Syntax II - Class I

7395

Modular theory of Syntax (and Linguistics)

Syntax I modular in that recognizes several levels of representation – D-structure, S-structure, PF and LF (with T-Model diagram), Levels=Modules.

Also, within theory of linguistics, all sorts of syntactic facts encountered in the pie. On pizza, are olives and salami, and not necessarily are olives and salami created by same part of the theory.

Binding by Binding Theory (Principles A, B, C),

Locality by Bounding theory (subjacency),

Control by Control Theory,

Theta theory (theta-criterion),

Case theory (case filter),

Government theory (which includes ECP)

Principles and Parameters Theory have both these types of Modules.

Works well bec takes care of a lot of data. Fairly rich. Perhaps too rich. Less than accident that takes care of the facts. Could we get by with a less rich, leaner theory, and thus be able to do more. Less is better.

Perhaps have only one level of representation and far fewer subtheories.

<<Handout: “The Program”>>

1) restrict parameters to functional elements and general properties of lexicon.

Cannot say null subject parameter, unless can specify as property of lexical category

2) cond on representations hold only at interface + motivated by properties of interface.

e.g. conds that comes from binding theory hold at “interfaces”: syntax interfaces with Phonology at PF (in diagram) and with Semantics at LF.

Economy is buzzword. Make sure linguistics satisfy conds imposed by grammar in the minimal way. Only move things around if we have to.

In Syntax I, Move α. Free as long as does not violate rules of grammar. Some said: Move! (1980’s spirit). 1990’s spirit – don’t move unless you have to. Roman Catholic church – nothing allowed unless explicitly allowed and then you have to.

Only move when have a trigger, and then you have to move.

But what about optionality, when seem to have the option to move? In past, since movement was free, optionality was expected.

Back to endpoint of Syntax I

in what you can raise.

Contrast between 1a and 1b, and 2a and 2b, follows directly from ECP.

Who did what? Can be answered by giving a list of pairs of doers and things done: Mary did this, and John did Y.

Cannot say simply Mary did. Nor is it necessary that have only a single pair. That kind of answer called a pair list. Triggered by a particular representation of the question. Constituent formed what, who. See diagrams 1 and 2.

This kind of structure will result in every LF-structure, with those pairs. The one raised overtly will give index to the top one, and the others are adjoined.

The object need not worry about, since theta-governed, so licit under ECP. Other trace, t_i, of subject, is antecedent governed by N_i. But if raised what overtly, then have NP_j at the top. t_j still OK since theta-governed. But t_i cannot be antecedent governed, since it depends upon a c-command relationship. Thus violates ECP. Same thing for 2b, what did he do why? The trace of why cannot be properly governed, since adjuncts are never theta-governed. So covered by ECP, because ECP was designed for ruling this sort of thing out.

Second Asymmetry: That-trace asymmetry.

Who do you think (*that) did it

But

What do you think that he did?

And

Why do you think that he did it

A minimality effect. Which is why 4a not OK (because intervening governor that). (see diagram 4) But 4b and 4c are theta-governed and thus do not need antecedent governed. But then, that should intervene in far distant But see diagram 5!

Traces in adjunct pos never governed by any head, thus no minimality problem. Great. So we said it. But that does not explain it.

To go back to subject case, why is extraction of trace to CP suddenly good when complementizer is suddenly null? Still there. We answered: No Arnold Shwartzeneger – no empty-headed governors. Thus empty C cannot govern. But this is an additional assumption. Would have better theory if did not have to say this.

Assymetry #3

Contrast between adjuncts vs. objects and subjects.

See 6 in handout.

a) seems like mere subjacency violation but not ECP violation. Getting out of wh-island. Same for (b). But case (c), no way in which which way modifies the fixing of the car. (so bad based on intended reading).

In (c), the t_k is antecedent government by t_k’ but t_k’ cannot, because who is a closer governor. Since t_k properly governed, peculiar thing here is that somehow (a) and (b) do not violate the ECP. But intermediate traces seem separated by intermediate other traces. These traces are all in A’ positions. Nothing in Syntax I will allow us to understand this.

But there is a contrast which we can see.

Lasnik and Soto propose something to deal with 4 and 6. Summed up in (7)a-e.

Will talk about ECP as two-pronged system. The “gamma-police” and the “judge” First get ticket from police officer. Can tear it up, appeal. In court-room, same principles applied to convict you. So everyone will appeal, and since takes a long time, entirely possible to die in between. In which case need not pay the fine. The ticket is called a gamma-mark. And judiciary system which declares convictions. Tickets come in +gamma and –gamma flavor. With +gamma mark, no tickets when come to the courtroom so never get a negative verdict passed against you.

Culprit in t_k’. In 6a and 6b does not make it into court because that trace is deleted before derivation ends at LF.

Affect Alpha splits off into Move Alpha and Delete Alpha.

Delete alpha as entering LF. LF --> court

Argue that get gamma mark as soon as arise, in (a) and (b), but lazier in 6c. Only handed out at LF for adjunct, not only for prime traces, but even for original case t_k. Since can only get properly governed by trace t_k’ at LF to save t_k, and so it itself must also get +gamma mark to be saved.

Two structures for who do you think did it

[Who_su]_i ……. [CP t_i [ C (that) t_i]]

[Why]_k ……………… [CP t_k’ [C (that) …. t_k] ] ]

in latter case, trace of adjunct extraction = +gamma at LF

[Who_su]_i ……. [CP t_i [ C that t_i]]

here in argument case, gets -gamma at S-structure, and cannot get rid trace because need it, since it is the head of the chain, and otherwise do not satisfy the case filter.

Why is there the argument /adjunct distinction? Because system was explicitly designed to deliver it. Since made distinction in timing between traces in adjunct vs. in argument positions. See 7c. Why should 7c be true. If cannot explain, just restated the facts in particularly opaque way.

Can be made to follow from Projection Principle, that args be syntactically represented and legitimate at every level of representation.

So as soon as arg traces arise, need be legitimate. And lexical predicate heads must be represented throughout. Since adjuncts do not get or assign theta-roles, the Projection principle has nothing to say about it.

Chomsky and Lasnik turn this around. Nature of chains formed by arg vs. adjunct extraction.

Lasnik and Seto said: get rid of anything do not need. Delete alpha always.

Lasnik and Chomsky. Each of these move alpha, delete alpha operations come with a price ticket.

So when should you do?

Create chain:

(Why_{k ,} t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,,) ------- adjunct chain

(Who_{k ,} t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,, t_k,,) ------- argument chain

In first one, each trace in A’ position. UNIFORM.

Whereas in arg chain of A’ extraction, is non-uniform, since all t’ are in A’ position whereas first t in A position. NON-UNIFORM.

A legitmate LF object is a UNIFORM chain, as well as an OPERATOR-VARIABLE chain, with no intermediate trace: (Op_j, t_j)

So NON-UNIFORM chain is not legitimate LF object. How save? Cannot keep this chain at LF. Cannot make it uniform, since cannot change position of the original trace. But can transform into OPERATOR-VARIABLE chain, via deletion. So intermediate traces will never give you ECP violations.

Do not operate on UNIFORM chains because unnecessary, so traces will stay, and so if anything wrong with any of these, will cause an ECP violation.

Thus has nothing to do with Projection Principle, but follows from very nature of adjunct and argument extraction, that is, the very nature of the chains that they create (uniform vs. non-uniform).

This is economy of derivation (operation) as opposed to economy of representation (which would be to get rid of the unneeded traces).