Episode 5b. Agree and movement 5.3-5.4 CAS LX 522 Syntax I.

Episode 5b. Agree and movementEpisode 5b. Agree and movement

5.3-5.45.3-5.4

CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax I

The Big PictureThe Big Picture Now that we’ve gotten some idea of how Now that we’ve gotten some idea of how

the system works, let’s back up a bit to the system works, let’s back up a bit to remind ourselves a bit about why we’re remind ourselves a bit about why we’re doing what we’re doing.doing what we’re doing.

People have (unconscious) knowledge of People have (unconscious) knowledge of the grammar of their native language (at the grammar of their native language (at least). They can judge whether sentences least). They can judge whether sentences are good examples of the language or not.are good examples of the language or not.

Two questions:Two questions: What is that we know?What is that we know? How is it that we came to know what we know?How is it that we came to know what we know?

HistoryHistory In trying to model what we know (since it isn’t In trying to model what we know (since it isn’t

conscious knowledge) some of the first attempts conscious knowledge) some of the first attempts looked like this (Chomsky 1957):looked like this (Chomsky 1957): Phrase Structure RulesPhrase Structure Rules

S S NP (Aux) VP NP (Aux) VP VP VP V (NP) (PP) V (NP) (PP) NP NP (Det) (Adj+) N (Det) (Adj+) N PP PP P NP P NPAux Aux (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Prog) (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Prog)N N Pat, lunch, … Pat, lunch, … P P at, in, to, … at, in, to, …Tns Tns Past, Present Past, Present Modal Modal can, should, … can, should, …Perf Perf have -en have -en Prog Prog be -ing be -ing

An S can be rewritten as an NP, optionally an Aux, and An S can be rewritten as an NP, optionally an Aux, and a VP. An NP can be rewritten as, optionally a a VP. An NP can be rewritten as, optionally a determiner, optionally one or more adjectives, and a determiner, optionally one or more adjectives, and a noun. …noun. …

What we know is that an S has an NP, a VP, and What we know is that an S has an NP, a VP, and sometimes an Aux between them, and that NPs can sometimes an Aux between them, and that NPs can have a determiner, some number of adjectives, and a have a determiner, some number of adjectives, and a noun.noun.

HistoryHistory

Phrase Structure RulesPhrase Structure RulesS S NP (Aux) VP NP (Aux) VPVP VP V (NP) (PP) V (NP) (PP) NP NP (Det) (Adj+) N (Det) (Adj+) NPP PP P NP P NPAux Aux (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Prog)(Prog)N N Pat, lunch, … Pat, lunch, …P P at, in, to, … at, in, to, …Tns Tns Past, Present Past, PresentModal Modal can, should, … can, should, …Perf Perf have -en have -enProg Prog be -ing be -ing

In this way, many In this way, many sentences can be sentences can be derivedderived, , starting from S.starting from S.

The tree-style structure is a The tree-style structure is a way to record the history of way to record the history of the derivation from S to the the derivation from S to the words in the sentence.words in the sentence.

We model our knowledge of We model our knowledge of English as a machine that English as a machine that (ideally, when it’s finished) (ideally, when it’s finished) will generate all of the will generate all of the sentences of English and sentences of English and no others.no others.

NPV

VP

S

eat

lunch

NP

N

Pat N

Aux

Modal

might

Pat might have been eating Pat might have been eating lunchlunch

If you can sayIf you can sayPat atePat ateyou can sayyou can sayPat had eatenPat had eatenororPat was eatingPat was eatingororPat had been Pat had been eatingeating

It looks like the verb It looks like the verb can be past or present can be past or present alone, but with alone, but with havehave it it takes on an takes on an -en-en (past (past participle) form, and participle) form, and with with bebe it takes on an it takes on an --inging (present participle) (present participle) form.form.

The first verb or The first verb or auxiliary takes on auxiliary takes on tense forms.tense forms.

Affix Affix HoppingHopping

So, Chomsky proposed:So, Chomsky proposed:Aux Aux (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Prog) (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Prog)Tns Tns Past, Present Past, PresentModal Modal can, should, … can, should, …Perf Perf have -en have -enProg Prog be -ing be -ingPast Past -ed -ed

Yielding something like Yielding something like this:this:

If you build a sentence If you build a sentence this way, things aren’t this way, things aren’t in the right order, but in the right order, but there’s a simple there’s a simple transformationtransformation that that can be done to the can be done to the structure to get it structure to get it right.right.

Empirically, tense, Empirically, tense, perfect perfect havehave, and , and progressive progressive bebe each each control the form of the control the form of the verbal element to verbal element to their their rightright..

NPV

VP

S

eat lunch

NP

N

Pat

N

Aux

Tns

Past

Perf

have -en

Prog

be -ing-ed

Affix Affix HoppingHopping

So, Chomsky proposed:So, Chomsky proposed:Aux Aux (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Prog) (Tns) (Modal) (Perf) (Prog)Tns Tns Past, Present Past, PresentModal Modal can, should, … can, should, …Perf Perf have -en have -enProg Prog be -ing be -ingPast Past -ed -ed

Yielding something like Yielding something like this:this:

Affix HoppingAffix HoppingSD: afx verbSD: afx verbSC: verb+afxSC: verb+afx

The affixes all “hop to The affixes all “hop to the right” and attach to the right” and attach to the following word.the following word.

An ancestor to the kinds An ancestor to the kinds of movement rules of movement rules we’ve been exploring, we’ve been exploring, and this phenomenon and this phenomenon specifically is closely specifically is closely related to the Agree related to the Agree operation we’ll be operation we’ll be talking about.talking about.

NPV

VP

S

eat+inglunch

NP

N

Pat

N

Aux

Tns

Past

Perf

have+ed

Prog

be+en

History continuesHistory continues Through the 60s there Through the 60s there

were good people working were good people working hard, figuring out what hard, figuring out what kinds of phrase structure kinds of phrase structure rules and transformations rules and transformations are needed for a are needed for a comprehensive comprehensive description on English.description on English.

As things developed, two As things developed, two things became clear:things became clear: A lot of the PSRs look pretty A lot of the PSRs look pretty

similar.similar. There’s no way a kid There’s no way a kid

acquiring language can be acquiring language can be learning these rules.learning these rules.

Chomsky (1970) Chomsky (1970) proposed that there proposed that there actually is only a actually is only a limited set of limited set of phrase structure phrase structure rule types.rule types.

For any categories For any categories X, Y, Z, W, there X, Y, Z, W, there are only rules like:are only rules like:XP XP YP X YP XXX X X WP WPXX X ZP X ZP

X-bar theoryX-bar theory If drawn out as a tree, If drawn out as a tree,

you may recognize the you may recognize the kind of structures this kind of structures this proposal entails. These proposal entails. These are structures based are structures based on the “X-bar schema”.on the “X-bar schema”. XP XP YP X YP X

XX X X WP WPXX X ZP X ZP

YP being the “specifier”, YP being the “specifier”, WP being an “adjunct”, WP being an “adjunct”, ZP being the ZP being the “complement”. Adjuncts “complement”. Adjuncts were considered to have were considered to have a slightly different a slightly different configuration then.configuration then.

WP

ZPX

X

YP X

XP

GBGB Around 1981, the view Around 1981, the view

shifted from thinking of shifted from thinking of the system as the system as constructing all and only constructing all and only structures with PSRs structures with PSRs and transformations to a and transformations to a view in which structures view in which structures and transformations and transformations could apply freely, but could apply freely, but the grammatical the grammatical structures were those structures were those that satisfied constraints that satisfied constraints on (various stages of) on (various stages of) the representation.the representation.

First, a “deep structure” First, a “deep structure” (DS) tree is built, however (DS) tree is built, however you like you like butbut Selectional restrictions must be Selectional restrictions must be

satisfiedsatisfied -roles must be assigned-roles must be assigned Etc.Etc.

Then, adjustments are made Then, adjustments are made to get the “surface to get the “surface structure” (SS)structure” (SS) Things more or less like Affix Things more or less like Affix

Hopping, or moving V to Hopping, or moving V to vv, or , or moving the subject to SpecTP.moving the subject to SpecTP.

Further constraints are verified Further constraints are verified here: Is there a subject in here: Is there a subject in SpecTP? Etc.SpecTP? Etc.

Finally, the result is Finally, the result is assigned a pronunciation assigned a pronunciation (PF), and, possibly after (PF), and, possibly after some further adjustments, some further adjustments, an interpretation (LF).an interpretation (LF).

Which brings us to 1993Which brings us to 1993 The most recent change The most recent change

in viewpoint was to the in viewpoint was to the system we’re working system we’re working with now (arising from with now (arising from the Minimalist Program the Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory).for Linguistic Theory).

The constraints that The constraints that applied to the applied to the structures in GB were structures in GB were getting to be rather getting to be rather esoteric and numerous, esoteric and numerous, to the extent that it to the extent that it seemed we were seemed we were missing generalizations.missing generalizations.

The goal of MPLT was to The goal of MPLT was to “start over” in a sense, to “start over” in a sense, to try to make the constraints try to make the constraints follow from some more follow from some more natural assumptions that natural assumptions that we would need to make we would need to make anyway.anyway.

This new view has the This new view has the computational system computational system working at a very basic working at a very basic level, forcing structures to level, forcing structures to obey the constraints of GB obey the constraints of GB by enforcing them locally as by enforcing them locally as we assemble the structure we assemble the structure from the bottom up.from the bottom up.

Features and technologyFeatures and technology The use of features to The use of features to

drive the system drive the system (uninterpretable features (uninterpretable features force Merge, because if force Merge, because if they are not checked, the they are not checked, the resulting structure will be resulting structure will be itself uninterpretable) is a itself uninterpretable) is a way to encode the notion way to encode the notion that lexical items need that lexical items need other lexical items.other lexical items.

What the system is What the system is designed to do is assemble designed to do is assemble grammatical structures grammatical structures where possible, given a set where possible, given a set of lexical items to start of lexical items to start with.with.

A comment about the A comment about the technology here:technology here:

The operations of Merge, The operations of Merge, Adjoin, Agree, and feature Adjoin, Agree, and feature checking, the idea that checking, the idea that features can be features can be interpretable or not (or, interpretable or not (or, as we will see, strong or as we will see, strong or weak) are all weak) are all formalizations formalizations of an of an underlying system, used underlying system, used so that we can so that we can describe describe the system preciselythe system precisely enough to understand enough to understand its predictionsits predictions about our about our language knowledge.language knowledge.

Features and the moonFeatures and the moon We can think of this We can think of this

initially as the same initially as the same kind of model as this:kind of model as this:

The Earth and the Moon The Earth and the Moon don’t compute this. But don’t compute this. But if we write it this way, if we write it this way, we can predict where we can predict where the Moon will be.the Moon will be.

Saying lexical items have Saying lexical items have uninterpretable features uninterpretable features that need to be checked, that need to be checked, and hypothesizing and hypothesizing mechanisms (matching, mechanisms (matching, valuing) by which they valuing) by which they might be checked is might be checked is similarly a way to similarly a way to formalize the behavior of formalize the behavior of the computational the computational system underlying system underlying language in a way that language in a way that allows us deeper allows us deeper understanding of the understanding of the system and what it system and what it predicts about language.predicts about language.€

f =Gm1m2

r2

The “Minimalist Program”The “Minimalist Program” The The

analogy analogy with the with the gravitationgravitational force al force equation equation isn’t quite isn’t quite accurate, accurate, given the given the underlying underlying philosophy philosophy of the MP.of the MP.

The The Minimalist Minimalist Program in Program in fact is fact is trying to do trying to do this:this:

Suppose that we have a cognitive system Suppose that we have a cognitive system for language, which has to interact with at for language, which has to interact with at least two other cognitive systems, the least two other cognitive systems, the conceptual-intensionalconceptual-intensional and the and the articulatory-perceptualarticulatory-perceptual..

Whatever it produces needs to be Whatever it produces needs to be interpretable (in the vernacular of) each of interpretable (in the vernacular of) each of these cognitive systems for the these cognitive systems for the representation to be of any use.representation to be of any use.

Suppose that the properties of these Suppose that the properties of these external systems are your boundary external systems are your boundary conditions, your specifications.conditions, your specifications.

The hypothesis of the MPLT is that The hypothesis of the MPLT is that the the computational system underlying language computational system underlying language is an optimal solution to those design is an optimal solution to those design specificationsspecifications. So everything is thought of . So everything is thought of in terms of the creation of interpretable in terms of the creation of interpretable representations.representations.

And now, back to our And now, back to our ProgramProgram

With the history laid out With the history laid out in a little more detail in a little more detail now, on to the final now, on to the final major operation and major operation and concept in the concept in the computational system computational system we are hypothesizing.we are hypothesizing.

Operations:Operations: (Select)(Select) MergeMerge AdjoinAdjoin AgreeAgree MoveMove

Hierarchy of Projections:Hierarchy of Projections: T > T > vv > V > V

We’ve covered We’ve covered MergeMerge and and AdjoinAdjoin..

SelectSelect is the name for is the name for picking a syntactic object picking a syntactic object off the workbench in off the workbench in preparation for doing preparation for doing something.something.

AgreeAgree is what we’re is what we’re about to discuss.about to discuss.

We’ve seen examples of We’ve seen examples of MoveMove already, though already, though we’ll try to further clarify we’ll try to further clarify its function and its function and restrictions as a syntactic restrictions as a syntactic operation.operation.

Pat might eat lunch.Pat might eat lunch. PatPat [N, …][N, …]

vv [[uuN, …]N, …]eateat [V, [V, uuN, N,

…]…]lunchlunch [N, …][N, …]mightmight […][…]

Since [Since [uuN] needs to be N] needs to be checked on T, and since checked on T, and since there are no NPs left to there are no NPs left to Merge, T looks down into Merge, T looks down into the tree, finds the first NP the tree, finds the first NP it sees, and moves it up.it sees, and moves it up. ““Moves it up” = makes a Moves it up” = makes a

copy and Merges with the copy and Merges with the root.root.

We’ll continue exploring We’ll continue exploring this in a bit.this in a bit.

NP

VP

v

vP

<Pat>

lunch

Tmight

[T, uN, …]

T [T, uN, …]

TP

<eat>

v+Veat

NPPat

Uninterpretable featuresUninterpretable features

Some lexical items come in with Some lexical items come in with uninterpretable selectional features.uninterpretable selectional features. Kick Kick has [has [uuN], it needs an NP.N], it needs an NP.

Merge creates a sisterhood relation.Merge creates a sisterhood relation. Uninterpretable features can be Uninterpretable features can be

checked by matching features in a checked by matching features in a sisterhood relation.sisterhood relation. These features are privative— they’re These features are privative— they’re

either there or they’re not. either there or they’re not.

Uninterpretable featuresUninterpretable features There is a second kind of uninterpretable There is a second kind of uninterpretable

feature, an feature, an unvaluedunvalued feature. feature. For example, tense features come in two types, For example, tense features come in two types,

past and present. We say that the tense feature past and present. We say that the tense feature either has a present value or a past value.either has a present value or a past value. [tense:past] or [tense:present][tense:past] or [tense:present]

An unvalued feature is a type of uninterpretable An unvalued feature is a type of uninterpretable feature, but it is not checked by exactly matching feature, but it is not checked by exactly matching a feature in the structural sister, but is instead a feature in the structural sister, but is instead checked by taking on a value from a higher checked by taking on a value from a higher feature of its type.feature of its type. T[tense:past] … T[tense:past] … vv[[uutense:]tense:] T[tense:past] … T[tense:past] … vv[[uutense: past]tense: past]

Uninterpretable featuresUninterpretable features

Unvalued featuresUnvalued features [[uutype:] is checked on a lexical item Y type:] is checked on a lexical item Y

when a c-commanding lexical item X has a when a c-commanding lexical item X has a feature [type: value], resulting in [feature [type: value], resulting in [uutype: type: value] on Y.value] on Y.

(Privative) uninterpretable features(Privative) uninterpretable features [[uuF] is checked on a lexical item Y when its F] is checked on a lexical item Y when its

sister has a matching feature (either [F] or sister has a matching feature (either [F] or [[uuF]).F]).

Feature classesFeature classes The feature types that can take on values are the The feature types that can take on values are the

ones that we’ve been treating as being in classes ones that we’ve been treating as being in classes up to now.up to now.

There are There are tensetense features. Like features. Like pastpast, like , like presentpresent. . There are There are casecase features. Like features. Like nomnom, like , like accacc. There . There are are personperson features. Like features. Like 1st1st, like , like 2nd2nd. There are . There are gendergender features. Like features. Like masculinemasculine, like , like femininefeminine..

So, we can think of this as a feature category or So, we can think of this as a feature category or feature feature typetype that has a that has a valuevalue.. [[Gender:Gender: masculinemasculine]] [[Person:Person: 1st1st]] [[Tense:Tense: pastpast]] [[Case:Case: nomnom]]

Pat ate lunchPat ate lunch So, back to So, back to Pat ate lunchPat ate lunch.. T here is just T with a past tense feature:T here is just T with a past tense feature:

[T, tense:past, …].[T, tense:past, …]. We need to make a connection between the We need to make a connection between the

tense feature chosen for T and the tense tense feature chosen for T and the tense morphology we see on the verb.morphology we see on the verb.

Here’s how we’ll do it:Here’s how we’ll do it: Little Little vv has an uninterpretable (unvalued) has an uninterpretable (unvalued)

inflectional feature [inflectional feature [uuInfl:]. It will be valued by Infl:]. It will be valued by [tense:past] on T.[tense:past] on T.

It’s “Infl” because we want to include tense, but It’s “Infl” because we want to include tense, but also other kinds of features later on. But also other kinds of features later on. But tense-tense-type features can check and value unvalued type features can check and value unvalued Infl-type featuresInfl-type features..

Pat ate lunch.Pat ate lunch. PatPat [N, …][N, …]

vv [[uuN, N, uuInfl:, Infl:, …]…]eateat [V, [V, uuN, …]N, …]lunchlunch [N, …][N, …]TT [T, [T, tense:past, …]tense:past, …]

NP

VP

v

vP

lunch

T[tense:past,T, uN, …]

<eat>

v[uInfl:]+Veat

NPPat



NP

VP

v

vP

lunch


T [T, uN, tense:past, …]

<eat>

v[uInfl:past]+Veat

NPPat



Last point, how does this Last point, how does this come to be pronounced come to be pronounced Pat ate lunchPat ate lunch??

T isn’t pronounced as T isn’t pronounced as anything. It was just a anything. It was just a pure tense feature.pure tense feature.

The “past” pronunciation The “past” pronunciation of of eateat is is ateate, so , so vv+V is +V is pronounced “ate” here.pronounced “ate” here.

NP

VP

v

vP

<Pat>

lunch



TP

<eat>

NPPat

v[uInfl:past]+Veat



The idea is that there is a The idea is that there is a somewhat separate list somewhat separate list of pronunciation rules of pronunciation rules that tell us how to that tell us how to pronounce pronounce eateat in the in the context of a valued context of a valued uuInfl Infl feature:feature: eateat by [ by [uuInfl:past] = ateInfl:past] = ate

NP

VP

v

vP

<Pat>

lunch



TP

<eat>

NPPat

v[uInfl:past]+Veat

Pat had eaten lunchPat had eaten lunch The auxiliary verbs The auxiliary verbs havehave and and bebe are used in are used in

forming the perfect and progressive, forming the perfect and progressive, respectively, which are additional forms that respectively, which are additional forms that a verb can take on.a verb can take on. Pat has eaten lunch. Pat is eating lunch.Pat has eaten lunch. Pat is eating lunch.

We can’t have two modals, but we can have a We can’t have two modals, but we can have a modal and an auxiliary:modal and an auxiliary: Pat should have eaten lunch.Pat should have eaten lunch. Pat might have been eating lunch.Pat might have been eating lunch.

Conclusion: Conclusion: Auxiliaries aren’t T, they’re their Auxiliaries aren’t T, they’re their own thing.own thing. Let’s call Let’s call havehave Perf and Perf and bebe Prog. Prog.

Pat had eaten lunchPat had eaten lunch

Suppose that Perf can value an Infl Suppose that Perf can value an Infl feature, so in feature, so in Pat had eaten lunchPat had eaten lunch, , vv+V +V hashas[[uuInfl: Perf], pronounced as “eaten”.Infl: Perf], pronounced as “eaten”.

But auxiliaries show tense distinctions But auxiliaries show tense distinctions too, so they must themselves have an too, so they must themselves have an unvalued Infl feature.unvalued Infl feature. Pat has eaten lunch. Pat had eaten lunch.Pat has eaten lunch. Pat had eaten lunch.

Have Have [Perf, [Perf, uuInfl: ]Infl: ]

Pat had eaten lunch.Pat had eaten lunch. PatPat [N, …][N, …]

vv [[uuN, N, uuInfl:, Infl:, …]…]havehave [Perf, [Perf, uuInfl:, Infl:, …]…]eateat [V, [V, uuN, …]N, …]lunchlunch [N, …][N, …]TT [T, [T, tense:past, …]tense:past, …]

NOTENOTE: This tree and the : This tree and the next one are not quite in next one are not quite in final form. We will soon final form. We will soon discuss one further discuss one further operation that happens to operation that happens to the highest Perf or Prog the highest Perf or Prog head.head.

NP

VP

v

vP

<Pat>

lunch

T[tense:past, T, uN, …]


TP

<eat>

NPPat

v[uInfl:perf]+Veaten

Perf[Perf, uInfl:past]

had

PerfP

Pat was eating lunch.Pat was eating lunch. PatPat [N, …][N, …]

vv [[uuN, N, uuInfl:, …]Infl:, …]havehave [Perf, [Perf, uuInfl:, …]Infl:, …]eateat [V, [V, uuN, …]N, …]lunchlunch [N, …][N, …]TT [T, tense:past, [T, tense:past, …]…]

Notice that what we have Notice that what we have here is a modern here is a modern implementation of Affix implementation of Affix Hopping:Hopping:

Each of T, Prog, and Perf Each of T, Prog, and Perf regulate the form of the regulate the form of the subsequent verbal form by subsequent verbal form by valuing the next Infl feature valuing the next Infl feature down.down.

NP

VP

v

vP

<Pat>

lunch

T[tense:past, T, uN, …]


TP

<eat>

NPPat

v[uInfl:prog]+Veating

Prog[Perf, uInfl:past]

was

ProgP

Hierarchy of ProjectionsHierarchy of Projections

Both Both havehave and and bebe (Perf and Prog) (Perf and Prog) are possible, but just in that order.are possible, but just in that order. Pat had been eating lunch.Pat had been eating lunch. *Pat was having eaten lunch.*Pat was having eaten lunch.

But neither is obligatory. Thus:But neither is obligatory. Thus:

Hierarchy of ProjectionsHierarchy of ProjectionsT > (Perf) > (Prog) > T > (Perf) > (Prog) > vv > V > V

NegationNegation

Pat might not eat lunch.Pat might not eat lunch. Given everything we have so far, it’s fairly Given everything we have so far, it’s fairly

clear where clear where notnot must be in the structure. must be in the structure. mightmight is a Tis a T PatPat is in SpecTPis in SpecTP eat luncheat lunch is a is a vvP (with a trace of P (with a trace of PatPat in in

SpecSpecvvP)P) So, assuming So, assuming notnot is a head (of category is a head (of category

Neg), we have a NegP between TP and Neg), we have a NegP between TP and vvP.P.

Pat might not eat lunch.Pat might not eat lunch. PatPat [N, …][N, …]

vv [[uuN, N, uuInfl:, …]Infl:, …]notnot [Neg, …][Neg, …]eateat [V, [V, uuN, …]N, …]lunchlunch [N, …][N, …]mightmight [T, …][T, …]

Pat might not have eaten Pat might not have eaten lunch.lunch.

Pat might not be eating lunch.Pat might not be eating lunch. Pat might not have been Pat might not have been

eating lunch.eating lunch.

Hierarchy of Projections:Hierarchy of Projections:T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > > vv > V > V

NP

VP

v

vP

<Pat>

lunch

Tmight


TP

<eat>

NPPat

v+Veat

Negnot

NegP

Pat was not eating Pat was not eating lunch.lunch.

Now suppose that Now suppose that we tried to form we tried to form Pat Pat was not eating was not eating lunchlunch..

This is the result.This is the result.

HoP says:HoP says:T > (Neg) > (Perf)T > (Neg) > (Perf)

> (Prog) > > (Prog) > vv > > VV

But the words are But the words are not in the right not in the right order: order: bebe ( (isis) should ) should be before be before notnot.. What did we do What did we do

when we ran into when we ran into this problem with this problem with givegive??

NP

VP

v

vP

<Pat>

lunch

T[tense:past]

T

TP

<eat>

NPPat

v+Veat

Progbe

NegP

ProgPNegnot


It seems that It seems that bebe (Prog) moves up to T.(Prog) moves up to T.

Pat is not <is> eating Pat is not <is> eating lunch.lunch.

Same thing happens Same thing happens with Perf:with Perf:

Pat has not eaten Pat has not eaten lunch.lunch.

Only the top one Only the top one moves over negation:moves over negation:

Pat has not been Pat has not been eating lunch.eating lunch. NP

VP

v

vP

<Pat>

lunch

T[tense:past]

T

TP

<eat>

NPPat

v+Veat

Progbe

NegP

ProgPNegnot


What we will assume is What we will assume is that this generally that this generally happens (the closest Prog happens (the closest Prog or Perf moves to T)…or Perf moves to T)…

……having having notnot in the in the sentence only sentence only revealedrevealed that it happened.that it happened.

If there’s no If there’s no notnot, you , you can’t tell whether Prog can’t tell whether Prog has moved up to T or not.has moved up to T or not.

Just like V moving to Just like V moving to vv; ; you can tell for you can tell for distransitives like distransitives like givegive because V moves past the because V moves past the Theme. In transitives like Theme. In transitives like eateat, you can’t hear it , you can’t hear it move, but we assume for move, but we assume for uniformity that it does.uniformity that it does.

NP

VP

v

vP

<Pat>

lunch

T[tense:past]

T

TP

<eat>

NPPat

v+Veat

Progbe

NegP

ProgPNegnot

Auxiliaries moving to TAuxiliaries moving to T So, we have observed that empirically, So, we have observed that empirically, havehave and and

bebe seem to move to T. seem to move to T. However:However:

Non-auxiliary verbs do not move to T.Non-auxiliary verbs do not move to T. Auxiliaries should not have moved to T if there is Auxiliaries should not have moved to T if there is

already a modal.already a modal. This is something special re: This is something special re: havehave and and bebe.. How can we make this follow from our grammar?How can we make this follow from our grammar? Building on the idea that [Building on the idea that [uuInfl:] on the Infl:] on the

auxiliaries are valued by T, let’s say that the auxiliaries are valued by T, let’s say that the [[uuInfl:] feature on the auxiliaries is special in Infl:] feature on the auxiliaries is special in that just being c-commanded by a checker isn’t that just being c-commanded by a checker isn’t good enough. It has to be good enough. It has to be closeclose..

Strong featuresStrong features We will differentiate between two kinds of We will differentiate between two kinds of

unvalued features, unvalued features, strongstrong and and weakweak.. StrongStrong unvalued features can only be unvalued features can only be

valued/checked valued/checked locallylocally.. This will generally require that the lower This will generally require that the lower

one be moved up so that it is local.one be moved up so that it is local. Weak features can be valued/checked as Weak features can be valued/checked as

we’ve been discussing so far.we’ve been discussing so far. So, the [So, the [uuInfl:] feature on Aux (Perf or Infl:] feature on Aux (Perf or

Prog) is strong if (tense is) valued by T. Prog) is strong if (tense is) valued by T. Otherwise, [Otherwise, [uuInfl:] (including on Infl:] (including on vv) is weak.) is weak.


So, T values So, T values [[uuInfl:] on Prog, Infl:] on Prog, but [but [uuInfl:] isn’t Infl:] isn’t checked until it is checked until it is local to T.local to T.

NP

VP

v

vP

<Pat>

lunch

T[tense:past]

T

TP

<eat>

NPPat

v+Veat

Progbe [uInfl:*]

NegP

ProgPNegnot


So, T values [So, T values [uuInfl:] Infl:] on Prog, but [on Prog, but [uuInfl:] Infl:] isn’t checked until it isn’t checked until it is local to T.is local to T.

Once Prog has Once Prog has moved up to fuse moved up to fuse with T, [with T, [uuInfl:past] is Infl:past] is local to [tense:past] local to [tense:past] and [and [uuInfl:past] can Infl:past] can be checked.be checked. As we’ll say next As we’ll say next

time, this “fusion” is time, this “fusion” is really a variation of really a variation of Adjoin.Adjoin.

NP

VP

v

vP

<Pat>

lunch

T+Prog[tense:past]+[uInfl:past*]

T

TP

<eat>

NPPat

v+Veat

<be>

NegP

ProgPNegnot

Closing commentClosing comment

It turns out that this (moving verbal It turns out that this (moving verbal elements) to T is common crosslinguistically, elements) to T is common crosslinguistically, and is a point at which languages vary.and is a point at which languages vary. French raises all verbs and auxiliaries to T, French raises all verbs and auxiliaries to T,

Swedish doesn’t raise either verbs or auxiliaries to Swedish doesn’t raise either verbs or auxiliaries to T, English raises auxiliaries but not verbs to T, etc.T, English raises auxiliaries but not verbs to T, etc.

In general, this is thought of a variation in In general, this is thought of a variation in feature “strength”— we’ll discuss this more feature “strength”— we’ll discuss this more next time.next time.

Episode 5b. Agree and movement 5.3-5.4 CAS LX 522 Syntax I.

Documents

Transcript of Episode 5b. Agree and movement 5.3-5.4 CAS LX 522 Syntax I.