CAS LX 522 Syntax IThe Y modelDerivationsSlide 4Slide 5Slide 6Slide 7Slide 8Slide 9QuantifiersSlide 11Slide 12QPSlide 14RestrictionsSlide 16BindingScopeSlide 19Slide 20Slide 21LFSlide 23QRSlide 25Slide 26Quantifiers and bindingSlide 28Why believe in QR?QRSlide 31Slide 32Slide 33WCOSlide 35Slide 36Slide 37Slide 38ACDVP ellipsisSlide 41Slide 42Slide 43Slide 44Slide 45QR and ACDSlide 47Where do quantifiers go?A new positionSlide 50Slide 51Slide 52Slide 53Covert wh-movementSlide 55Slide 56The wh-typologySlide 58Slide 59Slide 60Slide 61Slide 62Slide 63Scope and wh-movementSuperioritySlide 66Slide 67Slide 68Where have all the wh-words gone?Slide 70Slide 71Subjacency revisitedSlide 73Slide 74Slide 75Slide 76Wh-in-situ languagesSo…Week 10. LFWeek 10. LFCAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax IThe Y modelThe Y modelWe’re now ready to tackle the most abstract branch We’re now ready to tackle the most abstract branch of the Y-model, the mapping from SS to LF. Here is of the Y-model, the mapping from SS to LF. Here is where we have “movement that you can’t see”.where we have “movement that you can’t see”.DSSSLFPFX-bar theoryCovert movementPhonology/Morphology TheorySubcategorizationBinding theoryCase theory, EPPOvert movement,Expletive insertionDerivationsDerivationsWe think of what we’re doing when we We think of what we’re doing when we construct abstract structures of sentences construct abstract structures of sentences this way as being a sequence of steps.this way as being a sequence of steps.We start with DSWe start with DSWe do some movementsWe do some movementsWe arrive at SSWe arrive at SSWe do some more movementsWe do some more movementsWe arrive at LFWe arrive at LFDerivationsDerivationsThe steps are not necessarily a reflection of what The steps are not necessarily a reflection of what we are doing we are doing onlineonline as we speak— as we speak—what we are what we are doing is doing is characterizing our knowledge of languagecharacterizing our knowledge of language, , and it turns out that we can predict our and it turns out that we can predict our intuitions about what sentences are good and intuitions about what sentences are good and bad and what different sentences mean by bad and what different sentences mean by characterizing the relationship between characterizing the relationship between underlying thematic relations, surface form, and underlying thematic relations, surface form, and interpretation in terms of movements in an order interpretation in terms of movements in an order with constraints on what movements are with constraints on what movements are possible.possible.DerivationsDerivationsIt seems that the simplest explanation for the It seems that the simplest explanation for the complex facts of grammar is in terms of several complex facts of grammar is in terms of several small modifications to the DS that each are small modifications to the DS that each are subject to certain constraints, sometimes even subject to certain constraints, sometimes even things which seem to indicate that one things which seem to indicate that one operation has to occur before another could.operation has to occur before another could.DSLFDerivationsDerivationsConcerning SS, under this view, languages pick a point Concerning SS, under this view, languages pick a point to focus on between DS and LF and pronounce that to focus on between DS and LF and pronounce that structure. This is (the basis for) SS.structure. This is (the basis for) SS.There are also certain restrictions on the form SS has There are also certain restrictions on the form SS has (e.g., Case, EPP have to be satisfied).(e.g., Case, EPP have to be satisfied).DSLFSSDerivationsDerivationsAlthough speaking sloppily we might say that Although speaking sloppily we might say that movements that happen in the part of the movements that happen in the part of the derivation between SS and LF happen “after derivation between SS and LF happen “after pronunciation” this doesn’t imply that pronunciation” this doesn’t imply that in timein time we arrived at SS, pronounced, and then did we arrived at SS, pronounced, and then did further syntactic computation.further syntactic computation.DSLFSSDerivationsDerivationsIt’s just that parts that happen between SS and It’s just that parts that happen between SS and LF are invisible to the pronunciation because all LF are invisible to the pronunciation because all of the changes (movements, etc.) that occur of the changes (movements, etc.) that occur between DS and SS are reflected in the SS between DS and SS are reflected in the SS representation that we focus on, and none of representation that we focus on, and none of the changes that occur between SS and LF are.the changes that occur between SS and LF are.DSLFSSDerivationsDerivationsBecause we can’t Because we can’t seesee ( (hearhear) them, the things that ) them, the things that happen between SS and LF are more difficult to happen between SS and LF are more difficult to detect—we have to rely on somewhat indirect detect—we have to rely on somewhat indirect evidence. That’s what we’ll be focusing on evidence. That’s what we’ll be focusing on today.today.DSLFSSQuantifiersQuantifiersWe interpret We interpret Bill saw everyoneBill saw everyone as asFor every person For every person xx, Bill saw , Bill saw xx..This is the meaning. This is the This is the meaning. This is the logical formlogical form of the sentence of the sentence Bill saw everyoneBill saw everyone. In the . In the notation of formal logic, this is written asnotation of formal logic, this is written asx. Bill saw xx. Bill saw x‘For all ‘For all xx ( (xx a person), Bill saw a person), Bill saw xx.’.’QuantifiersQuantifiersEvery boy hates his roommate.Every boy hates his roommate.Notice that each boy hates a different Notice that each boy hates a different roommate, the roommates are specific to roommate, the roommates are specific to each boy.each boy.For every boy For every boy xx, , xx hates hates xx’s roommate.’s roommate.This means that This means that every boyevery boy doesn’t just doesn’t just mean the group of boys; rather it goes mean the group of boys; rather it goes through the set of boys and says through the set of boys and says something about each of them something about each of them
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...