CAS LX 522Syntax IWeek 9b.!-roles in DP, and an introduction to little n(7.3-7.6)The DP•Last time, we introduced the idea that the nominal elements of the sentences (subjects, objects), are actually DPs, rather than NPs.•Determiners:the, a, some, every, Ømass, Øproper, Øposs, ...•Today, we’ll continue our investigations of the internal structure of DPs.Deverbal nouns•The structure inside the DP can be as complicated as inside a clause, as it turns out.1) Pat broke the vase.2) Pat’s breaking of the vase startled me.3) The bees startled me.•It seems to be possible to convert the whole clause Pat broke the vase into a “noun” (a DP).Deverbal nouns•What’s more, the relationship between break, Pat, and the vase seems to be the same inside the DP as it is in the clause.1) Pat broke the vase.2) Pat’s breaking of the vase made me angry.•Pat is an Agent, the vase is a Theme.3) Pat danced.4) Pat’s dancing startled me.•Just as the verb break assigns !-roles, it seems as if the nominalized breaking assigns the same !-roles. The DP is in a way like a little clause.TPs and DPs•One difference between clausal DPs and TPs is in the case realized by the arguments.1) I called him.•Agent is nom (from T), Theme is acc (from v)2) My calling of him was unplanned.•Agent is gen, Theme looks like a PP introduced by of.•So, the case assigners within a DP are different from the case assigners within a clause.Two kinds of N•Not all N’s assign !-roles. Some do, some don’t. Generally, the nouns related to a verb that assigns !-roles will assign !-roles. But something like lunch doesn’t.1) Pat’s lunch was enormous.2) Pat’s eating of lunch was shockingly rapid.•So, we can either find a DP with a !-role with genitive case, or we can find a possessor with genitive case, in SpecDP.Ditransitive N•Consider the ditransitive verb give and the related noun gift. Just as give is responsible for three !-roles (Agent, Theme, Goal), so can gift be:1) Pat gave an apple to Chris.2) Pat’s gift of an apple to Chris was unexpected.•The exact same problem arises with ditransitive nouns as arose with ditransitive verbs.•Binary branching allows for just two arguments in NP. We need an additional projection for the third. Let’s try doing this just like we did for verbs…Little nDP is like TP•If we suppose that DP works like TP, we can extend our theoretical machinery in an exactly analogous way.•Hierarchy of ProjectionsD > n > N•UTAHDP daughter of nP: AgentDP daughter of NP: ThemePP daughter of N": GoalCase in the DP•In the DP, the “subject” appears with genitive case.•Cf. The subject in TP, which has nominative case, due to a [nom] feature on T.•So, we say D can have a [gen*] feature.•This checks the genitive case on the subject of the DP, and forces it to move into SpecDP.•In the DP, the “object” appears with the preposition of.•Cf. The object in TP, which has accusative case, due to an [acc] feature on v.•So, we say that n has an [of] feature.The of case•What’s the deal with this “of case” that objects in DPs get? Isn’t of a preposition? Shouldn’t of cheese in The gift of cheese to the senator was appreciated be a PP?•This of is completely meaningless, it acts like a case marker. So, we’re going to analyze it as such. Of cheese is a DP with the of case marking. Just like Pat’s is a DP with the genitive (’s) case marking.•Treating of as case allows a complete parallel between TP and DP; v has an [acc] feature, n has an [of] feature.Passive nouns•Last week, we looked at the passive construction:1) The sandwich was eaten•Here, the Theme the sandwich becomes the subject because the strong feature of T forces it to move to SpecTP. The v does not project an Agent.Passive•In the passive, v does not introduce an Agent, and does not have an [acc] feature.•T still has a [nom] feature, so it checks the [case] feature on the sandwich.•T has a [uD*] feature, so the sandwich moves to SpecTP to check it.Passive nounsVery similar to the passive, if an n doesn’t introduce an Agent, the Theme can move to SpecDP and surface as genitive.Passive nouns•If the DP has a head D like the that does not check genitive case, then there can be no Agent (nothing could check its case), and the Theme stays unmoved (its of-case checked by n).Case and !-roles•We now predict the observation Adger makes: Either an Agent or a Theme can show up in the genitive, but only a Theme can show up with of-case.1) Adger’s analysis of the DP is simple.2) The DP’s analysis is simple.3) *The analysis of Adger is simple.•This is essentially the same as the generalization that, in a clause, either an Agent or a Theme can show up with nominative case, but only a Theme can show up with accusative case.1) I called her.2) She tripped.3) *Her tripped.4) *Tripped her.Back to possession•Prior to today, the genitive case was associated with the possessor. So far today we’ve been looking at deverbal nouns, where genitive case goes to the subject.•Our new improved UTAH says, among other things:•DP daughter of NP: Theme•DP daughter of nP: Agent•Possessors are neither of these, so possessors need to be initially Merged into a distinct place in the structure.Possessors•Adger proposes that Possessors are introduced by a new head, Poss.•HoP:D > (Poss) > n > NHungarian possessors•Assuming that the DP in Hungarian has the basic structure we’ve been discussing, what is the structure of this kind of possessive construction?•How about that (person?) agreement on ‘hat’?1) Az en kalapomthe I hat‘my hat’! ! ! !2) A Mari kalapjathe Mary hat‘Mary’s hat’3) A te kalapodthe you hat‘your hat’4) Marinak a kalapjaMary the hat‘Mary’s hat’Adjectives•Adjectives are to nouns as adverbs are to verbs. So what would the structure be for Pat’s complete destruction of the sidewalk? Or the silly idea? Or the pencil on the desk?•In Pat completey destroyed the sidewalk, we adjoin completely to vP. The subject moves to SpecTP.•In the same way, we adjoin complete to nP, and Pat moves to SpecDP.AdjunctsThe Italian DP•In Italian, in many cases, there is simply an option (stylistically governed) as to whether you say The Gianni or just Gianni:1) Gianni mi ha telefonato.Gianni me has telephoned‘Gianni called me up.’2) Il Gianni mi ha telefonato.the Gianni me has telephoned‘Gianni called me up.’The Italian