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

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,

Syntax II - Class VI

Johni isi considered ti intelligent - see diagram.

locality stuff.
chapter 3 in the black book.

more palatable arguments for minimalist program introduced later.

a bit of background why important to delve into the discussion.,
we advantage of knowing what Chomsky did with NP mobvement in Barriers.

added one crucual ingredient at end of last class. cant be whole sacrosant analysis of passives, becauses reason to beleive passives to not just lack external argument, ie. vaccuumed up entirely, unlike in case of middles (this book reads easily *deliberately), where see no agent in imddle. But can say "this book was torn to peices deliberately." And control seems to be syntactically constrained, at least by obligatory control. (and cannot easily intepret this as arbitrary control "the ship was sunk to collect the insurance money," does not seem that some arbitrary person will collect the insurance money,

then we need a controller for that PRO. and that would need to be an empty category of some sort. the collector of insurance money are the implicit agents of the sinking event. (could also have explicit byphrase - e.g. was sunk by the owner to collect the insurance money.) by passives always assume implicit agent. must be some empty category representing this implicit agent. (last week,called this Pro, since did not want to specifiy How to identify it - whether this was PRO or pro.) Where put it? Where ALWAYS put recipient -inside the VP. see diagram 2.
But problem because V' will be barrier unless use spec-head and head-head agreement, but then John was killed would always be John committing suicide.

also *relativized* minimality problem, because Pro is in an A position, and moving trace to Johni


Guasti - suggested straightforward wat- a theta role was assigned to this position (Pro), so could not have landed there anyway, so should not be a barrier.
Idea is always "make the shortest *possible* move, and let us take *possible* seriously.
so she further relativized relativized minimality, saying that an intervening theta-position, cannot land in.
is this true generally?

Now enter chapter 3 program of minimalist program.
we will see that it is NOT generally possible to get out of the difficulty by referring to thematic content of the positions.
note that has the desirable effect (once we have this in place) that we do not have to go down Guasti's line, and refer to the theta-criterion. and theta-criterion is simply baggage. don't need it for phonology, semantics, etc.. but rather we have stipulated it in order to get certain results.

Are situations when go from t to A across an A position, where intervening A is a theta-bar position, where it is OK.

First step to take is:
we are familiar w fact that subjects can agree with finite verbs for phi features . person and number (not gender). Hebrew has gender agreement with finite verbs. In other langs, perhaps phi features involved will be diff subset of those phi. That is agreement.

it turns out not just subject that can agree. also objects. need look beyond english, to Romance langs. in fairly narrow circumscribable

when object is clitic pronoun, when object is NP moved (in passive), and WH-moved.
in 50, gave example for French, in WH-movement - how many tables did you repaint?
and here, not just orthoggraphically represented but phonologically real.
es ending. Plural and Feminine.
thus get gender agreement. (the e- and is pronounced)
plural agreement is orthographically real. (but the s is not pronounced)
thus, in one of the phi features.
but how could it?
subject-verb agreement happens usually under spec-head agreement, but this not true buy object!
see diagram (3).
base generated in complement position of the Verb, and cannot move it to subject position, because that will be where subject is.
bery easy to move to spec position for functional position, but not for lexical position.
could create some functional position to move into. which position? could it be spec-IP?

cannot be that agreement happens in IP, because as-tu agreement. separated by tu, so not in same area as repeint.
So need two positions for agreement, one for subject-head agreement, and one for object agreement.

Infl realy has 2 things dangling under it. Tense and about agreement.
I - T
|
Agr

Thus really schizo creature. imagine dissolve this hybridity.
then would need to recognize independence of T and Agr.

Think of Infl as nation-state, with multiple ethnicities within. Dissolve, create two other nation-states.

No more IP, but TP and AgrP.
One recognize ArgP (Agreement Phrase).
Then there is AgrP for subjects, and AgrP for objects. AgrP never existed before for objects for Chomsky, because no object agreement for English.

Now, 3 things. TP, AgrP for subjects, AgrP for objects.

Heirarchy?
Mirror Principle (Mark Baker) - in morphology
syntactic deriviations mirror morhphological derivations and v.v.
(4) have 3 heads over VP.
as move, *left adjoin* to each.
[VZ]
[[VZ]Y]
[[[VZ]Y]X]
heirarchy mirrors morphological bracketing

could also imagine would *right adjoin* to its host every step along the way
[ZV]
[Y[ZV]]
[X[Y[ZV]]]

in wihch case preserve linear order morphological as internal organization.
in both cases, what is closer morphologically is closer in the tree.

when we look at the facts, get quite a lot of chaos, but certain regularity.
contrain self to prefixing case (right adjoin in lang Xhosa, a Bantu lang spoken in S Africa)

u- mama u-ya-wu -phek-a um-ngqusho
noun classes in Banta- u is on of them
1a-mother 2a-Agr-PresentTense-3agr-COOK-Asp 3A-samp

mother cooks samo
intereseting this is u (2aAgr) and wu (3agr), with tense in the middle.
this is right-adjoining.
a prefixing system.

In Quechua, spoken in Ecuador, that does suffixing, so left-adjoining.
riku-wa-rqa-nki
means:
see-1sg (object) -past-secondperson Z (subject)
"you saw me"

thus, what is closest to the stem? Once again, the object agreement closest AgrO. then T, then ArgS.
AgrS always farthest away from the stem.
see diagam (5).
onject moves to spec-AgrOP, subject moves successive cyclically first to spec-Tp, then to spec-AgrSP.
now, need not be same verb that subject and object agrees with (e.g. French), but in the two languages we have seen, for same verb.

Second advantage, can finally go back and assimilate assignment of case to sytax and the object. before, only under *m-command* could we assign nominative case under govenment. But see elsewhere that m-command not desirable. Now, we can assimilate accusative and nominative case assignment.
nominitive is assigned under spec-head agreement in AgrSP, and Accusative case is assigne under spec-head agreement in AgrOP. Both are thus assigned in spec-head agreement in AgrPs.

in many langs, get either agreement or case via either marking on the verb ... seem to be two sides of exactly the same coin. which makes sense since this is what is happening here.

even w/o that reason, we would still be happy with the result for case by itself, namely that now we have a unified account of structural case.
can even draw genitive case into this.
"In John's book" or better, "in yesterday;s newspaper"- no thematic relation, is structural case, can do same thing.

gave derivation on the board.

but how is this derivation legitimate.
and how come that one was legitimite and not diagram (6).
if that were legit,
could be able to say
"John kissed Mary,"
and it would mean Mary kissed John.
not written in stone that object always gets nom case?
so cannot pick on this as a reason.
this cannot be quite it, because not set in stone that sub has Nom case and object gets Nom. cases when they get the opposite.
must appeal to s/t else.

Must make sure that (5), with is AgrO, converges and (6) does not.

In (6), going from A position to next avaliable one for subject.
But in (5), crossing overs position, some things are npt local.
In (6), first onbect movement is nonlocal. But then, in 5, also nonlocal movement.
But one of the crossovers is a Guasti (object to AgrOp) answer, since intervening pos was assigned theta, but for subject movement, have problem: spec-AgrOP and spec-TP are A positions which are theta-bar. Thus Guasti insufficient. passing over potential landing site.

So we do not seem to making shortest possible move.
In the enormously technical discussion in chap 3, Chomsky finds a solution. Perhaps trite and trivial, perhaps even repulsive. Make two pos that seem not equally far away to be eqqually far away from the launch pad.
He calls euqally far away "equidistance."

Want spec-AgrOP and spec-TP to be equidistant.
under certain circumstances and *those alone* will be equidistant.

similar to trick Chomsky exploited in Barriers. an interplay between NP movement and head movement that makes this NP-movement licensed.

Need a few defs first. On page 17.
1) need to make two pos equidistance from launch-pad.


(55) euqidistant if they are in same minimal domain.
(56) domain = The m-command domain of the head

as diagramed in (7)

(57) *MIN* domain - cross out all from domain that dominated by anything else in same domain. So in diagram (7), keep YP, ZP, and disregard all else.

Can do same for Z. Min domain would be RP and QP.
Note that diff color circles around YP and RP.

On the tree (5), want to move subject into spect-TP position. But want spec-AgrOP and spec-TP in same minimal domain.
Note: minimal domain of a head is simply the spec and the complement.
But want them to be in same minimal domain.

Have in mind that domain and minimal domain defined for *chains*, and if can construct non-trivial chain, who known what might happen?

When take AgrO to T, create chain (AgrO, t).
The head is under T, and the foot of the chain is under AgrO.

Will not only ignore T, T', TP, but also AgrO, AgrO', AgrOP.
Now, spec-TP, spec-AgrOp, and complement and all under it are the domain.
min domain will be spec-TP, spec-Agr-OP, and VP complement of AgrO.

min domain of non-trivial chain that it, contains spec of head of the chain (=landing site), spec of foot of chain (where started out), and complement of foot. And that was what was cirled.
Note that both spec-TP and spec-AgrOP are both blue-circled, so they are in the same minimal domain. Thus they are *equidistant* from any position in the tree.

can do same thing for object, but only if V moves to AgrO, thus making chain, and can compute minimal domain so that see is equidistant.

Powerpoint presentation.

episode 1
overt movement of both NPs in a transitive clause
crossing paths derivation.
perform had movement, because no stationary head can have minimal domain with two specs in it. because any head has only one specifier.

Note: when move V, have V adjoined to it, so have AgrO, and under it, V and AgrO.

T has AgrO and T under it, and meanwhile AgrO has V and AgrO under it.

One more thing before go.
In order to make this happen, must be two head movements. V must move, and then AgrO must move. so verb must eventually be included in this complex. So predict here for overt object movement followed by overt subject movement to be legit, verb must surface quite high up in the tree. that derives Honbag?'s generalization, Swedish linguist, who identified fact that in Scandanavian, verb can only leave VP if verb ultimately surfaces as the very least in T. Illustrated in (59). But for now, do the assignment, but will be greatly helped with assignment by doing the reading for this sections, and reading for "important consequences" and "structure building..."

still need to rule out derivation on the right (6). answer will of course be that in this derivation, it is impsiible to get spec-TP, spec-AgrOP and spec-VP in same minimal domain. And one of questions is why they cannot be.

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

Syntax II - Class IV

Class 4

29a may not be too bad. In this example, degredation very slight. By stipulation. CP is a barrier for t’’_I by stipulation. Though not a blocking category.

Need say nothing about going from t’’I to t’’’i, since already have barrier. N’.

Minimality only prevents government. For any governee, have only one governor.

But need not worry about intermediate traces having gamma marking since gone by LF. But cannot appeal to N’ ‘s minimality barrier because only work for government, not for movement.

In the assignment, how did Bill get the impression that Bill did it. In that case, the N’ will be a barrier for t’ (some number of primes), if we don’t say anything more. The ECP being straightforwardly violated on account of a minimality violation. We said about the CP in the complement of a noun that it is a barrier by stipulation. We needed to say that to create a subjacency effect in another instance (to derive 29a). CP in N complement is a barrier, by stipulation.

Is N’ still a minimality barrier. No. Minute say CP is a barrier, then N cannot govern t’’. Then nothing governs t’’. Notice it is an interesting give/take. Cannot simultaneously say that N is a minimality barrier and that CP is a barrier.

What is left, then, for minimality? To take care of that-trace violations, just as it did in Syntax I. Pg 10 in handout, who do you think that did it?

Only think that changes is now we can put finger on the node that is a barrier – the C’.

1) Why does it improve when drop complementizer = when not overt? Why isn’t C’ null a minimality barrier. Page 10, Chomsky …

[CP t’I [C’ that [IP t’ ] ]

[CP t’I NULL [IP t’ ]

then have C but C’ is no longer present.

But what would the tree going to be? If C head and CP, followed by IP, must be ternary branching. Could also say that just drop C, but then CP comes out of nowhere – the CP has no head. Perhaps Could instead use VP adjunction rather than CP, anf have verb select IP (now) with a finite Infl. But if have CP, then MUST have C’ and a C-head. Can just say that cannot have ampty headed governor.

Let us consider possibility of completely immunizing derivation to devastating influence of the complementizer. Barss: it was derivation #3 in our assignment. In which first lower from ti1 to ti2 and from there out. This would seem to succeed based on rules set out in Barriers. Can work assuming m-command.

Elsewhere, m-command gets Chomsky into trouble.

AP -> PRO A’

A’ -> A(nude)

John ate the meat nude.

On m-command, PRO seems to be governed!

Another context

C’ -> C(null) IP

IP -> PRO I’

I’ -> I somethingelse

As in John tried to win the race. Have to state “Infinitival is not a governor.”

With strict- c-command, cannot get out of I or out of A.

And here as well, the strictest c-command derivation will straightforwardly rule out Barss.

In this instance, t2 would be closer, because t2 needs pass through 0 max projections, which that must pass through 1.

What about Infl. Shouldn’t that be a closer governor? So problem shifts from C’ to I’ as minimality barrier.

Finally, the propriety between t2 and t3 in A’ positions across a trace in an A position. Looks like improper movement structurally.

So far so good, we had just said that the I’ could be a minimality barrier. But then if think further, if we would allow I’ to be a minimality barrier, we would be forbidding ALL adjunct movement, by limiting the ability of traces to govern.

Let us look at case of Adjunct Extraction.

[CP t’’i [C’ C [IP subject [I’ I [VP t’i VP

and there is a straightforward, unblockable, government relationship of Infl governing ti’

So that makes I’ a Minimality Barrier. So ECP crash! So I’ mustn’t be a minimality barrier. Do we know why it is not?

Thus, stipulation 37 of Chomsky: I’ is never a minimality barrier.

And also said IP never an inherent barrier. And IP must not be intermediately adjoined to.

Pre-barriers, IP/S had V as head, and was ternary branching. So extended X’ branching to Cp and IP. So emancipation of IP has failed.

One other context in which Barriers encounters major obstacles - with VP and object extraction.

t'’’ in spec VP, VP, V’, which has V, CP. Spec-CP has t’’. So V should be closer governor, and V’ as a minimality barrier to government by t’’’

so still have a problem, but this time around Infl is not the culprit.

Now page 11 in the handout. The X’ level is optional – only required when a specifier in XP projected.

Then, VP will be the minimality barrier. But irrelevant, because antecedent t’’’ is within this barrier, because it is within one segment of the VP.

What consequences are there of forgoing of the V’ to the base generation of the subject? We cannot base-generate it in VP, or else we would have a specifier and then we could not forgo the V’.

Is there a way we can base generate in an additional adjoined VP.

This is strange move on Chomsky’s part because based generates everything else there. I saw John sneeze, John in VP. Always subject in VP except where it is the complement of Infl.

Pg 12, between the diamonds. NB. How to distinguish between A and A’ positions.

If Eliminate C’ CP (and in general XP X’) distinction. But then no C’, so no minimality, since have Cp-CP as barrier. Then that-trace effects must follow from something else.

Rigid minimality – useless.

Ricci: relativized minimality. In rigid, only heads that govern. For Ricci, minimality relativized in terms of nature of alpha. If alpha is a head, and b is a head, only a head delta can intervene

a [ d [ b

if a and b are phrases, only delta phrase can intervene

within phrases:

if alpha and beta, with alpha in A position, blocked by delta in A position.

if alpha and beta, with alpha in A’ position, blocked by delta in A’ position.

This is summed up at bottom of pg 11.

Pg 12. relativized minimality formalizes position that intervener should have something in common with what is blocking.

Then all problems had disappear.

We don’t get that-trace effect from Ricci.

[CP t’ [C’ C(that) [IP t

“that” is a head, while t’ in A’ position. Ricci gets this is a different way.

If heads could never antecede traces of phrases, OF COURSE you would not think they could intercede. But is one context in which heads DO actually antecede traces of phrases.

Must ascertain that independently. That is what we will discover next time.

Please read NP movement and *** minimality, trace-licensing govt and minimized chain links, and if have time, Interaction of NP movement an Head Movement I. (that is, for

Some helpful suggestions for drawing trees with the program

I've starting using that online program to generate the trees. I have what I think are some helpful suggestions.

Firstly, to generate triangles under an NP where you do not want to draw the internal structure - this will happen automatically if you do not use brackets and have more than one element. What if you have a single word, like How_i? I would suggest is use the period beforehand. Thus:
. How_i

[NP . How_i]

Secondly, since these labelled brackets get out of control, since there are so many of them, I strongly suggest you use indentation to make things clearer. This is the standard strategy used by computer programmers. Thus, without giving away too much of the homework, the top of my labelled brackets looks something like this:

[CP [NP . How_i]
    [C' [C  [did_x] ]
        [IP [NP . John]
            [I' [I t_x]
                VP
            ]
        ]  
    ]
]

which looks much better than
[CP [NP . How_i] [C' [C [did_x] ] [IP [NP . John] [I' [I t_x] VP ] ] ]]

in the indented example, the end bracket is aligned with the opening bracket, the first daughter of a node is placed on the same line as the mother, and the second child is placed on the next line, indented over so that it is aligned with its sibling.

Using this methodology should make the act of writing and understanding labelled brackets much simpler and error-prone.

Syntax II - Class III

10c - now, even crossing one barrier gives you violation of subjacency.

last week, we abstracted entirely away from the VP, ujntil the end, at which p[oint realized that VP will cause us major trouble.

Whati [IP Bill [VP read ti]

here, Whati must cross VP and IP, so must not be any barriers on movement path, but looks as if there is in fact *two*. VP is both a blocking category and a Barrier. IP becomes both a blocking category and it inherits barrierhood fropm VP. So crosses *two* barriers.
Yet the sentence is perfectly grammatical. Must first LAND on edge of VP so that no longer dominated by VP and then move from there. That is:

Whati [Bill I [VP ti' [VP read ti

ti to ti'. ti' to Whati.

segments (these partial VPs) are never categories, and only categories may be barriers.

The sum total of VP (together) are a blocking category and barrier for ti. But antecedent of ti, that is ti', is not *excluded* by the VP, since it is partially *inside* the VP.

Similarly, ti' is not dominated by the upper VP, since does not entirely dominate it. Thus not a barrier to the antecedent Whati. The IP is a blocking category but presence of blocking category not sufficient to pose a problem for subjacency. The IP is not a barrier.

If had tried to get ti out in one fell swoop, would have had problems.

(Could have otherwise simply claimed that the VP is L-marked. "VC is not a BC or barrier for anything it dominates because VP is L-marked." This is not what Chomsky said. We would need to investigate 2 important ingredients:
1) I theta-marks VP.
2) I has to be or become lexical.
The idea that I theta-marks it VP complement is not a bad idea. It is in fact important point in the theory. Chomsky
John said that he would fix the car. and
"Fix the car, he did"
[VP fix the car]i he did ti

the trace must be properly governed.
in this particular governed, could make it antecedent governed. but there are other exmaples of "VP topicalization" that give you the feeling of subjacency effect and not an ECP effect which suggest theta-governed within its base position.

?? [VP fix the car]i, I wonder whether he will ti

not an ECP violation. therefore ti must be properly governed. can do antecedent or theta-governed. Can it be properly antecedent governed? No, because *whther* will definiately be in between. No point in adjoining to the VP because we are *moving* the entire VP. So cannot perform any intermediate landing, must go in one fell swoop across the CP. So *whether* should certainly give us a minimality effect. Subjacency violation like in 10c. But not so bad, because actually theta-governed. Not by "he." Will have to be "will," which is an I. Apparently I assigned theta-role and allows trace of fronted VP to satisfy the ECP such that it need not find a local antecedent.

So (1) does in fact seem to be true.
But (2), I does NOT seem to be lexical. Because not able to be generated by feature +-V and +-N. So I cannot BE lexical. But can *become* lexical by something lexical moving into it.
If want to add adverbial "probably" there, get "John read probably it."
Aux be (=copular be) and have. but modal verbs not. so would not be able to leave the VP for I. Perhaps as some point "read" moves from VP to I, and then retroactively marks the VP.

Whati [IP Bill I [VP ti' probably [VP read ti]

in languages where this is allowed, probably most likely raises to I. (ignoring comma intonation)
Perhaps in Lf syntactic component, read moves to I? without getting any phonological reflex of it.
Then at LF, would have lexical element, and at LF, would not be a barrier. But extracted the VP earlier than LF, at S-structure. If subjacency condition thought to be condition of LF representations, then OK, so long as L-marked by the end of LF. Generally, we say this is a condition on S-structure, overt representation. And if so, cannot undo the subjacency violation. Could imagine ECP violations like this, but not subjacency.
But if subjacency to be rethinkable as condition on LF, then we could in fact raise the "read" and lift the barrierhood.

In revisiting of theory in Lasnik and Chomsky in black book, "it is sufficient for a node to be selected for it to be a barrier." But it is essential for VP to be a barrier.

[Digression: Why does Chomsky need VP to be a barrier? Section 10 of the greenish-bluish book towards the end.

based on particular parasitic gap construction

Whoi ti [VP warned the men [CP Opi that they were about to arrest ti]
This is out. parasitic gap construction. two chains. Null Opi -ti chain which must be composed with "real" chain Whoi-ti, and the connection between the two chains must be established under zero subjacency = no barrier between the two chains.
If VP were not a barrier, then would be no barrier between the two chains (because CP is not a barrier here since it is L-marked). In order to be correctly ruled out, we have to assume that VP is in fact a barrier.

In 1993, forgets about this reason, for he resorts to simpler reason in terms of selection, such that VP not a barrier.
]


But is there any reason to assume this intermediate adjunction? Look at (21). 21a is unambiguous. 21b is ambiguous since John may be bound by himself.
At D-structure, himself can be antecednce governed by BIll. But for (b), need to

[how many pics of himselfi/j]k Johni [CP t'k Billj tk]
is extracted successive cyclicaly

"reconstructing" [how many pic of himself] back into initial trace ti to get Bill reading, or can reconstruct into John, at which point it we can get the John reading.
do this "reconstruction" at LF, but *only* if there was ti' where ti landed during movement. So in order to ensure the ambiguity, we must have that intermediate trace. It can take the matrix subject as its antecedent.

Interestingly, sentences of this type are grammatical if the Spec CP position occupied by WH phrsae

?[how many pics of himselfi/j]k Johni [CP WH Billj tk]

which gives us a subjacency violation, just mildly degraded, plus they are *still degraded.*
In 22b, which is minimal variant of 21b, somewhat degraded because of subjacency, but importantly it is still ambiguous.
If Bill was the only possibility and not ambiguous, Syntax I would have taken care of this.

How do we get the John reading in 22b. Not from a trace in post of spec Cp. We do get it on a more densely structured tree. There is a t'l in the embedded VP and a t''k adjoined to the matrix VP.

?[how many pics of himselfi/j]k Johni [VP t''k [VP [CP WH Billj [t'k tk]

The two traces below Bill will give is the Bill reading. But to get John reading, can reconstruct to t''k. But to do this it is *essential* we do intermediate adjunction to VP.

page 8 on the handout.

this sugegcts strongly that intermediate adjunction is in factg the case.

Of course 22b does violate subjacency condition in going from tk' to t''k. IP a BC. CP is l-marked so not BC, but inherits barrierhood from IP. VP we need not worry about because t''k in VP. So get weak subjacency violation.

But, Question. Why could not intermediately adjoin to IP before extracting out of IP and then move to VP. In notes as well.

[VP t'''k [VP V [CP WH [IP t''k [IP Su I [VP t'k [VP ... tk

another possibility is to adjoin to *CP* on the way up:

[VP t'''k [VP V [CP t''k [CP WH [IP Su I [VP t'k [VP ... tk

neither of which would give us a subjacency violation. how so:

[VP t'''k [VP V [CP WH [IP t''k [IP Su I [VP t'k [VP ... tk

tk we need not worry about because only separated by segment of VP.
the IP together is BC, but t''k no problem because within IP.
t''k only dominated by segment of IP. CP is l-marked, and not BC. and CP cannot inherit barrierhood from IP in this case. and VP in total dominates, but t'''k is within VP.

If so, we are in dire straits, because we do want to show that spec, CP being occupied gives us a WH-island violation.

Therefore, we have to *declare* this derivation illigitimate, because of something else. Otherwise don;t understand why violates subjacency.
Similarly for the second derivation.

[VP t'''k [VP V [CP t''k [CP WH [IP Su I [VP t'k [VP ... tk

VP is only a segment.
IP is a BC. CP inherits barrierhood but t''k is inside of the CP.
And childs play that t''k has no division from its antecedent. VP is a segment and VP is only a segment. Must find a way from outside to block this.

Thus, make rules (27) and (28): adjunction of wh-constituents to IP is illegitimate. And adjunction to arguments is illegitimate.

I think that Maryi, Bill really loves ti.

example of topicalization.
Where could Mary be sitting. no space whatsoever except via adjunction to IP. So adjunction to IP exists.
And transformation of adjunction to IP exists.


* Who do you think that kissed Mary

standard reason bad because that-trace effect C in between t' and t

but imagine were allowed to intermediately adjoin on the way out of IP.
t' in other IP governed as *locally* as possible, and from there to t''. Thus antecedent government should work. The other traces will be eliminated at LF.

so another reason intermediate adjunction not allowed for IP extraction.

(27) is simply a blunt stipulation.

But why is it forbidden. We do not really know. And we really don't know. Luckily not just for one case, but for two. But still really bad. (Could also move out * Who do you think that kissed Mary via vacuous movement hypothesis, discussed on page 9. In which case one stone kills one bird)

If 28 *were* a brute stipulation, would be bad. But can be understood in a relatively profound way and is useful elsewhere.

Can be made to follow from theta-criterion/projection principle.
If I went to Starbucks and had ingredients of cappaccino but also whipped cream, cinnamon, etc., then said I did not order this, I order a cappaccino.
If VP ordered a CP complement, and gets back CP plus a bunch of other stuff, will not be happy. Wanted lower CP but got upper CP as well. Now Verb cannot select the lower CP segment anymore. Buried under whipped cream which it did not want.
Thus, adjunction to arguments is illegitimate.

Projection principle requires that theta-marking must engage not only at D-structure, but even at S-structure.

Not only is 28 not a stipulation that cannot be reduced to something understandable, also useful elsewhere in the theory.

* (30) Who did [NP pictures of t] cause a scandal

[CP Whoi C(did) [IP [NP pix [PP of ti]] I'

in Syntax I, subject island violation

NP is not l-marked and thus BC for ti, and thus also barrier for ti.
The IP is BC. Since NP is BC, IP is also a barrier for ti. And also on the movement path. And gives us a *heavy* subjacency violation.

Now, imagine that ti was not the only trace. Suppose allowed to adjoin to NP on the way out of the IP.

[CP Whoi C(did) [IP [NP t'i [NP pix [PP of ti]]] I'

Now, ti has antecedent in t'i. And t' separated from antecedent by IP which is BC but not a barrier. So this should be completely good.
How do we block this derivation.
Can block this via (28) which says that you cannot adjoin to arguments.
So (28) also needed for (30).

And needed also for (29), extracting out of a Noun phrase.

29a:
?? Who did John make [NP the claim [CP that Bill harassed t
=
?? Whoi ... [VP t''' [VP make [NP the claim [CP t''i [that Bill [VP t'i [VP harassed ti

ti-t'i good
t'i-t''i good
but t''i-Whoi would be problematic.
However, t'''i-t''i would make it OK!

since CP l-marked by claim, algorithm would say it is not a barrier.
Chomsky: "the CP in the complement of N is a barrier."
So CP is a barrier but not a BC. Therefore the NP cannot inherit barrierhood from CP, since CP is not a barrier.

29b is worse. here extracting from relative clause. relative clause is not l-marked.

Whoi ... [VP t''' [VP make [NP the claim [CP Opj [that Bill [VP t'i [VP V tj to ti

that Bill had denied the claim to Renquist.
the claim now is being relativized.
ti to t'i and from there to t'''i.
Here, the IP is BC, which gives barrierhood to CP. (The CP is a relative clause, which are NOT complements - they are *adjoined* to N'. That means these are not L-marked and are thus inherent barriers. CP a BC. Thus, NP inherits barrierhood from CP. Very severe violation.

But imagine could adjoin to the CP or to the NP. Would give you just one barrier crossed. Yet this is too bad for that. But NP is complement of V make, so ruled out by 28.

One more thing need rule out. Why cannot adjoin to CP on the way out of the CP? For CP is not an argument, for it is a relative clause.

Must do something to (28), broaden it, so that it covers this as well.

(28) is about banning adjunction to things that receive theta-roles. Relative clauses do not *receive* theta roles, but are standardly assumed to be *predicates* of the noun phrases connected to, and thus they *assign* theta-roles.

"Adjunction to thematically active material is illegitimate."

rationale, the projection principle, will, continue to cover this extension.
If something want to assign theta-role to a subject, ...

Syntax II - Class II

Lasnik and Saito - 84.

in case of arg extraction, need not worry about ECP, because in case of object trace, is theta-governed, or in case of subject trace, already licensed at earlier level.
So ECP must be rethought in more dynamic way in terms of condition on derivations, similar to subjacency. "minimal link condition" Chomsky and Lasnik 93. Marriage of ECP and subjacency - keep chain links minimal. does not refer to S-structure, and does not refer to projection principle. in which case, *those* particular arguments in favor of an S-structure and projection principle are obvioated. As opposed to Lasnik and Saito which is based on it. But Chomsky and Lasnik do not entirely handle everything.

this idea of unify bounding (subjacency) and government (incuding ECP). he tried doing this in monograph "Barriers." Aim of that is to unify these two theories. in standard GB (government and binding), no connection.

Binding involves 3 opacity factors: presence of closer governor (="minimality"), notion of "too much" intervening structure. (which is why PRO in "John tried to leave" not governed, because two maximal projections, Cp and IP.) and finally, non-selectedness = a notion of Barrier, where not same amount of intervening structure, e.g. leave [AP PRO nude] in (10). (perhaps say adjuncts, = "non-selected by theta-role" are opaque.

hetorgenous bunch of opacity factors. when add NP and IP in subjacency, have 5 things that restrict dependecies. sometimes movement dependencies, sometimes government dependencies. could we try and integrate these systems, and can we make it homogenous and relatively simple?

Chomsky wants to say a resounding Yes in Barriers. Comes up with such a systems, under a single algorithm for computation of what Chomsky calls "Barriers."

Page 6 in the handout.
Subjacency: movement musn't traverse *any* barrier.
def of government: a governs b iff (i) and (ii)
i) a c-commands b
ii) no barrier intervenes between a and b.

What is a Barrier?

examples 10a-d on pg 5 in handout. to show how difficult to determine what barrier might be.

10a. can just say AP is barrier because not selected.
but 10b-d different kettle of fish. no barrierhood from non-selectedness. but need PRO to be non-governed. and not because not selected. but can rule out in syntax i via (ii), that one maximal projection is OK, but passing two is not. But we would like to pinpoint one and only one. Could be CP, could be IP, or could be both.

10c. Here have PRO. for howi to govern ti (antecedent govern), IP must not be barrier. but that wll not get us PRO ungoverned. And say that CP is the barrier to take care of PRO.

In 10d, typo. insert word "to" to left of "win".
Want PRO to be ungoverned, ti to be governed, and t'i need to be governed. cannot get rid of intermediate trace since need it to govern ti. IP cannot be a barrier. CP cannot be a barrier because then t'i wont be governed. So either IP or CP must be a barrier (for PRO), but then get one of the two traces in trouble.

Solution. If identify single nodes as Barrier obstructing a specific relationship, must make designation of nodes as barriers relative to the specific relationship we are talking about. "Barrier for a specific dependencies."

In 10d, the CP can be a barrier for a government dependency between "try" and PRO, without at the same time being a barrier for a government dependency between "how" and t'i.

Trick is to build an algorithm to do precisely that.

11 reemphasizes idea of barrier being a relative notion.

in 12, a category a is a barrier for b iff (i) or (ii) or (iii)
(iii) is what most familiar with, from syntax i, - when there is a closer governor. familiar notion of minimality.
(i) if a is a blocking category for b, but a != IP.

but now need to define a "Blocking category". define it in 13. iff a dominates b and is *not* L-marked.

in 14, categrory is L marked - if is theta-governed by lexical category.

i.e. something that is not theta-governed by a lexical category and dominates, it is a blocking category, so long as is not IP. 12(i) called inherent barrierhood. (in a way, this is continuation of non-selectedness, since if not theta-governed, not selected.)

now, (ii) = even if not inherent barrier, can *inherit* barrierhood. inherit not from another barrier, but from a blocking category for b.

alpha is a barrier for beta is PI is blocking category for beta and alpha immediately dominates PI.

It is *possible* for alpha to be a Barrier for beta even though a is L-marked, because it might inherit barrierhood from PI.

blocking categories pe se do not block anything. only barriers block things.

Back to examples. In 10a, want PRO (=b) to be ungoverned.
diagrams. dont have pen. I and V cannot govern big PRO. V does not c-command. perhaps m-commands. but cannot govern. because AP is a Blocking Category from PRO. because not L-marked. since does not get theta-mark. AP != IP. Thus, is inherent Barrier for b. Could not inherit barrierhood for PRO, since it immediately dominates PRO. So have barrier between I and PRO, and between V and PRO. A (nude) cannot govern PRO because does not see outside of its A' - that is, it does not c-command it.

10b. null complementizer.

   /VP  V  /CP   C(0)  /IP    PRO  /I'

The IP is not L-marked, since C is null. so it is a BC for PRO. Cannot declare it a Barrier since it is IP.
Look at CP from outside. is CP a blocking Category? no. because it is L-marked, because teta-governed by V and V is lexical.
However, CP immediately dominated IP, and IP is BC for PRO, so CP is a Barrier.

VP governed by IP, but I does not L-mark VP. Thus VP is blocking category and thus barrier for PRO. but not relevant. since entire relationship happens or fails within VP.

10c. diagram, used diff colors for diff dependencies.

which racej ..... wonder [CP howi C0 [IP PRO ..... tj ti ] ]

so must make sure howi-ti link succeeds, wonder-PRO link fails, ad which racej-tj fails.

PRO: IP not inherent barrier. but CP is a barrier for PRO just as before.
ti: IP is BC for ti. CP is barrier, but all happening within the CP. so CP's barrierhood is irrelevant. just one BC in between, and it is not a barrier.
tj: the movement dependency, where we want subjaceny violation. Once again, CP is a barrier, and this time it matters that CP is a barrier.

10d. was the hard one. where seemed to have no ONE node that was a barrier.

howi ........ try [CP t'i C0 [IP PRO ..... ti ] ]

want try-PRO link to be bad, t'i-ti link to be good, and howi-t'i link to be good.
PRO: PRO separated from try by one barrier, CP, as a result of the IP.
ti: no particular trouble. CP is a barrier but irrelevant because happens inside CP.
hwi-t'i: IP is indeed a BC for PRO, but since it does not dominate t'i, so it is not a BC for t'i. So CP does not become an inherited barrier. and not a BC in and of itself.

Now, let us talk a bit about VP.

howi ........ try [CP t'i C0 [IP PRO I(to) [VP ..... ti ] ] ]

let us compute barriers for ti. VP dominates ti. complement of I, which is not a lexical category, so BC. VP != IP. So Barrier. Now, the IP immediately dominates the BC, so becomes a barrier. So 2 problems!

So the question is: does VP indeed dominate ti?
a dominates b only if every segment of a dominates b. so since the

 /VP/VP\  ti

lower VP does NOT dominate ti. thus the VP in general does NOT domainte ti. Therefore cannot be a BC, and thus cannot be a barrier for ti. and as a result, IP cannot inherit barrierhood for ti.

let us imagine that is was not how - which made it an adjunct, and thus do not have these 2 VP structure. What if made it *what* rather than *how*, in which case have single segment VP.

If so, then is ti dominated by VP? This time, YES!
So how do we avoid it?
Some things born on edge of VP but (like adjuncts), but others can MOVE into the edge of VP. In fact, any and all poss not theta-positions you can move into.
what about this VP adjoined position? Have evidence that can adjoin to VP. Overt evidence in sentences such as "John put on the shelf [the book he had bought at a flea-market.]"
must be result of movinng [the book he had bought at a flea-market] to the right of "on the shelf". for starts at [spec, PP] of on, and then move it to right of the PP, by adjoining to VP. (called HNPS - heavy NP shift)

next week, put forth further evidence for successive cyclic movement out of VP via adjunction to VP. next week, successive cucicity - and the thing after it.