class 12

came a bit late.
was talking about ecs and opaque AGRs, where cannot raise or risk hiding V.
show how derivation woths without Neg

T Neg tV tV
here, ill formed because of Neg in between, bec Neg is a barrier for various reasons (inherent, by inheritance, also a MB).
So why can you in prev case, for when raise AGR complex to T, do not leave a Trace behind, but rather leave an empty category that is not in need of licensing by the ECP. Then the presence of barrier adjoined to T is of no consequence whatsoever.
(Pollack meanwhile handled differently. What just spoke of was how Chomsky handles.)
How come no subjacency violation when jumping up? That is only place where system might perhaps break down.
allows you to understand why everything works...
in non-finite contexts, when lower down from on-finite T, what leave behind is meaningless, so when lower onto non-finite-T, leave ec. Then no need for yo-yo movement. move down and do not need to move back up.
What is also fine is any movement that does raising, getting two chains. predictions this proposal makes are verified.
makes sense of lang variation and variation within the language.
langs that do not have opaque AGR will not move down and up, with helping do. (economy)
and make use of universal grammar priniciples.

Why dont English aux ever give rise to do-support?
we know avail for lexical verbs.
e.g. Bad: John doesn't be kissing Mary.
John doesn't have kissed Mary.

Answer, with have, be, have UG process of rasiing that gives you well formed result, rather than the "apparently" simpler do-support, since better to use available UG process.

T Ng Agr V
V to AGR, then AGR rasised to T.
vs. do-support, which seems simpler:
Insert do in AGR, raise it onto T. Less chains.

yet must be rasised out in case of auxiliary. not in terms of economy in sense of counting chains. rather, sep notion of Economy that talks about lang particular processes rather than UG (universal grammar).
In fact, this is one of cornerstones of Chomskian grammar, that all langs have move-alpha.


Comsky in Ch 3 does not want the lowering part of the derivation anymore, and so wants to update his own Ch 2 acct with a new account with no lowering. yo-yo movement played role in fairly limited set of cases. only where highest verb is lexical and there is no negation present.
only upward movement if at all.
why no need for lowering ops. why mistake to think have affix hopping. doesnt say why, but gives way of thinking about it which lets you not need.
can base-generate morphology directly on the host.
assumed that T and AGR, the actual heads of inflectional head markers, were where they morphlogy was actually being introduced. (thats what said in Syntax I), which is why we need to move to correct spot. thus affix hopping. Polloack continued in that tradition.
But need we assume that actual morphploy introduceds under those functional heads. or could bwe say these are functional heads that have features, which are shared with the morphology which sits on the actual verb.

need we say:
T -ed [+past, ...]
AGR -s [3 sg, ...]
V

or could we say:
T [+past ...]
AGR [ 3 sg ...]
V -ed [+past ...]/ V -s [3 sg ...]

and these features have to engage in feature checking (because otherwise uninterpretable at T and AGR).

In English, AGR has "weak features," ad that is why lexical verbs don't raise. need not raise.
doesnt say anything about Neg, or do-support, so that is a major hole leaves wide open. namely, if features are weak, what it is about covert movement (which happens for weak features) that is blocked by Neg, and why they will preciently rise.
Another q is why aux when finite raise.
Chomsky 1999 story was that raising in overt syntax was cheaper than yo-yo movement. Can no longer say this, since dont have yo-yo movement with 2 chains. Now lowering is obsolete since heads no longer has morphophonology, just feature bundles.
so why do aux when finite have to raise? cannot say cheaper than raising covertly. Because raising covertly is the very cheapest thing. They are so economical they do what would do in all cases.
Chomsky says: because dont have a CHANCE to move covertly. Since aux is elim at LF. since dont have a meaning. Meaningless hence invisible. that is, features that have are not covertly checkable. means nothing for aux to be past tense. meaningless, yet DO cause violation of the theory at LF component! so would cause a violation. :) if cannot check covertly, must override procrastinate.
this makes strong prediction that aux in all world langs should move overtly.
In english, already see false for non-finite movement.
e.g.
not having kissed mary
having not kissed mary.

and certinaly in Scandanavian, even finite aux do not move. move to C, but do not move overtly to T.

so line doesnt work well in Ch 3. Works better in Ch 2.

Now look at what can happen in the VP in terms of head movement up to the lexical verb. so far always started from V ad raised outside of VP.
Now take some head and rasise that head to the verb.
have not seen in Engl since Engl does not overtly have any of that.
are some, "incorporation langs"
Engl has some pockets which suggests some incorporation.
truck driver.
where we seem to consider truck to be direct ovject of drive. do not get "driver truck," so truck seems to be in wrong position, so perhaps started on right hand side of driver. prob wrong for Engl, because then would expect to have truck-drive as a verb.

Australian lang. Mayali.
"We put (the) fruit in (the) water"
we water-put the fruit
*we fruit-put in the water
but is not a property of "fruit," bec can say "we fruit-ate"

in engl:
cannot have S-> V NP PP
rather
V' - VP - V' - PP
V NP V

with verb raising from lower pos.

VP - V' - VP - V' - PP
NP - V NP V


and then raises to VP above, which has an NP spec.

Larson's (88) proposal.

middle NP is barrier, since not theta-governed, so cannot get out of it. so cannot incorporate the noun.
on other hand, NP inside the PP cannot make its way up.

incorporation subject to ECP.
creates assumption that subjects sjhould never incorporate.

Hailen-Kaiser proposal couched in Larsonian.
now understand why.
Baker - incorporation only from properly gpverned positions.


Now in English:
we put the book on the shelf.

*we 0 the book on the shelf.
with an empty put.

*we booked on the shelf
we shelved the book!

note that like Mayali, we also elim the preposition (on), because it is not needed. can have prep there but null, when incorporate, since does not have to case-license. and economy then says must not be overt.

same with resulatative ajectives.

we make the screen clear
*we 0 the screen clear

have de-adjectivaled verb:
we cleared the screen!

even though verb screen exists, cannot say
* we screen-ed clear

because screen is a specifier, and can only derive from case where screen is NOT a left bracnh

we made the spear straight

and know verbn to spear
* we speared straight
we straghtened the spear

we provide the house witrh a coat of paint.
cannot
house with a coat of paint
can paint the house

only heads of right branches are incorporable, not of left branches, since left branches are barriers.

then ECP becomes predictor for possible words.

if had ternary branching structures,
V NP PP
any of these would be fine. no pt talking about the left branch.

know can inc nouns into verbs.
show now can incorporate verbs into verbs
can say: the vase broke (unaccusative construction, orig the ovject of break)
and
John broke the vase


"the vase broke" has no necessary external cause.

easier to imagine with
the tomatoes grew
John grew the tomatoes

so John is a causer, but no causation in the intransitive versions.
one way to think about this is that John gets its therta role frrom an abstract verb that itself takes the VP of tomaties grow as its complemetnt.

VP - V' - VP NP
John V(ec) V(grow) tomatioes

thus we add a VP shell.
V to V incorporation

but does not seem can do this across the board

The baby sneezed
bu cannot
*John sneezed the baby

just one sort of verb that can use involuntarily in Eng

you can burp the baby
otherwise, unergative verbs differ from unaccusatives in terms of this.

get derived from allowable complements to abstract causal verb.

class 11

came a bit late.
talking about Kayne, the stuff we did in the practicum.
noted doesn;t matter if draw tree from right to left or v.v. because word order determined by antisymmetry.
makes interesting predictions. and restricts phrase structure as we want it.
prediction: e.g. can have only one specifier/adjunct per maximal projection.
previously, required such for spec but had kleene star for adjunct.
Why no more tan one adjunct? diagram 1. have hp dominating XPs.
XP branches to YP, then lower XP to ZP. YP and ZP c-comand each other based on HP. followed by another XP, etc.
this gives you (YP, Z) => (y, z) and (ZP, Y) => (z, y)
so not allowed.

John probably carefully read the book.
not only would require multiple projections. VP already has subject dangling from it. probably and carefully must dangle from lower projections. Would need to have adjuncts and no specs. Cinque has been pursuing this for more than a decade. Cinque: must postulate all sorts of functional projections.

another thing can derive is cannot adjoin a head to a maximal projection.
diagram 2,
Z asymmetrically c-commands X. Z c-commands Z, and v.v.. nothing else in structure dominates them. No way of ordering h and z.
and that is why cannot adjoin a head to a phrase.
another thing do not need X-bar theory to explain this.

one last thing. complementation must ALWAYS involve complement to the right of the head. Because X asymetrically c-commands WP. so complements must always follow their heads. that means that we cannot parameterize in the base (base representation) the complements of selecting heads. because of c-command relation.
does that mean that EVERY language is VO? No. claiming that VO langs CAN be base representations. OV MUST involve movement. so whenever see complemetns preceding heads, must have been movement.
how can this be verified?
langs such as Japanese that are complementizer-final have no wh-movement to spec-CP.

Looking at (3), can draw that, but would still end up in opposite ordering. rather, must be like second example in (3).

all of things from past hour, taken together, make antisymmetry something that should be on our research agenda.
then must take seriously fact that antisymmetry disallows X'-XP distinction.

last word about this: in order to get complementizer final, to get OV VPs, in order to get post-positions, need movement. is Kayne in any way going beyond the theory developed in prev weeks actually says? no, because theory was that cannot parametrically vary order of head with its complement.
bec: in minimalism, cannot parameterize direction of theta-role assignmnet direction (to the left or to the right). since assigned by heads.
govt: cannot parameterize because does not exist in minimaism.
case: in minimalism, get case checking in spec positions of functional heads which are always to the left. can always parameterisze momement into those position. But cannot parameterize the DIRECTIONALITY. just q if strong feature that attracts you there.
Thus, Kayne not saying anything incompatible with minimalism.
Why doesnt Chomsky like this? 1) sociological: doesnt like much of what Kayne proposed. 2) Kayne does not go far enough. Now, want NO lvels. just have X. perhaps just want words.
Bare phrase structure.
the hat. see diagram 4. the dominating "the" and "hat"

Lexical Matters 1: inflection and verb movement

next week, do reading for Lexical Matters 2.
in last class, will do "latest developments"

when comes to qs of inflection and verb movement, English has almost alwaysn played central role. English always respondible for "affix verb hopping"
John kissed Mary. (106b) ed generated in Aux, now called I, and hopped down onto the verb. in more recent versions, call this T-hop, since refers to tense alone.
Chomsky + Lasnik, in intro to black book, have rule R - affix hopping. (R because "R"ule).
is this a phonological or syntactic rule? syntactic - because cannot apply over negation, but can over other:
John never Kissed Mary is fine.
even though never originates between ed and th
ed can hop over never, though not over negation.

how do we distinguish between never and not

-ed [VP never/*not [VP kiss

ed moving to the right.

how does theory ensure affix hopping is blocked?
Pollack's paper in Linguistic Inquiry. all about verb movement and structure of IP to understand the constrainsts.
made inventory of French and English data.
will restrict self to English.
(108a-c)
finite clauses. the finite lexical verb kisses cannot be to left of "often" or of "not."
Also cannot be to the right of not.
(Solution, BTW, is do-support. John doesn't often kiss her.)

Non-finite. use gerund. ignore "ing" which is neither tense nor ___ suffix. We can safely ignore.
(108d)
Nonfinite verb cannot show up to the left (just like finite).
But different because finite cannot stay in situ but the non-finite can stay in situ.
And special solution in finnite case (do-support) is not available for non-finite (see case e). Presumablty because CAN leave the verb in situ.
In 109, non-lexical verbs (= auxiliaries). Chose aux "have."

John has often kissed her.
see has can be to left of "often,"
Interestingly, does not HAVE to be to left of often.
also:
John often has kissed her.

different from neg senence. Only allows has to left.
John has not often kissed her.
Even though "has" does not need be to left of AFFIRMATIVE sentences, must be in negative sentances.
*John not often has kissed her.


Finally, in non-finite contexts, anything goes.
in 109c. has can go anywhere you want.
want positions avail in any of the following pos:

___ not ____ often ______

___ not ____ often ______
having having      having
          Vlex
has    *has    *has (when neg present)

___ 0 ____ often ______
has   has        has

can appreciate not going to be easy to come up with theory to explain all of this.
what are these positions?

X not Y often V


C is not involved, because can have that/for to the left of it.

perhaps two AGR nodes. (but this is before Chomsky proposed ARGO ad AGRS).
Pollack split I into two: AGR (fdor subject) and T

T not AGR often V

Balleti suggested opposite order of T and AGR.


For Pollack theoretically important for AGR lower than T. (chomsky eventually has opposite of this)

T not AGR often V

bottom of page 37

claim: lexical verbs NEVEr leave their VPs.
Conseuqence of fact that English AGR has such an extremely poor signature. Therefore AGR in English must be opaque. That means when raise a verb up to AGR, and the verb has a bunch of theta roles to assign, will be rejecte, the verbs's theta-grid will be trapped under AGR, since AGR is opaque. cannot be handed back down to the trace. (not the copy theory. trace has no properties). but we require that at every level, the theta-grid must be discharged. now cannot assign internal theta-vole anymore. leads to a violation of projection principle.
So Vlex to AGR-opaque is ungramatical.
because of a ciolation of the Projection princple.

instead, what do you have to do? rather than raising the verb, must lower the T onto AGR and then AGR onto the V.
in 110c, add a word. It should read:
In "affirmattive" declarative senstenses, nothing affects affix hopping.
in Neg declarative sentences, Neg sets up a barrier for affix hopping between T and AGRS (and from there to Vlex).
If thatn blocked, cannot lower onto verb. but cannot be the lexical verb because that is stuck there. Answer, add "DO" in AGR-S and move that up to T. (even though T could not move down to it)
Why not just base-generate in T?Because we not get affix.
e.g.
*He do not often kisses her.
which is common among 2nd lang learners, but not among 1st lang learners.
no deep nswer fr why does not happen, though.

even if wanted to base generate is T,

John hasn't often kissed her.
___ neg __ often have kissed her
jumps two spots.
he has not -has- often -have- kissed her.

Chomsky himself in Barriers spoke of retroactive L-marking.
when aux (verb) rasies to I, even though was not able to l-mark, but now becaomes able to L-mark. (somewhere around week 4 in class)
thus movement of a lexical element into a functional head can open up possible l-marking after the fact.
Pollack said Beg is a barrier because T does not l-mark it. When T hops down to AGR-S, not only not lexical, no longer has -ed endiong.
but the reverse, raising up to T, CAN make T lexical.

note that we do not land in Neg0 head. raise from AGR to T directly, skipping Neg. AGRP is not an inherent barrier.
NegP is a BC and a Barrier, but retroactively, when T provided with lexical material, so is not a BC or Barrier.
Pollack overlooks that Neg0 is closer governor, and NegP is thus a Minimality Barrier. Further, AGRP is a BC, so NegP will still be an *inherited barrier*.
So Pollack neglects parts of Barrier theory, and only pays heed to that which works for him.

one word about non-finite auxiliaries. if this was having rather than has.
can have in any position

not often having kissed her
not having often kissed her
having not often kissed her

problem with lexical verbs raising it that have theta-roles to assign. but auxiliaries have no theta-roles to assign.

(bec in 1980s, move unless presented. Nowadays, in chapt 2 of black book, do not move unless you have to)
additional handout we got today.
sums up essense of Chomsky's 1991 paper, reqorking of Pollack from economy pt of view.
1 thing really important: AGR and what it leaves behind when it moves.
T AGR Vlex
(in affirmative) when verb cannot raise, move T onto AGR and from there onto Vlex.
When lower T onto AGR, T is meaningful and must leave a trace behind, tT. (else would lose semantic information)
T adjoins to AGR. When lower AGR onto the verb, is AGR meaningful? No. Has syntactic licensing to perform. Inflection actually meaningless. When lower AGR onto t verb, no reason to leave a trace, just ec. An empty spot. nothingness. The result of this: Vlex has AGR adjoined to it, and T adjoined to AGR, ec in inital AGR spot, and tT in initial T spot.
The trace in that position gives a problem (an ECP violation). Pollack suggests can cover up the trace by rasiing up to it in LF. Raise up Vlex back up to T-spot. "yo-yo movement" the second movement of yo-yo movement will leave a trace of the verb, tV. the Verb literally substitutes for that empty position ec. So when move again, leave tV. Thus, get at LF a three-member movement chain.
(V, t, t)
so yo-yo movement recovers the ECP problem.
1b on additional handout is for overt movement.
since do not have to move, do not move.
this predicts will leave "have" in situ.

notice that in non-finite contexts, never do yo-yo movement, because in non-finite contexts, tense (T) has no meaning. So when hop it down onto Vlex, leave entirely empty, so no trace, so can raise all of the way, or part of the way.
three derivations where can move all the way.
T to AGR to Vlex.
T to AGR, V to AGR
V to AGR, AGR to T.
which gives us all three posbilities.

in terms of Neg.
nothing changes for non-finiate clauses.

T Neg __ Vlex.

leaving traces, and then moving back.
ill-formed on way back, because Neg is a barrier twice around, if leave a trace tV.
So that is why cannot say
John not has kissed Mary

T Neg AGR Vaux
Vaux moves to AGR. then AGR moves to T. when move AGR to T, do not leave trace behind, so do not have to worry about ECP. skips Neg0, violating head movement constraint which says cannot skip over heads, but not violating the ECP.
Thus, do not need the HMC (head movement). say HMC makes same predictions as ECP for most cases, and where does not make same predictions, it is wrong.

Finally, why do langs differ in this respect? why whenever verb movement allowed, no do-support?

opacity of AGR is parameter of lang. Can say weak head (and thus opaque) in English and strong head in French.
do support absolutely necessary in English as a last resort (when cannot yoyo move). Must basegenerate a dummy do and move it up, leaving no trace,
why dont all langs use it, and why not use it in other cases?
"its the economy, stupid."
others langs, AGR not opaque, so do-support not needed.
also economy of number of steps.
perform lang particular step (such as do-supprt) only as a last-resort.

next week, briefly discuss Chomsky's chapter 3.
then, page 41, lexical matters 2, derivation

class 10

assignments, then 29 and 30 on handout.

for next week, lexical matters 1, inflection and verb movement. fairly difficult reading.

the assignment:
all of us did assignment 1 correctly. just 1 quick point. what did not discuss - why idiomatic fixing must be a matter at LF. plainly pointless at S-structure, since no direct interface to semantics. Assumed do at LF component. Could we not say a matte of lexical or deep structure. Perhaps, but no saving of fact that idiomatic fixing done early, since best can do is partial but not complete fixing. Some can be ONLY after late movrmrnt has taken place.

he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

idiomatically, there is something particular about this special string of words.
on literal interp, can have s/t with no A' movement.
he does not stand on a leg.
or
he doesn't have to stand on a leg.

but have nothing like idiomatic interp of this. only literal.

in this instance, there is an ec that moved to head of the phrase (before word "to").

he doesn't have a leg [to stand on ec].

what exactly it is of creating infinitival relative that gives us this interp. without null movement, would not have this idiom. nothing about lexical interp of "leg" gives us this interp, or else would give it in other two exaples.
cannot blame on the D-structure, which does not have null-operator moveent. so is at a very late point that this whole thing gets frozen as an idiom. so must be at LF. and if for this particualr example, must be so at all idiomatic fixings.


second exercise: about examples in (1) and (2). during each other's trials.
what is the key difference?
only make sense if "at each other's trials" is a matrix adverbial.
in 2, two men is wholly contained at every level of representation in the embedded clause. would never c-command "each other"
but in 1, even though is in embedded clause, will not stay in subject, because since infinitival clause, needs to get its case, so needs to get its case higher up. does not do it in overt sytax, since does not appear to the left of "proved." we know that WILL move to spec-AGRP, but not in overt syntax. works in LF. and see diagram on back of returned assignment.
Adjoin highest to AGRO', could not be heigher, even though might want to T, but then would not c-command even at LF.


about question 3) bill was spoken to was grammatical.
passive absorbs verbs case (??)
...
can only happen if no case feature to check in complement of CP, would be no reason to move to spec-TP.
doing s/t to verb takes case assigning ability from verb. but shoud not take away ptroperties of preposition.
thus, when see runs up even in

thus, pseudopassive shows that ** dont have to assign case. then, can leave it to higher heads to check case against their complements. In (4) the only thing higher up that could is he, nominative. ...
if indeed "to" forgoes case checking, (the version of "to" that has no features to check) what will Bill in (3) depend on for case? must depend on verb's case feature in AGROP. no overt raising to spec-AGROP. But in LF, will. then ends in position outside of VP entirely, it c-commands everything inside the VP including "himself"

Of course, syntax for which does not get agreement.... but do not require that every derivation gives a grammatical output.

what learn from (4) is that "preposition to" when embedded under "speak" does not NEED to assign case, in which case must move to spec-AGROP.
what remains is the question is: why can they neglect to assign case? but assignmeent 3 not dependent on answering the q of why.

"reanalysis" (bleh)

(look up "impersonal passives")

page 29.
a bunch of conclusions along the road.
1) we concluded in conclusion that full-fledged movement to --- impossible. moving and merging. intermittently.
2)
because said we must check the strong feature before we move the functional heads that have that feature out, such that no longer bears the name,
3) in bullet, change impossible from superfluous.

4) tough movement constructions. John is togh to please.
John is not external arg of tough by himself.
arses thakns to idea of null op movement of null op movement. thus must be possible to create a predicate post deep structure. thus predication need not happen at deep struction. since theta--theory is predication, show that need not apply at D-structure.
...
chomsky acknowledges cases where theta-assignment foes not happen at D-structure, but in other cases he does assume it does.

5) picture noun cases. ONLY place can have binding theory apply is at LF.

what about other conds referring to S-structure?
(already taken out those which refer to D-structure)
are a few havent talked abot so far.

SUBJACENCY.
recall a lot of literature whether subjacency aplies at LF (perhaps in week 1 or 2). laid out possibiities. can salvage idea that subjacency is condition on derivations everywhere, and fact that do not see in certain (in situ WH) langs
entire island construction is pied piped all the way up to the top, and make sure that feature gets checked by "who". those who believe in it think have good evidence for this.

much eaiser possibilty - subjacency not cond on representation, only at *derivations*, so if move at LF, expect them to obey subjacency. but maybe wh-phrases in-situ does not move. maybe WH-feature is moved up to the top. then simply take WH-feature to the matching wh-feature of Comp and have them check each other.
why dont you ALWAYS just move the feature?
chomsky suggests: whenever do overt movement, want to take phonological features up, and want to take morphological features, and do not want to scatter them.
PF doesnt know what to do with scattered objects, which live part of life upstairs, part downstairs. strange, because phonology not particularly interested in +WH features.
only way *ensure* no scattering is to take entire thing up via pied piping.

NP = "who has features
NP {Sematic Features, Formal Features, Ph Features}

but that is up to spell-out. after spell-out, phonological features are stripped way.

NP {Sematic Features, Formal Features}

thus, there is no reason could not move just features. and since minimalism, if you CAN move just features, Will do so. so LF will just move features. and subjaceny is about category movement, and so perhaps auomatically not subject to the subjacency condition.
[not clear what feature movement is is not entirely clear. can never observe it directly. so little difficult to figure out what it is liek and how it behaves.]
this leads us to reconsider much of discussion of binding we have had. (one related q on final exam)

predication is s/t else said to have to aply at S-structure.
Chapter 1 of black book.
here again, feature movement important.
have seen cases where relative clause has null operator movement inside of it, causing
movement can create predicates.
but only phrasal movements.
movement of features will not.
that is why LF movement of WH-in situ will never give you a relative clause. and that is why relative clauses will always involve WH-movement, even in langs that otherwise do not.

finally, of course we know parasitic gap constructions not in-situ.
if Wh-in-situ only launches feature up, then the best could get parasitically is parasitic 'bundle of wh-features' but not a parasitic gap.
know parasitic gap subject to 'matching'. if real is NP, then parasitic is NP, etc. if only move features, would not sound like a gap. a gap has no features. (??) again because LF movement is not phrasal movement, invloves features only.

also find that in minimalist theory, no reason to refer to govenment. always assigned via sisterhood in theta-theory. now elim from all other components of theory. no theta-government. since reduced to locality condition on chain links.
also need not refer to govt in terms of case. in fact cannot saty it anymore, since now is checked under spec-head agreement.
and further, if successful of getting rid of principles A and B of binding theory, no need for govt.
(Maybe eventually will be able to talk of reciprocals ...)

principle B. sa elsewhere case. use anaphor., if cannot, use pronoun. if cannot, use R-expression. (get rid of need for govt). principle C as ultimate elsewhere case.
Then, neither government nor binding is fundamental to the theory. even though the theory was called govenment and binding. (only called that initially because had explicit discussion about govt and binding. historical accident)

what does minimalism hang on to?
modularity (though less so, since binding gone as a modukle and perhaps some modules can be dispensed with)
derivationalism.
and X' theory.
move to pg 32. preserves in toto.
in fact, section in chap 3 in black book with X' theory in title.
but is X' theory really fundamentally important (with XP X' X) or even right? could we do with fewer? could we dispense with all?

X' is a somewhat lame duck. cannot be selected (like XP), cannot select (like a head), and it cannot be moved.
also discovered that X' could not be adjoined to. This does not look very good.
good reaon to think X' can be deleted or subject to

You've got your troubles. I've got mine ec.
[mine [N' ec]

you like that book, i like that one.

but cannot replace "one" in some situations. (students fo lingustics)

discussed in great legth structure of clause.
clause (John kissed Mary) not just the VP.
why cannot there be functional structure outside of the NP.
in fact reason to beleive that there is.

instead, NP looks like (94). stuff between det and NP. but certainly more to NP than just an NP. Then need not replace N' category with "one" or elispses. Rather, do (95a,b) with a full NP being empty, or full NP "one", not an N'.

no reason to think X' does anything. just sitting there. why would we want to have special name, why not call it XP?
is one place where essential. target always projects, never the moved constituent. (that is, if move WP to spec-XP, is called XP. Know because should have same name as X' level)
but if X' called XP, why should not call the target WP? phrase structurally speaking, no reason not so.
consider two scenarios.
covert movement.
simply doesnt happen if covert movement is just feature movement, since do not move WP, only move to head positions, not phrasal.
but overt movement can move phrsaes
{john seems likely to have been killed} should overt phrasal movement.
why cannot result in this (tree).
what is it that moves overt movement? a strong feature of X, which causes WP to move. (X has strong FF, which can be checked off by WP which has matching feature, *within XP*) but if called WP, not in XP.
cannot put John kissed Mary in NP position.
blocked because the smaller XP is where must be checked, else is in larger structure. so cannot happen.
so get * on the two trees without invoking XP-X' distinction.

more damning question. show that if have it, get bad results.
pg 33, bottom of page.
anti-symmetry. idea behind this simple. all heirarchical structure must be directly translatable to linear order and v.v..
direct translation between word order and heirarchical structure.

assymetry = cannot be both to left and right of X.
therefore, heirarchy must be asymetrical.
make pairs of nonterminals where c-commands, and list of terminals where a must precede b.


in next example:
problem is that J-M is in set of terminals, but L-I in set.
image of J-M is i-m.
image of is
this tells us that M precedes I, I preceded M.
pg 34:
(104) is exactly what (102) transates into

but 102 is ill-formed.
solution. have two L's. see inside.

next week, start with top of page 36