Class 9
My computer died in the middle of class, but here is what I have:
Principle C and Binding at D-structure,
seems applies at every level, if applies at D-structure, resaon to have D-structure.,
if reason to say principle C, A, B applies at S-structure, reason to have an S-structure,
in minimilism, no prob saying applies to LF. but not to other levels whose existence we wish to deny. but any claims in past applies to many levels other than at LF.
one thing to say - binding principle of which thy speak exists, but it happens not where they say it does but rather at LF.
alternatively, can say whole pricniple (A, B, C) illegit to being with.
A: does not be stated as principle of binding theory, can be stated as part of moving theory.
B, C: will lean a bit on pragmatic principles. extra-grammatical things. on pg 28-29 in the handout. if extragrammatica, then not pricniple of the grammar.
Principle C at D-structure.,
75a vs 75b.
a) which claim tat Johni was asleep was he*i willing to discuss
b) which claim that Johni made was hei wiling to discuss.
at s-structure, no C-command between he and ohn, thus they should be able to be coreferential. no antecedent in an A positiotn. C-commanded by "that" claim, with, and those are not coindedxed by John.
so do not get it at s-structure. but people say: get a principle C effect not at S-structure, but before memovement, at D-structure. no wh-phrase starts there. starts as complement of "discuss" and there, will OF COURSE get a principle C violation. raises out of c-command domain of "he" but effect of this persists.
I the (b) example, there too have complex WH-phrase. Again, t complement of discuss. so, before movement, seems to be in pos c-commanded by "he." so should have a principle C violation in the (b) example. this example is fine!
the "that", the CP is adjoined, wihch in (a), it is within the N'.
If apply principle C before movement, get an acconut for (a) but not for (b).
A sugestion: put relative clause in AFTER wh-phrase has moved to CP. that is, the relative clause is moved LATE. La-Bo? in 1980's. which is strange because back then, first createde entire tree beforemovement. Legal in 70's, illegal in 80's, and in 90's chomsky is trying to resurrect.
but would want to explot it in (b) and NOT in (a).
what do we know about complement? Thematicaly dependent on head that controls them.
adjuncts on other hand are not selected, merger never satisfies the extension condition (never biuld structure biger by ajoining). complements must respect selectional restrictions. and since complements in X', must merge earlyor else violate extension condition. would be creating position inside the tree without building th estructure bigger. but if add an adjunct structure, no problem, since by very nature, exempt from clause of extension condition. there are a few reasons why they MUST be exempt. e.g. head movement. e.g. rasiing a verb to AGR-O. If had to build structure bigger when adjoined, would have to make it part or an AGROP!
and thus have diff bet (a) and (b).
of course can merge rel clause early, before movement, then get principle C violatoin. in (a), since is complement clause, must be merged early.
so so far, looks pretty good.
still, do not need D-structure, because at LF there is a copy of the wh-prase below "he"
much earlier claim of chomsky - not only do you leave merey a trace but rather leave a full copy. an alternative way of thinking about movement. make as many copies as need to satisfy syntax.
actually desirable based on idea in minimalism - prohibition of extraneous symbols. do not introduce into it what was not in the enumeration. Bar levels are not in the enumeration. (in enum, only words and heads). another thing need worry about are indices. Chomsly says is not. but on other hand, can claim is part of enumation, if in elements of enum.
traces are not in eum - not lexical or functoinal heads. rather, stand in for phrases, and prases are not in enum. one can imagine traces of heads in enum, but not traces of phraeses.
(indeed, trace is not under N' but under NP)
traces have no business in syntactic derivation. certainly undesirable to have traces, rather have copies.
(or coursem third option, that is do not have anything left where we typically had placed the trace. do not want this. want to continue relationship to that which is receiving theta-role below)''
then considering (a), copy of wh-phrase including Johni is copied, and so there is a coindexed John below. in (b), there is also copying, but copy of "which claim". the "that Jhni made" has adjunction later, after the copy has been made, so there is no Johni below. hooray!
conclusion, for this, D-structure is not needed!
end episde 1.
epidose 2:
78a) you said he*i liked
the pictures that Johni took
78b) how many pictures that Johni took
did you say hei liked
78c) who said he*i liked
how many pictures that Johni took.
let us see if theory strongly guarantees S-structure on basis of principle C.
these examples of pg 28 in andout.
a) straightforward priciple C violation at every level of representatioa
b) exactly like 75b. and just discussed why do not get violatoin at LF.
c) do not get coindexation. perhaps say commonsensically you do not, in situ Wh, but say that it raises and adjoins to Who at LF. if so, at LF, should not get violation of priciple C.
demonstrated this using animation.
(for b which claim copies, and no copy of Johni)
it SEEMS that (c) is the same as (b), so how come they do not behave identically?
can straightforwadly say that priciple C applies as S-structure, since it in wh-in-situ at S-structure.
but if only apply at LF only, and they are identical at LF, would not expect them to behave differently.
(???? look at bottom of pg 21 - chomsky and lasnik, talking about how D-structure might still have legitimacy)
solution: cannot use trick used in 78b. (of merging relative clause with the top rather than bottom copy)
in 78c, must make sure relative clause it pronounced, because we hear it. so we must merge it before LF. since we hear it. so must merge it with the only cpoy of the wh-pohrase that have before LF.
even at LF, voilates principle C.
episode 3. pg 26-27. show that binding prciple actually argues AAINST S0-structure or D-structure.,
80a) Johni does not know that Billk took pics of himself*i/k.
straightforward that only have index of Bill and not John.
know this, john not local to himself.
b) Johni does not know how many pics of himselfi/k Billk took.
Johni straightforward. the k reading can have via the copy theory.
c) how many pics of himsedi/k does Johni think Billk took.
If ONLY appled prciepl A at S-structure, nothing. If apply at D-structure, get k-reading. To get i-reading, soe intermediate stage.
one very interesting twist
in b) and c) the i-reading is available, BUT onyl if do not interpret as an idiom. that is, steal as opposed to idiom.
(of course, that is only within the dialect nuder consideration).
on Verb "photograph" interpretation, only get te Bill-reading.
8a is straightforward.
80b gives us at S-structure. but insufficient, not necessarily wrong.
concentrate on 80b.
the apparent case for binding theory A at s-structure.
if principle A applied at S-structure, at which idiomatic interp is not determined, then should be able to have i-interp of idiomatic interp, since John locally c-commands himself
but that would then lose us the critical datum for Cambride dialect.
when making copies of (b), have embrassment of riches. too much lexical baggage. want to interp "how" "many" "pictures" etc only once, not twice.
want to reduce these copies. how so? can keep complete upstairs copy and eventually get rid of downstairs copy - in which case "himself" only in upstairs copy. that will ive us the i reading and ONLY the i reading. nothing that will give us the k-reading. and importantly, , does NOT give us "take pictures" as a constituent, since the=y are quite separated. thus no idiomatic interp. idiomatization is result of freezing ....
alternatively,
Principle C and Binding at D-structure,
seems applies at every level, if applies at D-structure, resaon to have D-structure.,
if reason to say principle C, A, B applies at S-structure, reason to have an S-structure,
in minimilism, no prob saying applies to LF. but not to other levels whose existence we wish to deny. but any claims in past applies to many levels other than at LF.
one thing to say - binding principle of which thy speak exists, but it happens not where they say it does but rather at LF.
alternatively, can say whole pricniple (A, B, C) illegit to being with.
A: does not be stated as principle of binding theory, can be stated as part of moving theory.
B, C: will lean a bit on pragmatic principles. extra-grammatical things. on pg 28-29 in the handout. if extragrammatica, then not pricniple of the grammar.
Principle C at D-structure.,
75a vs 75b.
a) which claim tat Johni was asleep was he*i willing to discuss
b) which claim that Johni made was hei wiling to discuss.
at s-structure, no C-command between he and ohn, thus they should be able to be coreferential. no antecedent in an A positiotn. C-commanded by "that" claim, with, and those are not coindedxed by John.
so do not get it at s-structure. but people say: get a principle C effect not at S-structure, but before memovement, at D-structure. no wh-phrase starts there. starts as complement of "discuss" and there, will OF COURSE get a principle C violation. raises out of c-command domain of "he" but effect of this persists.
I the (b) example, there too have complex WH-phrase. Again, t complement of discuss. so, before movement, seems to be in pos c-commanded by "he." so should have a principle C violation in the (b) example. this example is fine!
the "that", the CP is adjoined, wihch in (a), it is within the N'.
If apply principle C before movement, get an acconut for (a) but not for (b).
A sugestion: put relative clause in AFTER wh-phrase has moved to CP. that is, the relative clause is moved LATE. La-Bo? in 1980's. which is strange because back then, first createde entire tree beforemovement. Legal in 70's, illegal in 80's, and in 90's chomsky is trying to resurrect.
but would want to explot it in (b) and NOT in (a).
what do we know about complement? Thematicaly dependent on head that controls them.
adjuncts on other hand are not selected, merger never satisfies the extension condition (never biuld structure biger by ajoining). complements must respect selectional restrictions. and since complements in X', must merge earlyor else violate extension condition. would be creating position inside the tree without building th estructure bigger. but if add an adjunct structure, no problem, since by very nature, exempt from clause of extension condition. there are a few reasons why they MUST be exempt. e.g. head movement. e.g. rasiing a verb to AGR-O. If had to build structure bigger when adjoined, would have to make it part or an AGROP!
and thus have diff bet (a) and (b).
of course can merge rel clause early, before movement, then get principle C violatoin. in (a), since is complement clause, must be merged early.
so so far, looks pretty good.
still, do not need D-structure, because at LF there is a copy of the wh-prase below "he"
much earlier claim of chomsky - not only do you leave merey a trace but rather leave a full copy. an alternative way of thinking about movement. make as many copies as need to satisfy syntax.
actually desirable based on idea in minimalism - prohibition of extraneous symbols. do not introduce into it what was not in the enumeration. Bar levels are not in the enumeration. (in enum, only words and heads). another thing need worry about are indices. Chomsly says is not. but on other hand, can claim is part of enumation, if in elements of enum.
traces are not in eum - not lexical or functoinal heads. rather, stand in for phrases, and prases are not in enum. one can imagine traces of heads in enum, but not traces of phraeses.
(indeed, trace is not under N' but under NP)
traces have no business in syntactic derivation. certainly undesirable to have traces, rather have copies.
(or coursem third option, that is do not have anything left where we typically had placed the trace. do not want this. want to continue relationship to that which is receiving theta-role below)''
then considering (a), copy of wh-phrase including Johni is copied, and so there is a coindexed John below. in (b), there is also copying, but copy of "which claim". the "that Jhni made" has adjunction later, after the copy has been made, so there is no Johni below. hooray!
conclusion, for this, D-structure is not needed!
end episde 1.
epidose 2:
78a) you said he*i liked
the pictures that Johni took
78b) how many pictures that Johni took
did you say hei liked
78c) who said he*i liked
how many pictures that Johni took.
let us see if theory strongly guarantees S-structure on basis of principle C.
these examples of pg 28 in andout.
a) straightforward priciple C violation at every level of representatioa
b) exactly like 75b. and just discussed why do not get violatoin at LF.
c) do not get coindexation. perhaps say commonsensically you do not, in situ Wh, but say that it raises and adjoins to Who at LF. if so, at LF, should not get violation of priciple C.
demonstrated this using animation.
(for b which claim copies, and no copy of Johni)
it SEEMS that (c) is the same as (b), so how come they do not behave identically?
can straightforwadly say that priciple C applies as S-structure, since it in wh-in-situ at S-structure.
but if only apply at LF only, and they are identical at LF, would not expect them to behave differently.
(???? look at bottom of pg 21 - chomsky and lasnik, talking about how D-structure might still have legitimacy)
solution: cannot use trick used in 78b. (of merging relative clause with the top rather than bottom copy)
in 78c, must make sure relative clause it pronounced, because we hear it. so we must merge it before LF. since we hear it. so must merge it with the only cpoy of the wh-pohrase that have before LF.
even at LF, voilates principle C.
episode 3. pg 26-27. show that binding prciple actually argues AAINST S0-structure or D-structure.,
80a) Johni does not know that Billk took pics of himself*i/k.
straightforward that only have index of Bill and not John.
know this, john not local to himself.
b) Johni does not know how many pics of himselfi/k Billk took.
Johni straightforward. the k reading can have via the copy theory.
c) how many pics of himsedi/k does Johni think Billk took.
If ONLY appled prciepl A at S-structure, nothing. If apply at D-structure, get k-reading. To get i-reading, soe intermediate stage.
one very interesting twist
in b) and c) the i-reading is available, BUT onyl if do not interpret as an idiom. that is, steal as opposed to idiom.
(of course, that is only within the dialect nuder consideration).
on Verb "photograph" interpretation, only get te Bill-reading.
8a is straightforward.
80b gives us at S-structure. but insufficient, not necessarily wrong.
concentrate on 80b.
the apparent case for binding theory A at s-structure.
if principle A applied at S-structure, at which idiomatic interp is not determined, then should be able to have i-interp of idiomatic interp, since John locally c-commands himself
but that would then lose us the critical datum for Cambride dialect.
when making copies of (b), have embrassment of riches. too much lexical baggage. want to interp "how" "many" "pictures" etc only once, not twice.
want to reduce these copies. how so? can keep complete upstairs copy and eventually get rid of downstairs copy - in which case "himself" only in upstairs copy. that will ive us the i reading and ONLY the i reading. nothing that will give us the k-reading. and importantly, , does NOT give us "take pictures" as a constituent, since the=y are quite separated. thus no idiomatic interp. idiomatization is result of freezing ....
alternatively,
posted by joshwaxman at 1:08 PM
0 comments
