Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
(161) CP
C
TP
that PRN
he
T
T
AUXP
has PRN
AUX
200
he
AUX
vP
has
PRN
he
left+
left
(162) CP
C
TP
PRN
he
VP
would
TP
seem PRN T
he
AUXP
to PRN
he
AUX
AUX
VP
201
have PRN
v
he v
V
left+
left
Chomsky
concludes
that
the
agreement features of T must originate on C
and subsequently be inherited by the T
constituent immediately beneath C. Further
evidence that agreement features originate
on C:
a)I would like very much [for him to win the
race].
b)I would like very much [PRO to win the
race].
In (a) the locus of case assignment is the
complementiser for introducing the clause.
This is clear from the fact that for requires
the subject of the TP to be assigned
accusative case (= him).
202
(163) CP
C
for
TP
T
vP
203
to
PRN
him
DP
win
the race
TP
for
PRN
him
T
to
T
vP
PRN
him
v
win
DP
the race
(165) CP
204
TP
PRN
PRO
T
T
vP
to PRN
PRO
v
v
DP
win
the race
TP
DP
the witness
T
to
AUXP
DP
AUX
the witness
AUX
have
V
lied
205
vP
DP
The DA
v
v
VP
prove+
DP
V
TP
207
(167)
(167)CP
C
TP
DP
The DA T
vP
will DP
the DA v
VP
prove+ DP
conclusively V
TP
208
prove
witness to
the
have
lied
This analysis (167)
following phenomena:
accounts
for
the
209
(168)
vP
DP
TheDA
prove+
VP
DP
V
210
V
V
TP
prove the
defenda
nt
to
have
committ
ed
the
murder
Here, prove will agree with, case mark and
attract the infinitive subject (= the
defendant) from spec-TP of the infinitive
complement clause to spec-VP of the main
clause (object raising). Accusative case is
assigned to the infinitive subject because
the light vP, being transitive, has a thematic
external argument (= the DA) in spec- light
vP.
But in the intransitive passive structure
(b) there is no external argument in speclight vP (there is no specifier). So, accusative
case is not assigned to the infinitive subject:
211
(169)
vP
VP
prove+
DP
conclusively
V
prove
TP
defendant to
the
hav
e
committ
ed
the
murder
Here, it is the matrix T (main clause T) (not
shown)
which agrees with, assigns
nominative case to, and attracts the
infinitive subject to spec-TP (The defendant
has been proved conclusively to have
committed the murder.)
Whether or not accusative case should
be assigned cannot depend on the VPs
because they have identical structure in
both (a) and (b) (P-markers (168) and (169)
above). So, whether or not the verb V agrees
212
(170)(1)
vP
DP
The DA v
VP
DP
the DA V
V
TP
214
vP
PRN
They
VP
rolled + DP
the ball
V
V
PP
rolled
down
the hill
Moreover, UG prevents a transitive light verb
in an ECM structure (170)(1) from marking
any constituent in the c-command domain of
a lexical V. The lexical V itself is a case
assigner, and one case assigner cannot
case-mark a constituent within the domain
of another case-assigner. So, the light verb
cannot case-mark the DP the witness in (1)
because the latter falls within the domain of
(and so follows) the lexical V prove.
215
217
(172)CP
C
TP
DP
The DA T
vP
has DP
the DA v
VP
prove+ DP
V
TP
prove DP T
the def. T
AUXP
to DP
the
AUX
def.AUX
VP
have DP
V
218
the
def.
DP
com
mit/themurder
TOPIC XX
INDEPENDENT PROBES
XX.1 Independent Probes
So far derivations were assumed to
proceed in a cyclic, bottom up fashion. In
consequence of the Earliness principle
(operations must apply as early as possible
in a derivation), T operations applied before
C operations.
219
vP
DP
cause+
VP
V
QP
222
cause
scandal
Here, cause raises to attach to the light
verb and the QP a scandal is assigned
accusative case by the V, which inherits
case/agreement features from the light v.
Further on, the light vP (173) merges
with the present tense T-auxiliary have
which agrees with, case-marks, and triggers
movement of, the DP the driver of which
car to spec-T: see (174) below. It also
determines that cause is spelled out as
caused.
(174) CP
C
TP
DP
vP
caused a scandal
triggering
movement
of
a
maximal
projection containing a wh-word to spec-C:
(175)
CP
PP
Of which car C
has
TP
DP
caused a
scandal
However, the resulting sentence (a) is
ungrammatical, because movement of the
PP of which car from spec-TP to spec-CP
violates the Invisibility Condition (the
specifier of a complete, non-defective TP is
invisible to any higher probe). Since the DP
the driver of which car is the specifier of a
non-defective TP headed by T-has, the
224
VP
arrest +
V
arrest
DP
the driver of which car
TP
DP
T
T
vP
225
was
VP
arrested V
DP
arrest
the
driver of
which
car
Since this is a main clause (non-echoic)
question, C carries a tense feature triggering
movement of was from T to C. C carries
also an edge feature triggering movement of
a wh-expression to spec-C. So, C attracts the
PP of which car to move to spec-C:
(178)
CP
PP
Of which car C
was
TP
DP
T
vP
226
was
arrested
However, subextraction of the PP of
which car is blocked by the Invisibility
Condition (the specifier of a complete TP is
invisible
to
any
higher
probe).
Consequently, the sentence is wrongly
predicted to be ungrammatical. So, what has
gone wrong here?
According to Chomsky, the answer lies in
the traditional bottom-up assumption that
operations involving lower (subordinate)
probes must necessarily apply before
operations involving higher (superordinate)
probes. Chomsky argues that different heads
can probe in a random fashion either one
before another, or simultaneously, in
parallel.
Lets see how the parallel probes
assumption helps us to account for the
contrast between (a) and (b) above.
First, the derivation of (b):
(179) CP
227
TP
vP
BE
VP
arrest+
arrest
DP
the driver of
which car
Consider what happens if T and C probe
simultaneously:
(180) CP
PP
Of which car C
be+
TP
DP
the driver T
vP
of which car be v
VP
arrest+ V
DP
arrest
the
driver
228
of which
car
edge
and
tense
features)
simultaneously attracts a copy of the PP of
which car to move to spec-C, and be to
move from T to C.
In (180) above the movement of the DP
the driver of which car from complement
position after arrest to specifier position of
T is A-Movement, while the outer arrow
showing the movement of the PP of which
car to spec-CP is an instance of A-bar
movement. There is no violation of the
Invisibility Condition because the PP of
which car is being extracted out of a DP
which is a complement of the verb arrest
(not out of a specifier of a non-defective TP
as in (178) above).
229
derivation
of
the
TP
T
has
vP
DP
QP
230
cause
scandal
We start with the light vP (173) above. Then
this light vP is merged with the T-auxiliary
have to form a TP which is in turn merged
with an interrogative C constituent to form
the CP (181). Given Chomskys assumption
that C and T can probe simultaneously, T
agrees with, and case-marks the DP the
driver of which car, and attracts a copy of it
to move to spec-T. In addition to this, C
simultaneously attracts a copy of the PP of
which car to move to spec-C. Also C attracts
a copy of have to move to C:
(182)
PP
CP
C
Of which car C
TP
231
has
DP
the driver T
vP
v
caused
a
scandal
of which car
Since have and cause are spelled out as
has and caused in the PF component, and
since only the highest copy of each
constituent is overtly spelled out, the
resulting structure will ultimately be spelled
out as *Of which car has the driver caused a
scandal? (182), which is ungrammatical.
Why should this be?
The answer is that subextraction of the
PP of which car out of the DP the driver of
which car violates the Specifier Condition
(this condition bars subextraction out of the
specifier of a phase). Since the light vP in
(182) is a phase (by virtue of the light verb
having a thematic external argument (= the
driver of which car)), and since the driver
of which car is the specifier of the transitive
232
233
(183) CP
C
TP
T
vP
have PRN
what
v
PRN
they
v
v
do+
VP
V
DO
PRN
WHAT
C
C
TP
T
vP
236
have PRN
what
they
PRN
VP
done
PRN
DONE WHAT
What C
PRN
they
T
vP
have PRN
what PRN
they v
done
VP
V
PRN
DONE WHAT
Subsequently,
auxiliary
inversion
together with deletion of all but the highest
copies will derive Phrase-Marker (186)
below, corresponding to the sentence: What
have they done?
(186) CP
PRN
C
238
What
TP
have PRN
they T
have
Vp
PRN
what
PRN
they
v
v
done
VP
V
PRN
DONE WHAT
Thus only if
C probes before T in an
object question like the above will the
derivation yield a successful outcome (will
the derivation converge).
Since C and T sometimes probe
simultaneously and sometimes sequentially,
Chomsky concludes that all options are
open, so that C and T probe in either order,
or simultaneously, with only certain choices
converging (i.e. resulting in a well-formed
sentence). More simply, sometimes C probes
before T, sometimes T probes before C, and
sometimes the two probe at the same time.
239
TP
T
Af
vP
v
VP
V
die
PRN
who
240
CP
PRN
Who
C
C
TP
PRN
who
T
T
Af
vP
v
VP
die+
V
die
PRN
who
241
CP
PRN
Who
C
C
TP
PRN
T
242
who T
Af
vP
PRN
who
v
kill+ V
VP
DP
kill the
president
Here, kill merges with the president to
form the VP kill the president. This VP is
then merged with a null light verb (which
attracts the verb kill) to form a light v-bar,
which is itself merged with the PRN who to
form a light vP. This light vP is then merged
with a T-constituent containing a past tense
affix [Af], so forming a TP. The resulting TP is
merged with an interrogative C, forming a
CP. The agreement features on T probe and
pick out who as their goal. T is marked now
as [3P Sg]. The movement features of the
two heads (C and T) then probe
simultaneously (in parallel), each attracting
a copy of who to move into its own
specifier position. More precisely, the edge
and tense features on C, and the EPP feature
on T probe simultaneously each attracting a
243
phase-
APPENDIX I.
A
BRIEF
SUMMARY
OF
PRINCIPLES,
PARAMETERS,
OPERATIONS, HYPOTHESES,
AND KEY NOTIONS
TOPIC I
1.
Competence. The native speakers
tacit knowledge of his grammar.
2.
Performance. What people actually
say or understand on a given occasion.
3.
I-language. A cognitive system
internalised within the brain/mind of the
native speaker.
4.
The Innateness Hypothesis. The
claim that language acquisition is
determined by an innate language
faculty.
5.
The
Locality
Principle.
Grammatical operations are local.
245
6.
The Null Subject Parameter. In
some languages finite verbs can have
either overt or covert (null, pro) subjects,
while in other languages finite verbs may
have only overt subjects. The former
languages are known as null subject, and
the latter, as non-null subject languages
(like English).
7.
The Wh-Parameter. A word order
parameter which determines whether
wh-expressions are fronted or not.
8.
The Head Position Parameter. A
word order parameter which determines
the relative position of heads with
respect to their complements.
TOPIC II
1.
The Headedness Principle. Every
non-terminal node in a syntactic
structure is a projection of a head word.
2.
The Binarity Principle. Every nonterminal node in a syntactic structure is
binary-branching.
3.
The
Extended
Projection
Principle
(EPP).
English
tense
auxiliaries carry an EPP feature which
246
Constraint.
The
have) must be
247
1.
External Merge. An operation which
involves taking an item out of the lexical
array and merging it with some other
constituent.
2.
Internal
Merge.
A
movement
operation by which an item contained
within an already existing structure is
moved to a new position within the same
structure.
3.
Adjunction. An operation by which
one head is adjoined to another.
4.
Chomskys
Copy
Theory
of
Movement. A moved constituent leaves
behind a full copy of itself and not just a
pronominal copy t (= trace) (as in the
earlier theory).
5.
The Interrogative Condition. A
clause is interpreted as a (non-echoic)
question if (and only if) it is a CP with an
interrogative specifier (i.e. a specifier
containing an interrogative word).
6.
Movement
Chain.
A
set
of
constituents comprising an expression
and any full copies of itself.
7.
The Chain Uniformity Condition.
A chain is uniform with regard to phrase
structure status.
250
8.
The Attract Smallest Condition. A
head which attracts a particular type of
item attracts the smallest constituent
containing such an item which will not
lead to violation of some UG principle.
9.
The
Economy
Condition.
Derivations and representations are
required to be minimal with no
superfluous steps in derivations and no
superfluous symbols in representations.
10.The Left Branch Condition. In
languages like English, the leftmost
constituent of a nominal expression cannot
be extracted out of the expression
containing it.
TOPIC VII
1.
A-Movement. An operation whereby
an argument is moved to an A position.
2.
A-position. A position that can be
occupied only by arguments.
3.
The
VP-internal
Subject
Hypothesis. This is the claim that
subjects originate internally within VP
and from there move to spec-T.
251
4.
The
Theta-Criterion.
Each
argument bears one and only one theta
role, and each theta role is assigned to
one and only one argument.
5.
The Predicate Internal Theta
Marking Hypothesis. An argument is
theta marked (i.e. assigned a theta-role)
via merger with a predicate.
TOPIC VIII
1.
The Constraint on Extraction
Domain.
Only complements
allow
material to be extracted out of them, not
specifiers or adjuncts.
2.
Passivisation. A particular instance
of A-Movement which serves to create
structural subjects by moving arguments
to spec-T in order to satisfy the EPP
feature on T. Usually, an argument is
moved from being the thematic object of
a verb to becoming the structural subject
of BE. Passivisation can move not only
complements but also subjects.
3.
The Uniform Theta-Assignment
Hypothesis (UTAH). Constituents which
fulfil the same thematic role with respect
252
---
--254
TOPIC XII
1.
Accusative Case Assignment. An
unvalued case feature on a goal is
valued as accusative via agreement with
a transitive probe.
2.
Null
Case
Assignment.
An
unvalued case feature on a pronoun goal
is valued as null via agreement with a Tprobe carrying null (non-finite) tense.
TOPIC XIII
1.
The Split CP Hypothesis. The
analysis splitting CP into a number of
different projections.
2.
A-bar Movement. An operation
whereby
a
moved
constituent
is
attracted into an A-bar specifier position
(i.e. the kind of specifier position which
can be occupied by arguments and
adjuncts alike).
TOPIC XIV
1.
VP-shell
Analysis
(Split
VP
Analysis). The analysis which splits VP
into two projections an outer vP shell
and an inner VP core.
255
TOPIC XV
1.
The Merger Condition. Where V
has a clausal internal argument and
some other type of internal argument,
the clausal argument is the first to be
merged with V; where V has a
(pro)nominal internal argument and
some other type(s) of internal argument,
the (pro)nominal argument is the last
one merged with V.
TOPIC XVI
1.
The Expletive External Argument
Condition. An expletive can be merged
only as the last / highest argument of a
light verb with no external argument (i.e.
in spec-v).
TOPIC XVII
1.
The
Phase
Impenetrability
Condition. The c-command domain of a
phase head is impenetrable to any
external probe (i.e. a goal which is ccommanded by the head of a phase is
impenetrable
to
any
probe
ccommanding the phase). This condition
256
258
1.
The Invisibility Condition. The
specifier of a complete (non-defective)
TP is invisible to any higher probe.
2.
The
Specifier
Condition.
No
subextraction is possible out of a
constituent which is a specifier of a
phase head.
3.
The Visibility Condition. Only the
highest copy in a movement chain is
visible in the syntax (other copies being
inert).
4.
The Intervention Condition. A
probe cannot target a goal if there is
some other visible goal of the same kind
intervening between the two, and if the
intervening goal is inactive for the probe.
The End
APPENDIX II.
A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE PHRASEMARKERS
259
of
the
261
262
265
266
RAISING.
NEGATION.
DO-
V. 1. Auxiliary Raising
(41) She is not is suitable CP: This is
the CP of She is not suitable. Is moves
into the head T position of TP.
(42) She is not is enjoying syntax
CP:This is the CP of She is not enjoying
syntax. Is originates as the head AUX of
AUXP and moves up to T.
(43) She has not has done it CP: This
is the CP of She has not done it. Have
moves from AUX of AUXP into T of TP.
(44) You need not need do that CP:
This is the CP of You need not do that.
Need originates as the head AUX of AUXP
and raises into T.
268
V.2. Negation
(45) * I Af not NEG care for her CP:
This is the CP of *I care not for her. There is
no way of lowering Af onto the verb. Direct
lowering violates the Head Movement
constraint.
Successive
Cyclic
lowering
violates the Strict Cyclicity principle.
(46) *I Af not NEG careAf for her TP:
Direct lowering of Af.
(47) *I Af not NEGAf careAf for her
TP: Successive Cyclic lowering of Af.
V. 3. Do-support
(48) I do not NEG care for her CP:
This is the CP of I do not care for her. A
stranded tense affix is spelled out as an
appropriately inflected form of do.
(49) He Af win the race CP: This is the
CP of He won the race.
(50) Af+ Did he Af win the race? CP:
Do-support. The interrogative C contains a
strong null affix with a tense feature which
attracts the tense affix in T to adjoin to C.
269
271
AND
ARGUMENT
VII.1 A-Movement
(65) Should some students get
The
verb
is
first-merged
with
the
complement and second-merged with its
subject.
VIII.
UNACCUSATIVE
PREDICATES
AND
RAISING
Raising
and
Control
284
and
Agreement
in
Control
Person
Agreement
in
289
moves from the spec-V position to specFocP, being attracted by the [EF] on Foc. The
subject he moves from spec-V into spec-TP
(VP-Internal
Subject
Hypothesis).
The
auxiliary would is attracted into Foc by the
[Tns] on Foc. The complementiser that
occupies the head position of ForceP.
(107) in which that kind of behaviour
we cannot tolerate [that kind of
behaviour][in which] ForceP: This is the
ForceP of the relative clause in A university
is the kind of place [in which that kind of
behaviour we cannot tolerate]. The TP of
the bracketed relative clause is represented
as: We cannot tolerate [that kind of
behaviour][in which]. The PP in which is
moved to spec-Force (via Wh-Movement).
The topic that kind of behaviour moves into
spec-TopP (the head Top of TopP carries an
edge feature).
(108) which only very rarely will
students will enjoy [which][only very
rarely] ForceP: This is the ForceP
projection of the bracketed relative clause
in Syntax is the kind of subject [which only
291
very rarely will students enjoy]. The whexpression moves to spec-Force (via whmovement). The focused expression only
very rarely moves to spec-Foc, attracted by
the [EF] on Foc. The auxiliary will is
attracted into Foc by the [Tns] feature on
Foc.
(109) No other colleague would he
would he turn to no other colleague
ForceP: A main clause headed by Force.
The derivation is along the same lines as
that of (105), only Force here is (not
that). The DP no other colleague is
focused by being attracted to spec-FocP by
the [EF] on Foc. Foc also attracts would
from T by its [Tns] feature. The subject he
is generated in spec-VP and goes to spec-TP
(the VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis).
XIII.2 Aspect and Tense projections
(110) She may not NEG she be she
telling the truth CP: This is the CP of
She may not be telling the truth. The
aspectual auxiliaries be / have are
positioned below T and in negative clauses
they are positioned below not. The subject
292
TRANSITIVE
ERGATIVE
294
VP:
OTHER
TRANSITIVE
verbs
interpretable
past
tense
uninterpretable
-features,
uninterpretable EPP feature.
feature,
and
an
Condition). The QP a
generated in spec-VP.
loud
scream
is
302
XVII.1. Phases
(144) Ruritania withdraw+ troops
withdraw from Utopia vP: This is the
vP of Will Ruritania withdraw troops from
Utopia. A VP is generated in which the PP
from Utopia is the complement of
withdraw and troops is its specifier. This
VP is merged with a v forming a v whose
specifier is the external AGENT argument
the DP Ruritania. The v (being affixal in
nature) triggers movement of withdraw
from V to v.
(145) Will Ruritania withdraw+
TROOPS FROM UTOPIA - T:This is the
T of Will Ruritania withdraw troops from
Utopia? A transitive vP is a phase the
complement of its head will undergo
transfer, i.e. the VP. After the transfer the VP
ceases to be accessible to further syntactic
operations. (the transferred VP is written in
strikethrough CAPITALS, and so are the
transferred complements of all phaseheads). T-will Is merged with the vP,
forming a T-bar.
304
Ruritania
withdraw+ TROOPS FROM UTOPIACP:This is the CP of Will Ruritania withdraw
troops from Utopia? Only the DP Ruritania
is accessible to the probe will (the DP is
active by virtue of its uninterpretable case
feature). T-will has an EPP feature
attracting the DP Ruritania from spec-v to
spec-T. Spec-C contains a particle (null
counterpart of whether). C also has a tense
feature which attracts will from T to C
heading the CP. The CP is a phase.
Therefore, the TP being the complement of C
(or the domain of the CP) will undergo
transfer.
XVII.2. Intransitive and Defective Clauses
305
FEATURES
AND
310
agreement
features.
The
complementiser
hands
over
its
uninterpretable
case
and
agreement
features to the head T of its TP complement.
The infinitival T-to probe agrees with, and
assigns accusative case to the subject him
of vP, and attracts him to raise to spec-T.
(165) PRO to PRO win the race CP:
This is the CP of the bracketed Control
clause in I would like very much [PRO to win
the race]. Likewise, the null complementiser
hands over its features to T.
(Z) the witness to the witness have lied
TP: This is the TP of the bracketed ECM
clause in The DA will prove [the witness
conclusively to have lied]. Here, a transitive
v hands over its features to V. The subject
of the infinitive (= the witness) is in specTP.
(166) The DA prove+ the witness
conclusively prove the witness to have
lied vP: This is the vP of the main clause
in The DA will prove conclusively the
witness to have lied. From spec-TP the
312
conclusively
prove
the
defendant to have committed the
murder vP: This is the main clause vP of
The
defendant
has
been
proved
conclusively to have committed the murder.
This vP is intransitive (there is no external
argument in spec-vP, i.e. no specifier). So,
accusative case is not assigned to the DP
the defendant. Here, it is the main clause T
which agrees with, assigns nominative case
to, and attracts the defendant. (The
defendant has been proved conclusively to
have committed the murder).
(170) The DA the DA prove the
witness to have lied vP: This is the main
clause vP of The DA proved the witness to
have lied. The VP is formed by merging
prove first with the TP the witness to have
lied, and second with the DP the DA (the
TP is a complement and the DP is a
specifier). The v hands over its case and
agreement features to V in transitive ECM
315
321
The End
324