CAS LX 522Syntax IWeek 8a.do-support, subjects, agreement, and case(5.5; 6.1-6.3)Typology of verb/aux raising•Interestingly, there don’t seem to be languages that raise main verbs but not auxiliaries.•This double-binary distinction predicts there would be.•It overgenerates a smidge.•This is a pattern that we would like to explain someday, another mystery about Aux to file away.•Sorry, we won’t have any satisfying explanation for this gap this semester.T values [uInfl:] on AuxT values [uInfl:] on vEnglishStrongWeakFrenchStrongStrongSwedishWeakWeakUnattestedWeakStrongIrish•In Irish, the basic word order is VSO (other languages have this property too, e.g., Arabic)1) Phóg Máire an lucharachán.kissed Mary the leprechaun‘Mary kissed the leprechaun.’•We distinguish SVO from SOV by supposing that the head-complement order can vary from language to language (heads precede complements in English, heads follow complements in Japanese).•We may also be able to distinguish other languages (OVS, VOS) by a parameter of specifier order.•But no combination of these two parameters can give us VSO.Irish•But look at auxiliary verbs in Irish:1) Tá Máire ag-pógáil an lucharachán.is Mary ing-kiss the leprechaun‘Mary is kissing the leprechaun.’•We find that if an auxiliary occupies the verb slot at the beginning of the sentence, the main verb appears between the subject and verb: Aux S V O.•What does this suggest about•The head-parameter setting in Irish?•How VSO order arises?SVO to VSO•Irish appears to be essentially an SVO language, like French.•Verbs and auxiliaries raise past the subject to yield VSO.•We can analyze the Irish pattern as being minimally different from our existing analysis of French— just one difference, which we hypothesize is another parametric difference between languages.•V and Aux both raise to T (when tense values the [uInfl:] feature of either one, [uInfl:] is strong) in Irish, just as in French.French vs. Irish•Remember this step in the French derivation before?(I’ve omitted negation to make it simpler.)•What if we stopped here?•In French it would crash (why?).•But what if it didn’t crash in Irish?•What would have to be different?T![tense:pres, T, uN*, . . . ]T v PNPZin´edinev!< v > VP< V > NPMarcov TVaimev[uInfl:pres*]Parametric differences•We could analyze Irish as being just like French except without the strong [uN*] feature on T.•Without that feature, the subject doesn’t need to move to SpecTP.The order would be VSO, or AuxSVO.•So, languages can vary in, at least:•Head-complement order•(Head-specifier order)•Whether [uInfl:] on Aux is strong or weak when valued by T•Whether [uInfl:] on v is strong or weak when valued by T•Whether T has a [uN*] feature or not.(Later, when we look at German, we’ll suggest a different analysis of Irish, but this will work for now.)do-support•In French, verbs move to T. In English, they don’t move to T.•That’s because in French, when [tense:past] values [uInfl:] on v, it is strong, and in English, it is weak.•What this doesn’t explain is why do appears sometimes in English, seemingly doing nothing but carrying the tense (and subject agreement).•The environments are complicated:1) Tom did not commit the crime.2) Tom did not commit the crime, but someone did.3) Zoe and Danny vowed to prove Tom innocent,and prove Tom innocent they did.4) Tom (has) never committed that crime.do-support•When not separates T and v, do appears in T to carry the tense morphology.•When T is stranded due to VP ellipsis or VP fronting, do appears in T to carry the tense morphology.•When never (or any adverb) separates T and v, tense morphology appears on the verb (v).•So, do appears when T is separated from the verb, but adverbs like never aren’t “visible”, they aren’t in the way.•The environments are complicated:1) Tom did not commit the crime.2) Tom did not commit the crime, but someone did.3) Zoe and Danny vowed to prove Tom innocent,and prove Tom innocent they did.4) Tom (has) never committed that crime.Technical difficulties•How do we generally know to pronounce V+v as a past tense verb?•T values the [uInfl:] feature of v. The presumption is that eat+v[uInfl:past] sounds like “ate.” And T doesn’t sound like anything.•But this happens whether or not v is right next to T. v still has a [uInfl:] feature that has to be checked.•So, the questions are, how do we:•Keep from pronouncing the verb based on v’s [uInfl:] feature if T isn’t right next to it?•Keep from pronouncing do at T if v is right next to it?•We need to connect T and v somehow.Technical difficulties•The connection between T and v is that (when there are no auxiliaries), T values the [uInfl:] feature of v.•This sets up a relationship between the two heads.•Adger calls this relationship a chain.•We want to ensure that tense features are pronounced in exactly one place in this chain.•If the ends of the chain are not close enough together, tense is pronounced on T (as do). If they are close enough together, tense is pronounced on v+V.Technical difficulties•Let’s be creative: Suppose that the tense features on v (the value of the [uInfl:] feature) “refer back” to the tense features on T.•Agree can see relatively far (so T can value the [uInfl:] feature of v, even if it has to look past negation).•But “referring back” is more limited, basically only available to features that are sisters. Negation will get in the way for this.•So if you try to pronounce tense on v but T is too far away, the back-reference fails, and v is pronounced as a bare verb. But the tense features have to be pronounced somewhere, so they’re pronounced on T (as do).PTR•Adger’s proposal:•Pronouncing Tense Rule (PTR)In a chain (T[tense], v[uInfl:tense]), pronounce the tense features on v only if v is the head of T’s sister.•NegP, if there, will be the sister of T (HoP), but Neg has no [uInfl:] feature. do will be inserted.•Adverbs adjoin to vP, resulting in a vP. v has a [uInfl:] valued by T and adverbs don’t get in the way of vP being the sister of T. Tense is pronounced on the verb (v).•If vP is gone altogether, do is inserted.Pat did not call Chris•So, here, T and v form a chain because [tense:past] valued [uInfl:past]. But v is not the head of T’s sister.TPNPPatT!T[tense:past]NegPNegnotv P< Pat > v!v VP< V >
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...