Syntax II - Class V

Rizzi had intelligent explanation of why do not have that-trace in pro-drop lang (that extract from VP position and not from IP, so have a local antecedent governor). But does not seem that can use this in variants of English, like Ozark, which does not drop pro but does have

so rather than explainaing in terms of ECP, perhaps drop minimality and explain in other way. Chomsky makes much use of minimality in Barriers. And comes with ingenious account.

Johni is loved ti by everyone.
is a case of NP movement. easy to satisfy ECP, since love assigns a theta role.
But still must worry about subjacency, that no inordinate amount of structure (barrier) being crossed. But for now, concentrating on ECP.

Johni is considered ti intelligent by everyone.
example on pg 12. #41.

now, considered does not assign a theta-role to ti, but rather to the proposition [John intelligent]. That is, [ti intelligent]

the theoremi was proven [ti false].
proven does not prove the theorem, but rather we are proving that "falsehood of theorem" holds.
no thematic relation between verb and the small-clause subject.
grammatical. thus, must be antecedent governed.
*How*?

Johni is [VP considered [AP ti intelligent by everyone.
there is government relationship between "considered" and ti. Thus, by minimality, VP becomes a minimality barrier for ti. Anyhting outside VP should be prevented from governing ti. But considered is not antecedent governor for ti. So we are in trouble.
In past, solved this problem via intermediate adjunction. (in case of passivization)

Johni is [VP t'i [VP considered [AP ti intelligent by everyone.
then, VP would still be a minimality governor, but t'i is not excluded by the VP so we do not need to worry about a minimality barrier.
Well, if we do, let us inspect what kind of chain we get.
ti is A position.
Johni is A position.
thus, we are dealing with an A chain. A chains mustn't have any A' position. But spec-VP is an A' position. Barriers assumes that every adjoined position is an A' position.
So have A-A'-A chain. This is a chain that can only result from improper movement. (cannot move from A to A' and back into A position. Violated principle C of the binding theory.)
So we cannot contemplate this, for while ECP satisfied, have Principle C violation.
Really must go out of position in one fell swoop. But then VP is a minimality barrier.

Chomsky has an interesting solution, on pg 13 in the handout.

Chomsky capitilized on three independent assumptions in the theory.
1) spec-head agreement involves coindexation. infl and spec-IP to be coindexed. which allows nominative case to be transported from Infl to spec-IP without government coming into play (with a strict-c-command govt. because otherwise Infl could not govern out of I'). in terms of "five feature agreement."
2) indexation is unique. when assign index, only index that will have.
3) segment/category distinction.

Johni Ii [VP is [VP considered [AP ti intelligent by everyone.

NP (ti) moves in one fell swoop to spec-IP (Johni). Not contemplating touchdown or adjunction in spec-VP. How is it antecedent government.
By coindexing Johni with Infl, make it a bit closer. Further, we must raise "is" up. (finite "be" must raise up to Infl).
Ii now branches our to isj and Ii. What index to we put on upper I.

Johni [Ii [isj][Ii] ][VP is [VP considered [AP ti intelligent by everyone.

Chomsky abstracts away, and says that "is" substitutes for Infl and thus takes on Infl's index i. Cannot have tw indices on one element. So:

Johni [I' Ii-isi [VP t' [VP considered [AP ti intelligent by everyone.

and have trace of isi in VP. But still cannot govern other trace because there is ANOTHER VP there. But now look at the tree. It looks just like VP adjunction!
e.g.
Who do you consider intelligent
So perhaps entire VP could be considered minimality barrier but not segment. Only difference is that one t has ' in one, while in present example, no '. But both are traces with index i.

Infinitival Case:

For John to be not considered intelligent. (people consider this not so good)
so "be" does not easily raise over negation.
needs to move to Infl but Infl was occupied by "to". (but if we are simply substituting...)

same issue with finite verbs (only aux "be" and "have" raise to Infl in finite, but pseudos such as "Seem"

In French, Italian, can get infinitival be to surface to the left of negation.

be will raise to I, replacing to, at *LF* (and no sooner). then have structure that you need, and have government for lowest trace.

What is immed relevant is would ti be +gamma marked at place that it is created. Recall that Lasnik and Seito required traces be gamma marked immediately upon creation. In fact, Chomsky and Lasnik in reworking of Lasnik and Seito assume the same.
Now, the trace of NP movement at the bottom emerges at S-structure. (since present in overt syntax.) given -gamma mark. And not a member of nontrivial chain. At s-structure, no need for "be" to have an index. So should make this bad once and for all. Once -gamma, always -gamma. At end of page 14, plainly incompatible with Lasnik and Seito in gamma marking, as well as Chomsky and Lasnik.

Works for finite case but not for infinitival. would have to give up assimption that traces of arg extraction assigned gamma mark at creation time. but that would wreak havok for that entire theory.

Another point where things don't quite fit. Managed to get ECP straightened out even for examples of this type is give up Lasnik and Seito about when gamma marked. What about subjacency. When perform movement, you mustn't pass a barrier. (Until now only looked at governement, but not at subjacency.) We are getting out of the entire VP in one fell swoop, getting out of whole VP. The whole VP will be a barrier for movement, not in terms of minimality, but because it is not L-marked, for it is the complement of Infl. And move way before fix the problem.
No question NP moved in overt syntax, because sentence starts Johni.

Maybe by raising V(be) to
I, I becomes lexical and can L-mark at LF. But subjacency was already violated at S-structure.

Problem with NP movement in barriers is thus not only problem with ECP (and ECP Chomsky has brilliant, completely mechanistic, solution for)

In face of this difficulty, Chomsky adds something else. If do not wish to give up gamma marking (which gives us argument/adjunct distinction). Lets pretend only need worry about ECP, but do not want to give up gamma marking immediately on creation.
Want to still have verb and infl coindexed. We will force this with aid of a new mechanism, "head-head agreement." (Ha-ha!)
Just coindexed them.
Minute have coindexed, be and considered are also heads, so hand it down to considered. And then considered the antecedent governor for ti.

But then everything coindexed with everyone else!


theta government:
* involves a head and a phrase
* involves theta-assignment
* involves head government
* does not involve conindexation

antecedent government
* involves (for phrasal movement) a phrase and a phrase
* does not involve theta-assignment
* does not involve government (in school books)
* *does*, crucially, involve coindexation.

so just about as different as can be. But under rubric of ECP, because of executive decision called government.

traces of object extraction always theta-governed, but now, ALSO antecedent govenment, because moving out of VP involves VP adjunction. Needed the trace for subjacency purposes, but now that we have got it, we can exploit it for antecedent governed.
and for subject traces, no theta-goverment. and for adjuncts.
so never really need theta-government.

44 - minimized chain condition is the successor of ECP and subjacency. make links in chain minimal. make the shortest move.
bright smiley face when have an economy condition.

Lucia's question.
showing that spec-VP will get you into trouble with Chomsky's account of NP movement which counted on uniqueness of coindexation.

some verbs are born w/o external theta roles, and some lose them as the result of an operation (unaccusatives). like being born with vs. losing an arm.
passives like unaccusatives - no external theta role. called absorbsion, before syntax.

the ship sank _____ . -- unaccusative (involving NP movement of the ship)
the ship was sunk ____ . -- passive (involving NP movement)

both are grammatical eng sentences.

(vs. "unergative" AVB ~ BV alternation)
J broke the vase ~the base broke
John sank the ship vs. The ship sank

so so far,
the ship sank _____ . -- unaccusative (involving NP movement of the ship)
the ship was sunk ____ . -- passive (involving NP movement)
very close. but does it really lose the causer (the one who caused the sinking) from the syntax altogether?
Cannot add:
the ship sank _____ *to collect the insurance
the ship sank _____ *intentionally

the ship was sunk ____ to collect the insurance
the ship was sunk ____ intentionally

PRO.
drew a tree, don;t have.
coindexation gets us into dire straits. because PRO will be conindexed. But John was killed cannot mean that John killed himself. And would *rule* out reading where John was not the killer.

relativized minimality. but does not cover that-trace effect, but said that was OK, seems to be perhaps handled by s/t else.

one of ingredients of relativized minimality:
NP(A pos) ... NP(A pos) .... t
is not allowed.
in the tree for Pro, not only do we have a rigid minimality but also a relativized minmality problem. Because internal PRO is in spec-VP in an A position.

something's gotta gve. find out next time.
chap 3 in black book - locality and equidistance.

read assigned readings for subjects _+ objects, and interaction of head movement to NPLT