Week 4. Theory and the Big Picture CAS LX 522 Syntax I.

Week 4. Week 4. Theory and the Big Theory and the Big PicturePicture

CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax I

The forest vs. the treesThe forest vs. the trees

Let’s take a moment to look at what Let’s take a moment to look at what we’ve done and lay out where we’re we’ve done and lay out where we’re going.going.

The underlying goal is to lay out a The underlying goal is to lay out a modelmodel of this subconscious knowledge of this subconscious knowledge of sentence structure that we have; a of sentence structure that we have; a system which predicts what speakers system which predicts what speakers find grammatical and ungrammatical.find grammatical and ungrammatical.


All we have from the outset is All we have from the outset is datadata and and intuitionintuition as to how the system as to how the system works; we look at the data, we draw works; we look at the data, we draw generalizations, we formulate generalizations, we formulate hypotheses, and we look at more hypotheses, and we look at more data to see how the predictions of data to see how the predictions of our hypotheses fared.our hypotheses fared.

The forest vs. the treesThe forest vs. the trees We started out looking at sentences to see We started out looking at sentences to see

what makes a sentence?what makes a sentence? Looks like sentences need a subject, kind of Looks like sentences need a subject, kind of

centered around a noun, and a predicate, centered around a noun, and a predicate, usually kind of centered around a verb.usually kind of centered around a verb.

The subject part can have other stuff, not The subject part can have other stuff, not just the noun (adjectives, etc.), and the verb just the noun (adjectives, etc.), and the verb part can have other stuff, not just the verb part can have other stuff, not just the verb (adverbs, etc.).(adverbs, etc.).

So, we laid out some hypotheses as to what So, we laid out some hypotheses as to what the subject and the predicate could contain.the subject and the predicate could contain.


We noticed that the things which can be subjects We noticed that the things which can be subjects (we called then “noun phrases” because of the (we called then “noun phrases” because of the intuitive centrality of the noun) can also be objects intuitive centrality of the noun) can also be objects of verbs or of prepositions, we noticed where the of verbs or of prepositions, we noticed where the adjectives and prepositional phrases seem to be adjectives and prepositional phrases seem to be able occur with respect to the noun and so forth.able occur with respect to the noun and so forth.

Looking deeper, with the idea of constituency in Looking deeper, with the idea of constituency in mind, we continued to revise our hypotheses until mind, we continued to revise our hypotheses until we came up with rules for the noun phrase and the we came up with rules for the noun phrase and the verb phrase and the other components of the verb phrase and the other components of the sentence that seemed to share a lot of common sentence that seemed to share a lot of common properties.properties.


The fact that pretty much The fact that pretty much anyany kind of kind of phrase that we looked at seemed to phrase that we looked at seemed to have roughly the same properties have roughly the same properties suggested a further, bigger hypothesis suggested a further, bigger hypothesis about how Language works:about how Language works:

X-bar theory: X-bar theory: The hierarchical The hierarchical structure of sentences is constructed structure of sentences is constructed (only) of phrases that conform to the (only) of phrases that conform to the X-bar template.X-bar template.


Along the way, we discovered that if we Along the way, we discovered that if we assume X-bar theory is right, we probably assume X-bar theory is right, we probably had mis-named the phrase which can be had mis-named the phrase which can be the subject of a sentence or an object of the the subject of a sentence or an object of the verb; based on the evidence from possessor verb; based on the evidence from possessor phrases, we determined that what we phrases, we determined that what we thought was a “noun phrase”, headed by a thought was a “noun phrase”, headed by a noun, was actually a “determiner phrase” noun, was actually a “determiner phrase” headed by a determiner (and headed by a determiner (and containing containing a a noun phrase headed by a noun).noun phrase headed by a noun).


In general, this is how we’ll progress; we In general, this is how we’ll progress; we consider some part of the data, form consider some part of the data, form hypotheses based on the generalizations hypotheses based on the generalizations we see, and then look for data that we we see, and then look for data that we don’t account for.don’t account for.

Right now, we have the basic tools we Right now, we have the basic tools we need to diagram the structures of need to diagram the structures of sentences (categories, X-bar theory), but sentences (categories, X-bar theory), but that’s by no means the end of the story…that’s by no means the end of the story…


There are several large areas we need to There are several large areas we need to address. First of all, simply drawing a tree address. First of all, simply drawing a tree that conforms to X-bar theory doesn’t that conforms to X-bar theory doesn’t guarantee that we’re going to have a guarantee that we’re going to have a grammatical sentence.grammatical sentence.

Theta theory Theta theory and and subcategorizationsubcategorization are the are the major components of our final theory which major components of our final theory which help make sure that our structures are help make sure that our structures are legitimate. These are going to be our main legitimate. These are going to be our main topics today.topics today.


Another major component of syntax Another major component of syntax is is movementmovement, which has many , which has many complex properties.complex properties.

In general, the idea is that sentences In general, the idea is that sentences like theselike these John will leave.John will leave. Will John leave?Will John leave?

Are Are relatedrelated in a meaningful way.in a meaningful way.


The underlying view of the The underlying view of the grammatical system has us grammatical system has us starting starting withwith something like: something like: John will leaveJohn will leave

……in either case, and if you are trying in either case, and if you are trying to form a yes-no question, you will to form a yes-no question, you will additionally move additionally move willwill from where you from where you see it above to where you see it below:see it above to where you see it below: Will John — leave?Will John — leave?

The forest vs. the treesThe forest vs. the trees That means that there are That means that there are two levelstwo levels involved in involved in

the the generationgeneration of a sentence (where we our of a sentence (where we our system is supposed to, in the end, system is supposed to, in the end, generategenerate all all and only the grammatical sentences of a and only the grammatical sentences of a language).language).

There’s the first level (There’s the first level (John will leaveJohn will leave), which is ), which is sometimes called the sometimes called the Deep StructureDeep Structure or or DD--StructureStructure or or DSDS representation of the sentence. representation of the sentence.

Then, there’s a second level, after any Then, there’s a second level, after any movement has happened (movement has happened (Will John leave?Will John leave?), and ), and this is what we pronounce. This is sometimes this is what we pronounce. This is sometimes called the called the Surface StructureSurface Structure or or SS--StructureStructure or or SSSS representation. representation.


In fact, there’s even a In fact, there’s even a thirdthird level; it’s level; it’s a level conceptually a level conceptually afterafter the one we the one we pronounce.pronounce.

Consider:Consider: Everyone bought something.Everyone bought something. ……I don’t remember what that thing was, I don’t remember what that thing was,

though.though. ……but they all bought different things.but they all bought different things.


Everyone bought somethingEveryone bought something For every person For every person xx::

for something for something yy::xx bought bought yy..

For some thing For some thing yy: : for every person for every person xx::xx bought bought yy..

These are renditions of the two These are renditions of the two meanings in a “meanings in a “logical formlogical form”; they ”; they differ in whether differ in whether everyoneeveryone or or someonesomeone comes first.comes first.

The forest vs. the treesThe forest vs. the trees The idea is that The idea is that afterafter S-Structure there can S-Structure there can

be more movement to yield the be more movement to yield the Logical Logical FormForm (or (or LFLF).).

There are two possibilities for There are two possibilities for Everyone Everyone bought somethingbought something. It’s ambiguous, like . It’s ambiguous, like I I saw the man on the hill with the binocularssaw the man on the hill with the binoculars..

We might say that one one meaning We might say that one one meaning (every…some…) no movement occurs, but (every…some…) no movement occurs, but on the other meaning (some…every…) on the other meaning (some…every…) something something moves over moves over everyoneeveryone..

something everyone bought —something everyone bought —

The Y modelThe Y model

This overall view of grammar has This overall view of grammar has this shape (something like an this shape (something like an inverted Y)inverted Y)

DS

SS

LFPFMeaning is readoff of Logical Form

D-Structure is theunderlying form

Phonetic Form isthe pronunciation

Overt movement

Covert movement

Phonology/Morphology

S-Structure is the surfaceform (modulo phon/morph)

The Y modelThe Y model We haven’t been making distinctions, but we We haven’t been making distinctions, but we

have generally been considering sentences that have generally been considering sentences that did not contain any (obvious) overt movement. did not contain any (obvious) overt movement. Basically, we have been characterizing SS/DS.Basically, we have been characterizing SS/DS.

DS

SS

LFPFMeaning is readoff of Logical Form

D-Structure is theunderlying form

Phonetic Form isthe pronunciation

Overt movement

Covert movement


S-Structure is the surfaceform (modulo phon/morph)

The Y modelThe Y model Given this, we can only say that X-bar theory Given this, we can only say that X-bar theory

applies to SS/DS. However, we will make an applies to SS/DS. However, we will make an additional assumption: additional assumption: Movement is structure Movement is structure preservingpreserving..

DS

SS

LFPF

X-bar theoryOvert movement

Covert movement


The Y modelThe Y model By By movement is structure preservingmovement is structure preserving, we mean that , we mean that

movement will never change an X-bar compliant structure movement will never change an X-bar compliant structure into an X-bar noncompliant structure. X-bar theory into an X-bar noncompliant structure. X-bar theory constrains DS and all representations created by movement constrains DS and all representations created by movement (SS, LF).(SS, LF).

DS

SS

LFPF

X-bar theory

Overt movement

Covert movement


The Y modelThe Y model Theta theoryTheta theory and and subcategorizationsubcategorization will will

constrain additional aspects of DS (for example, constrain additional aspects of DS (for example, the requirement that the requirement that hithit has a DP object).has a DP object).

DS

SS

LFPF

X-bar theory

Overt movement

Covert movement


TheorySubcategorization

The Y modelThe Y model Binding Theory Binding Theory concerning the concerning the interpretationinterpretation

of noun phrases (DPs) like of noun phrases (DPs) like himhim, , himselfhimself, and , and BillBill, are constraints on the form , are constraints on the form LFLF takes. takes.

DS

SS

LFPF

X-bar theory

Overt movement

Covert movement



Binding theory

The Y modelThe Y model Case Theory Case Theory concerning the placement of concerning the placement of

noun phrases (DPs) within a sentence will turn noun phrases (DPs) within a sentence will turn out to be basically a set of constraints on SS.out to be basically a set of constraints on SS.

DS

SS

LFPF

X-bar theory

Overt movement

Covert movement



Binding theory

Case theory, EPP

The planThe plan

This is an overview of the components This is an overview of the components of the grammar (to a good first of the grammar (to a good first approximation, of course), and the approximation, of course), and the plan from here will be to work our way plan from here will be to work our way through the components (through the components (-theory, -theory, movement, Case theory, Binding movement, Case theory, Binding theory).theory).

Today: Today: -theory-theory andand subcategorizationsubcategorization..

But first, some But first, some clarifications…clarifications…

The introduction of the DP (last The introduction of the DP (last week) often causes a certain amount week) often causes a certain amount of unrest and confusion…of unrest and confusion…

As mentioned a few minutes ago, As mentioned a few minutes ago, what makes this confusing is in part what makes this confusing is in part just an issue of just an issue of labelinglabeling. We, sensibly . We, sensibly enough, called the kind of phrase that enough, called the kind of phrase that can serve as a subject or an object, a can serve as a subject or an object, a “noun phrase.”“noun phrase.”


We discovered that as We discovered that as we explored the phrase we explored the phrase of which the noun is of which the noun is the head (the NP), we the head (the NP), we shouldn’t include shouldn’t include determiners like determiners like thethe (or the possessive (or the possessive ’s’s) ) inside; rather, the D is inside; rather, the D is outside the NP.outside the NP.

Dthe

D

DP

Nbook

N

NP


The implication of this is that The implication of this is that subjects like subjects like the studentthe student or or objects like objects like the book the book were were never NPs at all—they were never NPs at all—they were DPs which DPs which containcontain NPs. NPs.

Of course, NPs still Of course, NPs still existexist! And ! And everything we had previously everything we had previously discovered about them is still discovered about them is still true. The data hasn’t changed. true. The data hasn’t changed. It’s only that NPs are It’s only that NPs are insideinside of of DPs.DPs.

Dthe

D

DP

Nbook

N

NP


One note about DP and the old One note about DP and the old term “noun phrase”: You will find term “noun phrase”: You will find that people are not as precise that people are not as precise about DP as they should be—about DP as they should be—even the textbook will frequently even the textbook will frequently refer to “noun phrase” or even refer to “noun phrase” or even “NP” when it really means “DP”.“NP” when it really means “DP”.

The term “noun phrase” (and its The term “noun phrase” (and its abbreviation) “NP” had become abbreviation) “NP” had become very entrenched in the very entrenched in the vocabulary of linguistics—you’ll vocabulary of linguistics—you’ll just have to be awake as you just have to be awake as you read. Most of the time, people read. Most of the time, people mean DP.mean DP.

Dthe

D

DP

Nbook

N

NP


Perhaps a little more shocking is the basic Perhaps a little more shocking is the basic idea of X-bar theory, which was probably idea of X-bar theory, which was probably not fully driven home last time.not fully driven home last time.

The logic was like this: Looking at NP, VP, The logic was like this: Looking at NP, VP, and so forth, we found that the shape of and so forth, we found that the shape of the phrases is pretty much the same. This the phrases is pretty much the same. This suggested a fundamental property of suggested a fundamental property of language, a generalization that holds over language, a generalization that holds over any kind of phraseany kind of phrase..


The shape of a phrase is given by these The shape of a phrase is given by these three rules, where you can fill in X, Y, three rules, where you can fill in X, Y, Z, and W with any category (N, V, Adj, Z, and W with any category (N, V, Adj, …):…):

XP: (ZP) XXP: (ZP) X (specifier rule)(specifier rule) XX: (YP) X: (YP) X oror X X (YP) (YP) (adjunct rule)(adjunct rule) XX: X (WP): X (WP) (complement (complement

rule)rule)


NNP: (ZP) P: (ZP) NN (specifier rule)(specifier rule) NN: (YP) : (YP) NN oror NN (YP) (YP) (adjunct rule)(adjunct rule) NN: : NN (WP) (WP) (complement rule)(complement rule)

VVP: (ZP) P: (ZP) VV (specifier rule)(specifier rule) VV: (YP) : (YP) VV oror VV (YP) (YP) (adjunct rule)(adjunct rule) VV: : VV (WP) (WP) (complement rule)(complement rule)


The thing is: X-bar theory has now The thing is: X-bar theory has now taken overtaken over a lot of the function that a lot of the function that our NP, VP rules had.our NP, VP rules had.

The radical view to take on this is The radical view to take on this is that that there is only X-bar theorythere is only X-bar theory——there there is no NP rule, there is no VP rule, no is no NP rule, there is no VP rule, no AdjP rule, etc.AdjP rule, etc.

We can build trees with X-bar theory We can build trees with X-bar theory alone, without any category-specific alone, without any category-specific rules like NP.rules like NP.


That sounds economical, but let’s That sounds economical, but let’s think about what the NP rules said:think about what the NP rules said: NP: NNP: N NN : AdjP N : AdjP N NN : N : N PP PP NN : N (PP) : N (PP)

What here What here can’tcan’t we simply derive we simply derive from X-bar theory by substituting N from X-bar theory by substituting N for X?for X?


NP: NNP: N NN : AdjP N : AdjP N NN : N : N PP PP NN : N (PP) : N (PP)

X-bar theory does not X-bar theory does not restrict complements restrict complements to being a PP to being a PP (it allows any phrase to be a (it allows any phrase to be a complement, for example VP, TP, DP, AdjP). complement, for example VP, TP, DP, AdjP). It does not restrict left-adjuncts to be AdjPs, It does not restrict left-adjuncts to be AdjPs, or right-adjuncts to PPs. or right-adjuncts to PPs. X-bar theory makes X-bar theory makes no category-specificno category-specific statements. statements.


So, if X-bar theory is taking over the role of So, if X-bar theory is taking over the role of our NP, VP, PP rules, we are still left with our NP, VP, PP rules, we are still left with the question of how the other restrictions the question of how the other restrictions get there.get there.

That is, That is, we we have made progresshave made progress, we can , we can now use a single set of rules to describe now use a single set of rules to describe anyany kind of phrase. It is a higher kind of kind of phrase. It is a higher kind of generalization, with a lot more coverage.generalization, with a lot more coverage.

But it leaves us with the information that But it leaves us with the information that we accumulated while constructing the NP we accumulated while constructing the NP rules that still needs to be predicted.rules that still needs to be predicted.

And now, And now, -theory-theory

To understand To understand -theory, we’ll need -theory, we’ll need to back away from the issue at hand to back away from the issue at hand (to start from the beginning of the (to start from the beginning of the topic), but what we’re going to end topic), but what we’re going to end up with is a system for ensuring that up with is a system for ensuring that only the right kinds of things appear only the right kinds of things appear in NPs, VPs—to take care of parts of in NPs, VPs—to take care of parts of the NP, VP rule which the NP, VP rule which isn’t isn’t covered covered by X-bar theory.by X-bar theory.

Verbs and argumentsVerbs and arguments

Verbs come in several types…Verbs come in several types… Some have only a subject, they can’t have an Some have only a subject, they can’t have an

object—the object—the intransitive intransitive verbs.verbs. Sleep: Sleep: Bill sleptBill slept; ; *Bill slept the book*Bill slept the book..

Some need an object—the Some need an object—the transitivetransitive verbs. verbs. Hit: Hit: *Bill hit*Bill hit; ; Bill hit the pillowBill hit the pillow..

Some need two objects—Some need two objects—ditransitive ditransitive verbs.verbs. Put: Put: *Bill put*Bill put; ; *Bill put the book*Bill put the book;;

Bill put the book on the tableBill put the book on the table..

Verbs and argumentsVerbs and arguments

The “participants” in an event denoted The “participants” in an event denoted by the verb are the by the verb are the argumentsarguments of that of that verb.verb.

Some verbs require one argument Some verbs require one argument (subject), some require two arguments (subject), some require two arguments (subject and object), some require (subject and object), some require three arguments (subject, indirect three arguments (subject, indirect object, direct object).object, direct object).

PredicatesPredicates

We will consider verbs to be We will consider verbs to be predicatespredicates which define properties of and/or which define properties of and/or relations between the relations between the argumentsarguments.. Bill hit the ballBill hit the ball There was a hitting, Bill did the hitting, There was a hitting, Bill did the hitting,

the ball was affected by the hitting.the ball was affected by the hitting. Different arguments have different Different arguments have different

rolesroles in the event. (e.g., The hitter, the in the event. (e.g., The hitter, the hittee)hittee)

SubcategorizationSubcategorization

Not all transitive verbs (that take just one Not all transitive verbs (that take just one argument) can take the same kind of argument) can take the same kind of argument.argument. Sue knows [Sue knows [DPDP the answer ] the answer ]

Sue knows [Sue knows [CPCP that Bill left early ] that Bill left early ]

Sue hit [Sue hit [DPDP the ball ] the ball ]

*Sue hit [*Sue hit [CPCP that Bill left early] that Bill left early]

So So knowknow can take either a DP or a CP as its can take either a DP or a CP as its object argument; object argument; hithit can only take a DP as can only take a DP as its object argument.its object argument.

SelectionSelection

Verbs also exert semantic control of Verbs also exert semantic control of the kinds of arguments they allow: the kinds of arguments they allow: selectionselection..

For example, many verbs can only For example, many verbs can only have a volitional (agentive) subject:have a volitional (agentive) subject: Bill likes pizza. Bill kicked the stone.Bill likes pizza. Bill kicked the stone. #Pizza likes anchovies. #The stone #Pizza likes anchovies. #The stone

kicked Bill.kicked Bill.

The lexiconThe lexicon A major component of our knowledge of a A major component of our knowledge of a

language is knowing the words and the language is knowing the words and the properties of those words. This knowledge is properties of those words. This knowledge is referred to as referred to as the lexiconthe lexicon..

In the lexicon, we have the words (In the lexicon, we have the words (lexical itemslexical items) ) stored with their properties, like:stored with their properties, like: Syntactic category (N, V, Adj, P, C, T, …)Syntactic category (N, V, Adj, P, C, T, …) Number of arguments requiredNumber of arguments required Subcategorization requirements (syntax)Subcategorization requirements (syntax) Selectional requirements (semantics)Selectional requirements (semantics) PronunciationPronunciation ……

These pretty much just have to be learned These pretty much just have to be learned separately for each verb in the language.separately for each verb in the language.

Thematic relationsThematic relations

It has come to be standard practice It has come to be standard practice to think of the restrictions (both to think of the restrictions (both subcategorization and selection) in subcategorization and selection) in terms of the terms of the thematic relationthematic relation that that the argument has to the verb—the the argument has to the verb—the role it plays in the event.role it plays in the event.

One thematic relation is One thematic relation is agentagent of an of an action, like action, like BillBill in: in: Bill kicked the ball.Bill kicked the ball.


There are lot of possible thematic There are lot of possible thematic relations; here are some common ones:relations; here are some common ones:

AgentAgent: initiator or doer in the event: initiator or doer in the event ThemeTheme: affected by the event, or : affected by the event, or

undergoes the actionundergoes the action Bill kicked the ball. Bill kicked the ball.

ExperiencerExperiencer: feel or perceive the event: feel or perceive the event Bill likes pizza.Bill likes pizza.


GoalGoal:: Bill ran Bill ran to Copley Squareto Copley Square.. Bill gave the book Bill gave the book to Maryto Mary.. ( (RecipientRecipient))

SourceSource:: Bill took a pencil Bill took a pencil from the pilefrom the pile..

InstrumentInstrument: : Bill ate the burrito Bill ate the burrito with a plastic sporkwith a plastic spork..

BenefactiveBenefactive:: Bill cooked dinner Bill cooked dinner for Maryfor Mary..

LocationLocation:: Bill sits Bill sits under the treeunder the tree on Wednesdays. on Wednesdays.


Armed with these terms, we can Armed with these terms, we can describe the semantic connection describe the semantic connection between the verb and its arguments.between the verb and its arguments. Ray gave a grape to Bill.Ray gave a grape to Bill.

RayRay: : Agent, Source, …Agent, Source, … A grapeA grape: : ThemeTheme BillBill: : Goal, Recipient, …Goal, Recipient, …

-roles-roles An argument can participate in several An argument can participate in several

thematic relations with the verb (e.g., thematic relations with the verb (e.g., Agent, Goal).Agent, Goal).

In the syntax, we assign a special In the syntax, we assign a special connection to the verb called a “connection to the verb called a “-role-role”, ”, which is a which is a collection collection of thematic of thematic relations.relations.

For the purposes of syntax, the For the purposes of syntax, the -role -role (the (the collection collection of relations) is much more of relations) is much more central than the actual relations in the central than the actual relations in the collection.collection.

-roles-roles

We will often need to make reference We will often need to make reference to a particular to a particular -role, and we will often -role, and we will often do this by referring to the most do this by referring to the most prominent relation in the collection.prominent relation in the collection.

For example, in For example, in Bill hit the ballBill hit the ball, we say , we say that that Bill Bill has the “Agent has the “Agent -role”, -role”, meaning it has a meaning it has a -role containing the -role containing the Agent relation, perhaps among others.Agent relation, perhaps among others.

The Theta CriterionThe Theta Criterion

Although an argument can have any Although an argument can have any number of thematic relations in the number of thematic relations in the --role…role…

Each argument has exactly one Each argument has exactly one -role.-role. On the other side, verbs (as we’ve On the other side, verbs (as we’ve

seen) are recorded in the lexicon with seen) are recorded in the lexicon with the number of participants they the number of participants they require; each participant must have a require; each participant must have a -role as well.-role as well.

The Theta CriterionThe Theta Criterion Verbs have a certain number of Verbs have a certain number of -roles to -roles to

assignassign (e.g., say has two), and each of (e.g., say has two), and each of those must be assigned to an argument.those must be assigned to an argument.

Meanwhile, every argument needs to have Meanwhile, every argument needs to have exactly one exactly one -role (it needs to have at -role (it needs to have at least one, it can’t have more than one).least one, it can’t have more than one).

This requirement that there be a one-to-This requirement that there be a one-to-one match between the one match between the -roles a verb has -roles a verb has to assign and the arguments receiving to assign and the arguments receiving --roles is the roles is the Theta CriterionTheta Criterion..

Theta GridsTheta Grids

We can formalize the information about We can formalize the information about --roles in the lexical entry for a verb by using roles in the lexical entry for a verb by using a a theta gridtheta grid, like so:, like so:

The columns each represent a The columns each represent a -role, the -role, the indices in the lower row will serve as our indices in the lower row will serve as our connection to the actual arguments; e.g.connection to the actual arguments; e.g.

JohnJohnii gave [the book] gave [the book]jj [to Mary] [to Mary]kk..

give Source/Agent Theme Goal

i j k


JohnJohnii gave [the book] gave [the book]jj [to Mary] [to Mary]kk..


i j k

The first -role is assigned to the subject. It is the external -role.It is often designated by underlining it.

The other -role are internal -roles.


One important thing to note about theta One important thing to note about theta grids is that grids is that adjuncts are never in the adjuncts are never in the theta gridtheta grid..

Adjuncts are related to the verb via thematic Adjuncts are related to the verb via thematic relations (e.g., instrument, location, etc.), but relations (e.g., instrument, location, etc.), but an an adjunct does not get a adjunct does not get a -role-role. They are optional.. They are optional.

The The -roles in the theta grid are obligatory.-roles in the theta grid are obligatory.


i j k

How this worksHow this works

The Theta Criterion is a The Theta Criterion is a constraintconstraint, a , a filter filter on structures.on structures.

There is an (infinitely big) set of There is an (infinitely big) set of structures which satisfy the structures which satisfy the requirements of X-bar theory. Here’s requirements of X-bar theory. Here’s a picture of it.a picture of it.


In here are In here are allall of the of the structures which structures which conform to X-bar theory.conform to X-bar theory.

Of course, this includes Of course, this includes structures like this one:structures like this one:

I

leaveV

V

VP

DP

T-ed

T

TP

D

D


But it also includes But it also includes structures like this structures like this one (with one (with hithit which has which has twotwo --roles to assign).roles to assign).

I

hitV

V

VP

DP

T-ed

T

TP

D

D


This structure does This structure does not satisfy the not satisfy the Theta Criterion.Theta Criterion.

Ii

hitV

V

VP

DP

T-ed

T

TP

D

D

hit Agent Theme

i j

?j


We can split the set of possible X-bar We can split the set of possible X-bar structures into two parts, those which satisfy structures into two parts, those which satisfy the Theta Criterion and those which don’t.the Theta Criterion and those which don’t.

Grammatical; satisfy the Theta Criterion

Ungrammatical; don’t satisfy the Theta Criterion


In general, the model is one of In general, the model is one of free free generationgeneration of (sets of) structures and of (sets of) structures and movements, constrained by a variety of movements, constrained by a variety of constraints (X-bar theory, the Theta constraints (X-bar theory, the Theta Criterion, and many others that we will Criterion, and many others that we will meet—the Case Filter, the Extended meet—the Case Filter, the Extended Projection Principle, Binding Theory, …).Projection Principle, Binding Theory, …).

Anything that satisfies the constraints is Anything that satisfies the constraints is grammatical, anything that doesn’t isn’t grammatical, anything that doesn’t isn’t grammatical.grammatical.

The Projection PrincipleThe Projection Principle

The idea that lexical information directly The idea that lexical information directly constrains the validity of structures via constrains the validity of structures via categorial information, categorial information, argument argument structurestructure (theta grids), is embodied in the (theta grids), is embodied in the Projection Principle:Projection Principle:

The Projection PrincipleThe Projection PrincipleLexical information (theta roles, etc.) is Lexical information (theta roles, etc.) is syntactically represented at all levels (DS, syntactically represented at all levels (DS, SS, LF)SS, LF)

The Theta Criterion in The Theta Criterion in actionaction

An example: An example: pushpush..

BillBillii pushed the shopping cart pushed the shopping cartjj.. Fine, Fine, push push assigns two assigns two -roles, one (the external -roles, one (the external --

role) is assigned to role) is assigned to BillBill, the other (the internal , the other (the internal --role) is assigned to role) is assigned to the shopping cartthe shopping cart. There are . There are two arguments here, each gets a two arguments here, each gets a -role.-role.

*Bill*Billii pushed. pushed. *Bill*Billii pushed the shopping cart pushed the shopping cartjj the corner the corner??..

push Agent Theme

i j

The Theta Criterion in The Theta Criterion in actionaction

An example: An example: coughcough..

BillBillii coughed. coughed. Fine, Fine, cough cough assigns one assigns one -role (the external -role (the external --

role), to role), to BillBill. There are one arguments here, and it . There are one arguments here, and it gets a gets a -role.-role.

*Bill*Billii coughed the shopping cart coughed the shopping cart??..

cough Agent

i

Complications aboundComplications abound

Things aren’t really as simple as it Things aren’t really as simple as it might seem so far (have you already might seem so far (have you already noticed)?noticed)? Bill ran.Bill ran. Bill ran a mile.Bill ran a mile. Bill danced.Bill danced. Bill danced a happy little jig.Bill danced a happy little jig. Bill ate.Bill ate. Bill ate a sandwich.Bill ate a sandwich.

Bill ran (a mile)Bill ran (a mile) So, So, runrun appears to be able to be used either appears to be able to be used either

as an intransitive verb (as an intransitive verb (Bill ranBill ran) or as a ) or as a transitive verb (transitive verb (Bill ran a mileBill ran a mile).).

We will assume when you’re building a We will assume when you’re building a sentence you choose the type of verb ahead sentence you choose the type of verb ahead of time (so, of time (so, run run is listed in the lexicon with is listed in the lexicon with two possible theta grids, chosen at the two possible theta grids, chosen at the outset). We could notate this outset). We could notate this runrun11 (intransitive) and (intransitive) and runrun22 (transitive). That is: (transitive). That is: *Bill ran*Bill ran22.. *Bill ran*Bill ran11 a mile. a mile.

PassivePassive

The The passivepassive is something which appears to is something which appears to directly affect the theta grid of a verb; directly affect the theta grid of a verb; consider:consider: Bill ate a sandwich.Bill ate a sandwich. The sandwich was eatThe sandwich was eatenen..

Eat Eat has two has two -roles to assign. The -roles to assign. The -en-en suffix suffix on on eaten eaten (or on any verb) seems to turn a (or on any verb) seems to turn a transitive verb into an intransitive verb; transitive verb into an intransitive verb; eateneaten (passive) has only one (passive) has only one -role to assign. -role to assign. In fact, it’s the In fact, it’s the -role that was the -role that was the internal internal --role for role for eateat..

Lexical derivationLexical derivation

Specifically, we can say that the Specifically, we can say that the -en-en suffix suffix attached to a verb attached to a verb removesremoves the external the external --role (in some sense which we’ll clarify later).role (in some sense which we’ll clarify later).

eat Agent Theme

i j

eat+en Agent Theme

i j

Lexical derivationLexical derivation There are several other There are several other derivationalderivational

suffixessuffixes of this kind, that alter lexically of this kind, that alter lexically encoded properties in predictable ways; encoded properties in predictable ways; for example, there are several which for example, there are several which change the syntactic category.change the syntactic category. -ion-ion: turns V to N (: turns V to N (translationtranslation)) -ize-ize: turns N to V (: turns N to V (colonizecolonize)) -ish-ish: turns N to Adj (: turns N to Adj (sheepishsheepish))

These are for our purposes considered to These are for our purposes considered to be “pre-syntax” (so their effects have be “pre-syntax” (so their effects have already occurred to the elements in the already occurred to the elements in the terminal nodes of the trees).terminal nodes of the trees).

Lexical derivationLexical derivation As a side note, those category-changing As a side note, those category-changing

suffixes often suffixes often leave the theta grid (more or leave the theta grid (more or less) intactless) intact..

DestroyDestroy: V, : V, : : AgentAgent, Theme., Theme. Homer destroyed the toaster.Homer destroyed the toaster.

DestructionDestruction (a noun, from (a noun, from destroydestroy + + ionion)) Homer’s destruction of the toaster.Homer’s destruction of the toaster.

See? The complement of the verb (toaster) is See? The complement of the verb (toaster) is now the complement of a noun (with the of we now the complement of a noun (with the of we usually see with noun complements), the usually see with noun complements), the destroyer (Homer) takes the form of a destroyer (Homer) takes the form of a “possessor”. There are many complexities “possessor”. There are many complexities here that we’ll save for later (probably Syntax here that we’ll save for later (probably Syntax II), but it’s an interesting point.II), but it’s an interesting point.

Bill ate (a sandwich)Bill ate (a sandwich)

Now, back to the issue of “either Now, back to the issue of “either transitive or intransitive” verbs (like transitive or intransitive” verbs (like runrun).).

The thematic role played by The thematic role played by a milea mile in in Bill Bill ran a mileran a mile isn’t really a Theme (the mile isn’t really a Theme (the mile wasn’t affected by Bill’s running of it), but wasn’t affected by Bill’s running of it), but a sandwich in a sandwich in Bill ate a sandwichBill ate a sandwich is pretty is pretty canonical Theme.canonical Theme.

Some verbs with canonical Themes of this Some verbs with canonical Themes of this kind can nevertheless appear without kind can nevertheless appear without them (them (Bill ateBill ate, , Bill drankBill drank, , Bill kickedBill kicked, …)., …).


We We couldcould treat these in the same way we treat these in the same way we treated treated ranran (by supposing that (by supposing that eateat has two has two theta grids to choose from), but we might theta grids to choose from), but we might also look at it another way.also look at it another way.

There are a number of languages which There are a number of languages which seem to have an “antipassive” construction, seem to have an “antipassive” construction, which is sort of like the English passive which is sort of like the English passive except that it seems to be the except that it seems to be the internalinternal -role -role which gets “removed”. This is often which gets “removed”. This is often detectable through some kind of marking on detectable through some kind of marking on the verb. Like English the verb. Like English -en -en indicates passive.indicates passive.


Given this crosslinguistic parallel, many Given this crosslinguistic parallel, many syntacticians instead assume that syntacticians instead assume that eateat exhibits the same phenomenon in English:exhibits the same phenomenon in English: Bill ate a sandwich.Bill ate a sandwich. Bill ate+Ø.Bill ate+Ø.

That is, English has an antipassive That is, English has an antipassive morpheme, but it is a zero morpheme (not morpheme, but it is a zero morpheme (not entirely unlike the zero morpheme that entirely unlike the zero morpheme that can create verbs from nouns; e.g., can create verbs from nouns; e.g., xeroxxerox, , impactimpact, , shelfshelf, , corralcorral, …), …)

The EPPThe EPP

With the Theta Criterion in our toolbox, let’s With the Theta Criterion in our toolbox, let’s take a look at a special kind of sentence (which take a look at a special kind of sentence (which will turn out to tell us something important will turn out to tell us something important about syntax).about syntax). It rained.It rained. It snowed.It snowed.

How many How many -roles does -roles does rain rain assign?assign? If we think about If we think about itit, it doesn’t really mean , it doesn’t really mean

anything anything at all. It is not a participant in the at all. It is not a participant in the event; it really event; it really can’tcan’t be getting a be getting a -role. (cf. -role. (cf. also Spanish).also Spanish).

The EPPThe EPP

So, the theta grid for So, the theta grid for rainrain really really looks like this:looks like this:

The EPPThe EPP

Given the Theta Criterion and the fact Given the Theta Criterion and the fact that that rainrain doesn’t have any doesn’t have any -roles to -roles to assign, what’s assign, what’s itit doing there? And why doing there? And why doesn’t doesn’t it it violate the Theta Criterion?violate the Theta Criterion?

As to the first question, the conclusion As to the first question, the conclusion that syntacticians have come to is that that syntacticians have come to is that the the itit is there due to a separate is there due to a separate constraint, which goes by the name constraint, which goes by the name EPP.EPP.

The EPPThe EPP The EPPThe EPP

All clauses have subjects.All clauses have subjects.

The idea is that The idea is that there must be something in the there must be something in the subject position (SpecTP) of every clausesubject position (SpecTP) of every clause..

Because Because rain rain has no arguments (no has no arguments (no -roles), a -roles), a special, contentless pronoun (special, contentless pronoun (itit) has to be ) has to be inserted to in order to have a grammatical inserted to in order to have a grammatical sentence. This kind of “empty sentence. This kind of “empty itit” is called an ” is called an expletiveexpletive or a or a pleonastic pronounpleonastic pronoun..

Expletive InsertionExpletive InsertionInsert an expletive pronoun into the specifier of Insert an expletive pronoun into the specifier of TP.TP.

The EPPThe EPP

As for the question of why As for the question of why itit doesn’t doesn’t cause cause it rainedit rained to be a violation of to be a violation of the Theta Criterion, the solution we the Theta Criterion, the solution we will adopt is an will adopt is an ordering solutionordering solution..

The idea is this: The idea is this: FirstFirst, we check the , we check the Theta Criterion, and Theta Criterion, and thenthen we insert we insert it it (if necessary in order to satisfy the (if necessary in order to satisfy the EPP). So EPP). So it it isn’t even there when we isn’t even there when we evaluate the Theta Criterion.evaluate the Theta Criterion.

The EPPThe EPP

This is how this looks in the Y model This is how this looks in the Y model we’re building up.we’re building up.

DS

SS

LFPF

Expletive Insertion Theta Criterion

EPP

Lexicon

It is likely…It is likely…

Another place we see an expletive Another place we see an expletive pronoun is with verbs like pronoun is with verbs like is likelyis likely.. It is likely that Bill left.It is likely that Bill left.

Think about the semantic role that Think about the semantic role that it it plays in this sentence, and you’ll see plays in this sentence, and you’ll see that it too is “empty”, an expletive that it too is “empty”, an expletive pronoun. However pronoun. However likelylikely does have a does have a -role to assign, it assigns a -role to assign, it assigns a -role to -role to its complement, the CP.its complement, the CP.


Note that in the theta grid for Note that in the theta grid for likelylikely, we have , we have a single a single -role, but -role, but it is not underlinedit is not underlined——likely likely has a single, has a single, internal internal -role to assign.-role to assign.

So, So, likely likely assigns a Proposition assigns a Proposition -role to the -role to the CP in its complement, but the subject CP in its complement, but the subject position is still empty and therefore needs to position is still empty and therefore needs to be filled with an expletive pronoun.be filled with an expletive pronoun.

likely Proposition

i


So, we have a partial tree So, we have a partial tree like this, at DS, which like this, at DS, which satisfies the Theta Criterion.satisfies the Theta Criterion. NoteNote: The textbook basically : The textbook basically

treats treats is-likelyis-likely as if it were a as if it were a verb. However, really verb. However, really likelylikely is is an Adj, and an Adj, and isis is an auxiliary is an auxiliary verb. It is verb. It is likelylikely (despite not (despite not being a verb; remember being a verb; remember destructiondestruction) that has the ) that has the --roles to assign.roles to assign.

Adjlikely

Adj

AdjP

C

CP

Cthat

TP

Mary left

Vis

V

VPT[pres]

T

TP


Then, Expletive Insertion Then, Expletive Insertion applies, inserting applies, inserting itit into into SpecTP, resulting in this SpecTP, resulting in this SS representation… SS representation… which satisfies the EPP.which satisfies the EPP. (Basically, anyway… we’ll (Basically, anyway… we’ll

alter one thing about this alter one thing about this SS representation next SS representation next week; the auxiliary verb week; the auxiliary verb is is moves to T)moves to T)

Adjlikely

Adj

AdjP

C

CP

Cthat

TP

Mary left

Vis

V

VPT[pres]

T

TP

D

DP

Dit

That is likely.That is likely. In this connection, consider also:In this connection, consider also:

That Mary left is likely.That Mary left is likely. That is likely.That is likely.

In the first case, we have a CP in subject In the first case, we have a CP in subject position instead of position instead of itit. But of course the EPP . But of course the EPP is satisfied anyway because SpecTP is filled.is satisfied anyway because SpecTP is filled. There is a quirk about the There is a quirk about the -role—recall that we -role—recall that we

said that said that likely likely has only an internal has only an internal -role to -role to assign, which now appears to be assigned to the assign, which now appears to be assigned to the subject (like an external subject (like an external -role). We will return to -role). We will return to this this apparentapparent (but only apparent) quirk in two (but only apparent) quirk in two weeks, when we talk about passives.weeks, when we talk about passives.

That is likely.That is likely. That is likely.That is likely.

In this second case, we have In this second case, we have thatthat in subject in subject position. Here, position. Here, thatthat is first of all not an is first of all not an expletive—it has a definite role to play, it’s a expletive—it has a definite role to play, it’s a pronoun standing in for a proposition (such as pronoun standing in for a proposition (such as “Mary left”).“Mary left”).

It’s worth pointing out that this It’s worth pointing out that this thatthat is not the is not the complementizer complementizer thatthat either, it’s a real pronoun. either, it’s a real pronoun. There are two There are two thatthat’s in English, one that refers ’s in English, one that refers to something (a D) and one that introduces to something (a D) and one that introduces embedded clauses (a C).embedded clauses (a C).

ItIt is the same way; there is a real pronoun is the same way; there is a real pronoun itit ( (I I saw saw itit) and an expletive ) and an expletive itit ( (ItIt’s hot in here’s hot in here), ), different things.different things.

-Theory-Theory

So, So, -theory (theta grids and the -theory (theta grids and the Theta Criterion) and the EPP are two Theta Criterion) and the EPP are two ways in which we narrow down the ways in which we narrow down the overgenerationovergeneration of X-bar theory. of X-bar theory. ((overgenerationovergeneration is the problem that is the problem that

there are many trees that comply with there are many trees that comply with X-bar theory but yet are not X-bar theory but yet are not grammatical)grammatical)

-Theory-Theory

This still leaves open a This still leaves open a couple of things.couple of things.

So far we have only talked So far we have only talked about about -roles assigned by -roles assigned by lexicallexical categories (verbs, categories (verbs, primarily, but sometimes primarily, but sometimes nouns, adjectives, etc.).nouns, adjectives, etc.).

This doesn’t provide an This doesn’t provide an obvious way to rule out obvious way to rule out structures like this, structures like this, though. though.

Cthat

C

CP

D

DP

Dthe

T-ed

T

TP


The way this is generally thought of The way this is generally thought of is as a matter of is as a matter of subcategorizationsubcategorization (recall, subcategorization is a lexical (recall, subcategorization is a lexical property that specifies the syntactic property that specifies the syntactic category of its complement).category of its complement). C C subcategorizes forsubcategorizes for TP, TP,

T T subcategorizes forsubcategorizes for VP. VP. These count as lexical properties, These count as lexical properties,

and thus can fall under the and thus can fall under the Projection Principle.Projection Principle.


In a sense, we could also look at this as an In a sense, we could also look at this as an extension of extension of -roles; we could say that T has -roles; we could say that T has a a -role which can only be assigned to VP, -role which can only be assigned to VP, for example, but the intuition that drove our for example, but the intuition that drove our original postulation of thematic relations is original postulation of thematic relations is no longer available to guide us for no longer available to guide us for functional categories.functional categories.

We can keep this as an option for later, but We can keep this as an option for later, but for the moment we’ll just think of this as an for the moment we’ll just think of this as an issue of straightforward syntactic issue of straightforward syntactic subcategorization.subcategorization.

SubcategorizationSubcategorization One other possibility which we won’t directly One other possibility which we won’t directly

pursue here but which has been pursued in pursue here but which has been pursued in recent syntactic theory is that what rules recent syntactic theory is that what rules *did *did that thethat the out is that it must be possible to read out is that it must be possible to read the meaning off of the LF structure, and the meaning off of the LF structure, and *did *did that thethat the is simply not meaningful—it is is simply not meaningful—it is “gibberish”, it cannot be assigned a meaning, “gibberish”, it cannot be assigned a meaning, even if it is otherwise syntactically well-formed.even if it is otherwise syntactically well-formed.

This puts the problem in the “semanticists’ This puts the problem in the “semanticists’ court” in a sense; it would no longer be a court” in a sense; it would no longer be a problem of syntax to say why problem of syntax to say why *did that the*did that the is is ungrammatical, but a problem of semantics. ungrammatical, but a problem of semantics. Either one could be right, perhaps it’s even a Either one could be right, perhaps it’s even a combination of both. For now, we’ll stick to combination of both. For now, we’ll stick to syntax and subcategorization.syntax and subcategorization.

A couple of loose endsA couple of loose ends

The assignment of The assignment of -roles is considered to -roles is considered to be part of the initial construction of the be part of the initial construction of the structure—when the DS is constructed by structure—when the DS is constructed by putting together lexical items into an X-bar putting together lexical items into an X-bar compliant structure, this is where the Theta compliant structure, this is where the Theta Criterion needs to be satisfied. We Criterion needs to be satisfied. We mentioned this in connection to the mentioned this in connection to the expletive pronoun—the Theta Criterion expletive pronoun—the Theta Criterion needs to apply needs to apply beforebefore Expletive Insertion. Expletive Insertion. Just to highlight this:Just to highlight this:

The Theta Criterion applies at DS.The Theta Criterion applies at DS.


Perhaps you noticed this, but let’s think about Perhaps you noticed this, but let’s think about the passive again. In the lexicon, the the passive again. In the lexicon, the -en -en suffix suffix takes a verb and “strips off” the external takes a verb and “strips off” the external -role.-role. Mike ate the sandwich.Mike ate the sandwich. Eat: Eat: Agent Agent ThemeTheme The sandwich was eatThe sandwich was eatenen.. Eaten: Eaten: Agent Agent ThemeTheme

Now, the external Now, the external -role is the one that is -role is the one that is assigned to the subject position—yet it looks like assigned to the subject position—yet it looks like in the passive, the internal in the passive, the internal -role is appearing -role is appearing there. So, does the passive there. So, does the passive -en-en “promote” the “promote” the internal internal -role to an external -role to an external -role?-role?


It turns out the answer is It turns out the answer is nono, that this , that this really is the argument which receives the really is the argument which receives the internal internal -role that is appearing in subject -role that is appearing in subject position. We’re going to explore this in position. We’re going to explore this in much more detail, but consider:much more detail, but consider: The internal The internal -role is -role is alwaysalways assigned inside the assigned inside the

VP.VP. The Theta Criterion applies at DS.The Theta Criterion applies at DS. The EPP applies at SS.The EPP applies at SS. What happens between DS and SS is What happens between DS and SS is movementmovement..

So what’s happening in the passive?So what’s happening in the passive?


Taken together, this suggests that Taken together, this suggests that between DS and SS, the Theme between DS and SS, the Theme argument argument movesmoves from the object from the object position to the subject position (in order position to the subject position (in order to satisfy the EPP).to satisfy the EPP).

DS:DS: was eatwas eatenen the sandwich the sandwich SS:SS: The sandwich was eatThe sandwich was eatenen — —

√ Theta Criterion

√ EPP

A couple of loose endsA couple of loose ends This also leaves open an interesting This also leaves open an interesting

possibility with respect to intransitive verbs. possibility with respect to intransitive verbs. Intransitive verbs have a theta grid with a Intransitive verbs have a theta grid with a single single -role to assign. Like -role to assign. Like walkwalk, say., say.

WalkWalk: : AgentAgent.. (Agents are pretty much (Agents are pretty much alwaysalways external external

arguments)arguments) So, you can have verbs with only a single So, you can have verbs with only a single

external external -role, and the passive -role, and the passive -en-en morpheme morpheme can “create” verbs with only a single internal can “create” verbs with only a single internal -role.-role.

Might there be intransitive verbs that start Might there be intransitive verbs that start out with only a single internal out with only a single internal -role?-role?


Why, yes… Why, yes… Here’s an example:Here’s an example: FallFall: Theme.: Theme. How would we suppose these would act? How would we suppose these would act?

They’re essentially “inherently passive”—They’re essentially “inherently passive”—they don’t have an they don’t have an -en-en morpheme, but morpheme, but instead they instead they start outstart out without an external without an external --role.role. (Actually, we saw something that assigns only an (Actually, we saw something that assigns only an

internal internal -role already when we considered -role already when we considered is is likely likely earlier, but earlier, but is likelyis likely acts differently in that acts differently in that it allows Expletive Insertion in order to satisfy the it allows Expletive Insertion in order to satisfy the EPP—With EPP—With fallfall, you have only the movement , you have only the movement option: option: *It fell Bill.*It fell Bill.))

Unaccusatives vs. Unaccusatives vs. unergativesunergatives

There are many reasons to think that verbs like There are many reasons to think that verbs like fallfall have only an internal argument.have only an internal argument.

First, the subject is really a Theme as far as First, the subject is really a Theme as far as thematic relations go, it is thematic relations go, it is affectedaffected, not an agent., not an agent.

Another interesting piece of evidence comes from Another interesting piece of evidence comes from Romance languages like French, where passives Romance languages like French, where passives and verbs like and verbs like fallfall acts similarly, and differently acts similarly, and differently from other (truly agentive) intransitive verbs.from other (truly agentive) intransitive verbs. Jean Jean estest tombé. tombé. ‘John fell.’ (past unaccusative) ‘John fell.’ (past unaccusative) Le frômage a Le frômage a étéété mangé.mangé. ‘The cheese was eaten.’ ‘The cheese was eaten.’

(passive)(passive) Jean Jean aa marché. marché. ‘John walked.’ (past unergative) ‘John walked.’ (past unergative)

Unaccusatives vs. Unaccusatives vs. unergativesunergatives

The point is really that we can The point is really that we can distinguish two types of single-argument distinguish two types of single-argument (intransitive) verbs in terms of their (intransitive) verbs in terms of their theta grid with respect to whether they theta grid with respect to whether they have an external have an external -role to assign or not. -role to assign or not. Their (highly unintuitive) names, for the Their (highly unintuitive) names, for the record, are:record, are:

UnaccusativesUnaccusatives: Have one, internal : Have one, internal -role.-role. UnergativesUnergatives: Have one, external : Have one, external -role.-role.

Week 4. Theory and the Big Picture CAS LX 522 Syntax I.

Documents

Transcript of Week 4. Theory and the Big Picture CAS LX 522 Syntax I.