Syntax II - Class IV

Class 4

29a may not be too bad. In this example, degredation very slight. By stipulation. CP is a barrier for t’’_I by stipulation. Though not a blocking category.

Need say nothing about going from t’’I to t’’’i, since already have barrier. N’.

Minimality only prevents government. For any governee, have only one governor.

But need not worry about intermediate traces having gamma marking since gone by LF. But cannot appeal to N’ ‘s minimality barrier because only work for government, not for movement.

In the assignment, how did Bill get the impression that Bill did it. In that case, the N’ will be a barrier for t’ (some number of primes), if we don’t say anything more. The ECP being straightforwardly violated on account of a minimality violation. We said about the CP in the complement of a noun that it is a barrier by stipulation. We needed to say that to create a subjacency effect in another instance (to derive 29a). CP in N complement is a barrier, by stipulation.

Is N’ still a minimality barrier. No. Minute say CP is a barrier, then N cannot govern t’’. Then nothing governs t’’. Notice it is an interesting give/take. Cannot simultaneously say that N is a minimality barrier and that CP is a barrier.

What is left, then, for minimality? To take care of that-trace violations, just as it did in Syntax I. Pg 10 in handout, who do you think that did it?

Only think that changes is now we can put finger on the node that is a barrier – the C’.

1) Why does it improve when drop complementizer = when not overt? Why isn’t C’ null a minimality barrier. Page 10, Chomsky …

[CP t’I [C’ that [IP t’ ] ]

[CP t’I NULL [IP t’ ]

then have C but C’ is no longer present.

But what would the tree going to be? If C head and CP, followed by IP, must be ternary branching. Could also say that just drop C, but then CP comes out of nowhere – the CP has no head. Perhaps Could instead use VP adjunction rather than CP, anf have verb select IP (now) with a finite Infl. But if have CP, then MUST have C’ and a C-head. Can just say that cannot have ampty headed governor.

Let us consider possibility of completely immunizing derivation to devastating influence of the complementizer. Barss: it was derivation #3 in our assignment. In which first lower from ti1 to ti2 and from there out. This would seem to succeed based on rules set out in Barriers. Can work assuming m-command.

Elsewhere, m-command gets Chomsky into trouble.

AP -> PRO A’

A’ -> A(nude)

John ate the meat nude.

On m-command, PRO seems to be governed!

Another context

C’ -> C(null) IP

IP -> PRO I’

I’ -> I somethingelse

As in John tried to win the race. Have to state “Infinitival is not a governor.”

With strict- c-command, cannot get out of I or out of A.

And here as well, the strictest c-command derivation will straightforwardly rule out Barss.

In this instance, t2 would be closer, because t2 needs pass through 0 max projections, which that must pass through 1.

What about Infl. Shouldn’t that be a closer governor? So problem shifts from C’ to I’ as minimality barrier.

Finally, the propriety between t2 and t3 in A’ positions across a trace in an A position. Looks like improper movement structurally.

So far so good, we had just said that the I’ could be a minimality barrier. But then if think further, if we would allow I’ to be a minimality barrier, we would be forbidding ALL adjunct movement, by limiting the ability of traces to govern.

Let us look at case of Adjunct Extraction.

[CP t’’i [C’ C [IP subject [I’ I [VP t’i VP

and there is a straightforward, unblockable, government relationship of Infl governing ti’

So that makes I’ a Minimality Barrier. So ECP crash! So I’ mustn’t be a minimality barrier. Do we know why it is not?

Thus, stipulation 37 of Chomsky: I’ is never a minimality barrier.

And also said IP never an inherent barrier. And IP must not be intermediately adjoined to.

Pre-barriers, IP/S had V as head, and was ternary branching. So extended X’ branching to Cp and IP. So emancipation of IP has failed.

One other context in which Barriers encounters major obstacles - with VP and object extraction.

t'’’ in spec VP, VP, V’, which has V, CP. Spec-CP has t’’. So V should be closer governor, and V’ as a minimality barrier to government by t’’’

so still have a problem, but this time around Infl is not the culprit.

Now page 11 in the handout. The X’ level is optional – only required when a specifier in XP projected.

Then, VP will be the minimality barrier. But irrelevant, because antecedent t’’’ is within this barrier, because it is within one segment of the VP.

What consequences are there of forgoing of the V’ to the base generation of the subject? We cannot base-generate it in VP, or else we would have a specifier and then we could not forgo the V’.

Is there a way we can base generate in an additional adjoined VP.

This is strange move on Chomsky’s part because based generates everything else there. I saw John sneeze, John in VP. Always subject in VP except where it is the complement of Infl.

Pg 12, between the diamonds. NB. How to distinguish between A and A’ positions.

If Eliminate C’ CP (and in general XP X’) distinction. But then no C’, so no minimality, since have Cp-CP as barrier. Then that-trace effects must follow from something else.

Rigid minimality – useless.

Ricci: relativized minimality. In rigid, only heads that govern. For Ricci, minimality relativized in terms of nature of alpha. If alpha is a head, and b is a head, only a head delta can intervene

a [ d [ b

if a and b are phrases, only delta phrase can intervene

within phrases:

if alpha and beta, with alpha in A position, blocked by delta in A position.

if alpha and beta, with alpha in A’ position, blocked by delta in A’ position.

This is summed up at bottom of pg 11.

Pg 12. relativized minimality formalizes position that intervener should have something in common with what is blocking.

Then all problems had disappear.

We don’t get that-trace effect from Ricci.

[CP t’ [C’ C(that) [IP t

“that” is a head, while t’ in A’ position. Ricci gets this is a different way.

If heads could never antecede traces of phrases, OF COURSE you would not think they could intercede. But is one context in which heads DO actually antecede traces of phrases.

Must ascertain that independently. That is what we will discover next time.

Please read NP movement and *** minimality, trace-licensing govt and minimized chain links, and if have time, Interaction of NP movement an Head Movement I. (that is, for