CAS LX 522 Syntax IFall 2000 October 2, 2000Paul Hagstrom Week 4: Case Theory and θ TheoryX-bar theory continued…(1) XP3Spec X′specifier 3YP X′adjunct 3XZPhead complementSubstitution and adjunctionTwo kinds of movement: Substitution and Adjunction.Substitution: Replaces an empty (but existing) position with a moved element.Passives:(2) a. [IP e [I′ I [VP was [VP solved the problem ]]b. [IP the problemi [I′ I [VP was [VP solved ti ]]Wh-questions:(3) a. I wonder… [CP e [C′ C[+Q] [IP John bought what ]]]b. I wonder… [CP whati [C′ C[+Q] [IP John bought ti ]](4) XP3ZPiX′3XYP@…ti…Adjunction: Creates a new position by attaching to an existing node.(5) a. XP b. XPrU ruZPiXP Spec X′3rUSpec X′ ZPiX′33X… X…In (5a) there is only one real XP node; in (5b) there is only one real X′ node.The fact that two are written is a convention. Maybe closer to this:(6) XP (although: we will later need toZPi3 make use of the notation conventionSpec X′ used in (5))3X…Recall the tree concepts of dominance and sisterhood.In (6) and (5a): Spec and X′ are sisters. ZPi has no sister. XP dominates ZPi, Spec, X′ (and X and …)In (4), ZPi and X′ are sisters.XP dominates ZPi, X′ (and X and YP)Topicalization:(7) I know… CPqpSpec C′qpCIP(that) qPNPiIPthis problem 3Spec I′NP 3I IVPcan 1V′3VNPsolve tiExtraposition and Heavy NP shift are also adjunction movements, right-adjoining to VP.Head movement (movement of terminal categories) is also adjunction, where the movinghead adjoins to the target head.(8) C′qpCIPrU 3IiC Spec I′3tiVP…Speaking of adjunction… We can also think of attachment to X′ this way:(9) VP1V′ (base-adjunction—not by movement)RuV′ PPrU into the netAdv V′quickly 3VNPkicked the ballWhere we areX-bar theory says that trees are all built on this template (for any category X):(10) XP maximal projection3specifier XP X′ intermediate projection (X-bar)3head XZP complementWe also have the ability to adjoin phrases to each level of the representation.(11) XPrUadjunct XP adjunction to XP3Spec X′rUadjunct X′ adjunction to X′3X complementrUYX adjunction to X°Adjunction allows for iteration (whereas there is only one specifier and one complement).As a result of the changes we’ve made, most of the trees have only binary branches.We can take this a step further and require that our trees have no more than binarybranches:Binary BranchingA node can dominate at most two branches.Note: This causes a problem with ditransitive verbs like put, which requires that we re-think how they work, but we’ll hold off.We are looking for a maximally simple, restrictive framework that can describe all andonly the structures of sentences of natural language. X-bar theory is much better than PSrules—primarily, it is much more restrictive. There was very little constraint on the kindof PS rules we could write—we could write PS rules describing any structure we see innatural language, but also for lots of structures we would never see.Small clauses(12) a. John considers [IP [NP Bill ] [I′ to [VP be [AP incompetent ]]]].b. John considers Bill incompetent.What is the structure of the second one?There’s no to, and there can be no be, suggesting that there is no Infl under considers.The current analysis of this is that Bill is in this case in the specifier of AP, serving as“the subject of the adjective phrase”(13) AP3Spec A′NP 1Bill AincompetentThis seems to be possible with other phrases as well—(14) a. The captain expects the drunken sailor off the ship (immediately).b. John made Bill read the whole book.(15) PPqpSpec P′NP 3the drunken PNPsailors off the ship(16) VPqpSpec V′NP 3Bill VNPread the whole bookSo, phrases of all kinds seem to be able to have subjects in their specifier, under certainconditions anyway. Notice that these small clauses seem to have no independent tenseinterpretation—tense is a property of Infl, and where there is no Infl, there is no tense.Subjects, IP, and the Extended Projection PrincipleLast time, we talked about CP in questions, which has a [+Q] C. We observed that itseems to be true that a [+Q] C requires a specifier (with a [+wh] phrase in it).Like CP in questions, it turns out that IP seems to require a specifier (unlike most of theother categories). This is encoded as follows:Extended Projection Principle (EPP)Clauses must have a subject (that is, ‘The specifier of IP must be filled.’).(The name really has very little to do with the conceptual content—you might be betteroff just forgetting about the words and refer to this as the “EPP”).One bit of evidence comes from the raising cases; where we can’t raise the embeddedsubject (for example, when it violates the TSC), we have to put a meaningless element(expletive) it in subject position.(17) a. *(It) seems that Mary has solved the problem.b. Maryi seems ti to have solved the problem.A type of sentence of this sort which has gotten a great deal of attention are there-constructions like:(18) a. A unicorn is in the garden.b. *(There) is a unicorn in the garden.In (18b), the meaningless element there is required. What makes it required is the EPP.Incidentally: Where is a unicorn in (18a)? A good guess, given the small clausesdiscussed earlier, is that it is the subject of a PP:(19) IP3Spec I′3IVP[pres] 1V′3VPPbe 3NP P′a unicorn 3PNPin the gardenAnd, for (18b), perhaps there fills SpecIP, satisfying the EPP, which allows a unicorn tostay in SpecPP.One other thing: in (20), there are two IPs. Where is the subject of the lower one?(20) [IP Maryi seems [IP ti to have solved the problem]].Answer: The trace counts—further evidence that we need traces. SpecIP is filled, but withthe trace of Mary. The EPP is satisfied.Nonfinite clauses and PRO(21) a. John tried [CP [IP e to leave]].b. John persuaded Bill [CP [IP e to leave]].c. It is difficult [CP [IP e to leave ]].Here there appears to be no subject (*EPP) in the lower (nonfinite) clause.The subject is not a trace. Try, persuade, be difficult are not raising verbs (like seem).(22) a. * There tried John to be a unicorn.b. * It seems John to leave.The embedded agent (the one leaving) is John in (21a), but it is Bill in (21b), andsomeone/anyone in (21c).So: • There must be something there (by the EPP).• We can’t hear it.• It can’t be a trace of movement. ➜ It must be an unpronounced element (and like a pronoun).(23) a. Johni tried [CP [IP PROi to
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...