Syntax II - Class II

Lasnik and Saito - 84.

in case of arg extraction, need not worry about ECP, because in case of object trace, is theta-governed, or in case of subject trace, already licensed at earlier level.
So ECP must be rethought in more dynamic way in terms of condition on derivations, similar to subjacency. "minimal link condition" Chomsky and Lasnik 93. Marriage of ECP and subjacency - keep chain links minimal. does not refer to S-structure, and does not refer to projection principle. in which case, *those* particular arguments in favor of an S-structure and projection principle are obvioated. As opposed to Lasnik and Saito which is based on it. But Chomsky and Lasnik do not entirely handle everything.

this idea of unify bounding (subjacency) and government (incuding ECP). he tried doing this in monograph "Barriers." Aim of that is to unify these two theories. in standard GB (government and binding), no connection.

Binding involves 3 opacity factors: presence of closer governor (="minimality"), notion of "too much" intervening structure. (which is why PRO in "John tried to leave" not governed, because two maximal projections, Cp and IP.) and finally, non-selectedness = a notion of Barrier, where not same amount of intervening structure, e.g. leave [AP PRO nude] in (10). (perhaps say adjuncts, = "non-selected by theta-role" are opaque.

hetorgenous bunch of opacity factors. when add NP and IP in subjacency, have 5 things that restrict dependecies. sometimes movement dependencies, sometimes government dependencies. could we try and integrate these systems, and can we make it homogenous and relatively simple?

Chomsky wants to say a resounding Yes in Barriers. Comes up with such a systems, under a single algorithm for computation of what Chomsky calls "Barriers."

Page 6 in the handout.
Subjacency: movement musn't traverse *any* barrier.
def of government: a governs b iff (i) and (ii)
i) a c-commands b
ii) no barrier intervenes between a and b.

What is a Barrier?

examples 10a-d on pg 5 in handout. to show how difficult to determine what barrier might be.

10a. can just say AP is barrier because not selected.
but 10b-d different kettle of fish. no barrierhood from non-selectedness. but need PRO to be non-governed. and not because not selected. but can rule out in syntax i via (ii), that one maximal projection is OK, but passing two is not. But we would like to pinpoint one and only one. Could be CP, could be IP, or could be both.

10c. Here have PRO. for howi to govern ti (antecedent govern), IP must not be barrier. but that wll not get us PRO ungoverned. And say that CP is the barrier to take care of PRO.

In 10d, typo. insert word "to" to left of "win".
Want PRO to be ungoverned, ti to be governed, and t'i need to be governed. cannot get rid of intermediate trace since need it to govern ti. IP cannot be a barrier. CP cannot be a barrier because then t'i wont be governed. So either IP or CP must be a barrier (for PRO), but then get one of the two traces in trouble.

Solution. If identify single nodes as Barrier obstructing a specific relationship, must make designation of nodes as barriers relative to the specific relationship we are talking about. "Barrier for a specific dependencies."

In 10d, the CP can be a barrier for a government dependency between "try" and PRO, without at the same time being a barrier for a government dependency between "how" and t'i.

Trick is to build an algorithm to do precisely that.

11 reemphasizes idea of barrier being a relative notion.

in 12, a category a is a barrier for b iff (i) or (ii) or (iii)
(iii) is what most familiar with, from syntax i, - when there is a closer governor. familiar notion of minimality.
(i) if a is a blocking category for b, but a != IP.

but now need to define a "Blocking category". define it in 13. iff a dominates b and is *not* L-marked.

in 14, categrory is L marked - if is theta-governed by lexical category.

i.e. something that is not theta-governed by a lexical category and dominates, it is a blocking category, so long as is not IP. 12(i) called inherent barrierhood. (in a way, this is continuation of non-selectedness, since if not theta-governed, not selected.)

now, (ii) = even if not inherent barrier, can *inherit* barrierhood. inherit not from another barrier, but from a blocking category for b.

alpha is a barrier for beta is PI is blocking category for beta and alpha immediately dominates PI.

It is *possible* for alpha to be a Barrier for beta even though a is L-marked, because it might inherit barrierhood from PI.

blocking categories pe se do not block anything. only barriers block things.

Back to examples. In 10a, want PRO (=b) to be ungoverned.
diagrams. dont have pen. I and V cannot govern big PRO. V does not c-command. perhaps m-commands. but cannot govern. because AP is a Blocking Category from PRO. because not L-marked. since does not get theta-mark. AP != IP. Thus, is inherent Barrier for b. Could not inherit barrierhood for PRO, since it immediately dominates PRO. So have barrier between I and PRO, and between V and PRO. A (nude) cannot govern PRO because does not see outside of its A' - that is, it does not c-command it.

10b. null complementizer.

   /VP  V  /CP   C(0)  /IP    PRO  /I'

The IP is not L-marked, since C is null. so it is a BC for PRO. Cannot declare it a Barrier since it is IP.
Look at CP from outside. is CP a blocking Category? no. because it is L-marked, because teta-governed by V and V is lexical.
However, CP immediately dominated IP, and IP is BC for PRO, so CP is a Barrier.

VP governed by IP, but I does not L-mark VP. Thus VP is blocking category and thus barrier for PRO. but not relevant. since entire relationship happens or fails within VP.

10c. diagram, used diff colors for diff dependencies.

which racej ..... wonder [CP howi C0 [IP PRO ..... tj ti ] ]

so must make sure howi-ti link succeeds, wonder-PRO link fails, ad which racej-tj fails.

PRO: IP not inherent barrier. but CP is a barrier for PRO just as before.
ti: IP is BC for ti. CP is barrier, but all happening within the CP. so CP's barrierhood is irrelevant. just one BC in between, and it is not a barrier.
tj: the movement dependency, where we want subjaceny violation. Once again, CP is a barrier, and this time it matters that CP is a barrier.

10d. was the hard one. where seemed to have no ONE node that was a barrier.

howi ........ try [CP t'i C0 [IP PRO ..... ti ] ]

want try-PRO link to be bad, t'i-ti link to be good, and howi-t'i link to be good.
PRO: PRO separated from try by one barrier, CP, as a result of the IP.
ti: no particular trouble. CP is a barrier but irrelevant because happens inside CP.
hwi-t'i: IP is indeed a BC for PRO, but since it does not dominate t'i, so it is not a BC for t'i. So CP does not become an inherited barrier. and not a BC in and of itself.

Now, let us talk a bit about VP.

howi ........ try [CP t'i C0 [IP PRO I(to) [VP ..... ti ] ] ]

let us compute barriers for ti. VP dominates ti. complement of I, which is not a lexical category, so BC. VP != IP. So Barrier. Now, the IP immediately dominates the BC, so becomes a barrier. So 2 problems!

So the question is: does VP indeed dominate ti?
a dominates b only if every segment of a dominates b. so since the

 /VP/VP\  ti

lower VP does NOT dominate ti. thus the VP in general does NOT domainte ti. Therefore cannot be a BC, and thus cannot be a barrier for ti. and as a result, IP cannot inherit barrierhood for ti.

let us imagine that is was not how - which made it an adjunct, and thus do not have these 2 VP structure. What if made it *what* rather than *how*, in which case have single segment VP.

If so, then is ti dominated by VP? This time, YES!
So how do we avoid it?
Some things born on edge of VP but (like adjuncts), but others can MOVE into the edge of VP. In fact, any and all poss not theta-positions you can move into.
what about this VP adjoined position? Have evidence that can adjoin to VP. Overt evidence in sentences such as "John put on the shelf [the book he had bought at a flea-market.]"
must be result of movinng [the book he had bought at a flea-market] to the right of "on the shelf". for starts at [spec, PP] of on, and then move it to right of the PP, by adjoining to VP. (called HNPS - heavy NP shift)

next week, put forth further evidence for successive cyclic movement out of VP via adjunction to VP. next week, successive cucicity - and the thing after it.