] tiV′qpVDPeat lunch(8) DP (9) DP D assigns33genitive CaseDP D′ DP D′ to DPs Mary and myMary 313DNP D′ DNP’s 11Ø 1N′ DN′3 my 3NPP NPPtranslation of the book translation of the book(10) ...V′3VTP V assigns accusative Casebelieve 3DP T′ NOTE: There cannot be a CP here inhim 3 these cases. That would put him tooT[–fin]VP far away from believe.to ...(11) ...V′3VAP V assigns accusative Caseconsiders 3DP A′him 1AintelligentPassives. Attaching -en suppresses the external θ-role, and removes (“absorbs”) theverb’s ability to assign accusative Case.(12) eat: Agent, Theme eaten: Theme Passive(13) break: Theme Unaccusative(14) [TP [the sandwich]i was [VP eaten ti ]](15) [TP [the vase]i [VP broke ti ]]Trees(16) C-commandα c-commands β iff:i) the first branching node dominating α also dominates β.ii) α does not dominate β.(17) A B c-commands C, D, and E3 D c-commands E (and vice versa)B C C c-commands B (and vice versa)3DEInformally: To find what a node c-commands, go up one level, and it is everything belowit except the original node.MovementMovement between DS and LF always goes to a positionwhich will c-command the trace.Some reasons we have seen so far for movement:T moves to C: When C is [+Q] in an English main clause, or all the time in V2 languages (sometimes also limited to main clauses)V moves to T: When V is an auxiliary in English, all the time in, e.g., French.Wh-word moves to SpecCP: When C is [+wh] or when C is [–wh] but a higher C is [+wh] and the wh-word has tostop along the way in order to avoid violating Subjacency.DP moves to SpecTP: To satisfy the EPP.DP moves to SpecTP: In order to get Case.Quantifier moves to adjoin to TP: Quantifiers must be outside of their TP by LF.EPPThe specifier of TP must be filled (at some point during the derivation).Quantifier ScopeA quantifier (everyone, someone) must be outside of (not dominated by) TP by LF.(18) CP3DPjC′ Cwhich sandwich 3ru u C+TiTP TiCwill 3 will [+Q]DPkT′Bill 3tiVP3tkV′3V tjeat(19) Bill suspects everyone. For every person x [ Bill suspects x ].(20) LF TPru u DPiTPeveryone 3DPjT′Bill 3TVP[PRES] 3tjV′3V tisuspectsQuantifier Phrases, wh-phrases…• Since they go where DPs go, consider them a subvariety of DP.(21) DP DP[+Quant] DP[+wh]111D′ D′ D′333DNP DNP DNPthe cat every cat which cat[+Quant] [+wh](22) a. Who solved which problem? b. for which person x and which problem y, [x solved y].• wh-movement after the first one (covert in English) adjoins to SpecCP.(23) CPqpDPiC′rur 3DPiDPjCTPwho which prob [+Q+WH]… ti ... tj ...All wh-words must end up in SpecCP at LF.(24) SS TP3DP T′every cat 3TVP#eats fishLF TPru u DPiTPevery cat 3tiT′3TVP#eats fish(25) For every cat x, x eats fish.Finding PROPRO only appears in nonfinite subject positionsPRO does not (and cannot) receive Case.☞ This means that embedded clauses with PRO subjects are always CPs.This is necessary in order to keep PRO out of the government radiusof the embedding verb.PRO receives a θθθθ-role.Sentences with raising and sentences with PRO look very similar. With raising sentences,an expletive subject variant is often possible (which makes the θ-roles clearer)(26) a. Mikei seems [TP ti to run fast ]. Raisingb. It seems [CP that [TP Mike runs fast ]]. Expletive subjectb. Mikei is likely [TP ti to leave ]. Raisingc. It is likely [CP that [TP Mike left ]]. Expletive subject(27) a. Mikei tried [CP [TP PROi to leave]]. Subject controlb. Mike persuaded Billi [CP [TP PROi to leave]]. Object controlc. It is difficult [CP [TP PROarb to leave ]]. Arbitrary controlControl verbs are generally those verbs which assign a θ-role to the DP that winds up inits SpecTP (like AGENT or EXPERIENCER) and a θ-role to the embedded proposition.That is, if a single DP gets a θ-role both in the embedded clause and fromthe matrix clause, then the embedded clause must have a PRO.Relative clauses(28) Bill heard [DP the
View Full Document
![Nom from finite T no case from nonfinite T (T [inf], M to)](https://media.gradebuddy.com/documents/386389/7a3e15e0-7507-4825-a32d-f3e6fb67d2eb.png)
Unlocking...