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:
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
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
posted by joshwaxman at 10:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home