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.