Introduction to syntax · 8/55 LOT Summer School, Introduction to syntax 2 Utrecht 2008 to show...

LOT Summer School, Introduction to syntax 2 Utrecht 2008

LOT Summer School 2008

Introduction to syntax

Utrecht, June 30 - July 4

Jan-Wouter ZwartUniversity of Groningen

www.let.rug.nl/[email protected]

2/55


LOT Summer School 2008

Introduction to syntax

Day Two

Syntactic phenomena as a function of Merge1, structure and constituency

July 1, 2008

3/55


RECAP

!!!! syntax = the total of operations establishing relationsamong members of the resource such that these relations are interpretable at the sound/meaning interfaces

!!!! unavoidable: a process of merger (Merge) combining elements from theresource

!!!! question: does what we know about syntax fall out from Merge ?

!!!! the old question of ‘explanatory adequacy’

» are the facts inevitable ? (ideally, yes)

4/55


Areas to consider

A. Structure and constituency 5-28

B. Hierarchical organization 29-55

C. Dependency relations (agreement, case, pronoun interpretation)

D. Locality

How much falls out from the simple operation Merge?

Cf. Epstein et al., 1998, The Derivational Approach to Syntactic Relations. Oxford UniversityPress. (DASR)

5/55


A. Structure and constituency

a) establishing structure 6-12

b) describing structure 13-20

c) deriving structure 21-28

6/55



Establishing structure

(1) John kissed Mary (2) the new students of linguistics

[ john [ kissed mary ] ] [ the [ new [ students [ of linguistics ] ] ] ]

!!!! constituency tests: each sequence between brackets [ ] must behave as a unit

!!!! 4 tests: » isolation» replacement» displacement (movement)» coordination

7/55


to show that [ kissed Mary ] in (1) is a constituent

!!!! isolation

What did John do ? Kiss Mary NB, past tense is apparently not part ofthe constituent

!!!! replacement

John kissed Mary and Bill did too

!!!! displacement

(John said he would kiss Mary and) kiss Mary he did

!!!! coordination

John kissed Mary and left NB, John has scope over both VPs

8/55


to show that [ students of linguistics ] in (2) is a constituent

!!!! replacement

John met the new ones

!!!! coordination

the new students of linguistics and professors of philosophy met

NB, new has scope over both NPs

[ new students of linguistics ] is also a constituent

!!!! coordination

the new students of linguistics and old professors of philosophy met

NB, the has scope over both NPs

9/55


Structure based on the tests

John the

(tense) kissed Mary new

students

of linguistics

!!!! is it always binary branching ?

10/55


Ternary branching ?

(3) .. dat Jan Marie [een boek] gafthat John Mary a book gave

!!!! displacement

een boek geven doet Jan Marie nieta book give does John Mary not Marie

een boek gaf

(4) John and Mary

!!!! isolation

and Mary (cf. *John and) John

and Mary

11/55


Are all languages configurational ?

!!!! configurational: showing constituent structure

!!!! problems:

» discontinuous constituents» free word order» polysynthesis (grammatical functions expressed by inflection on V)» (accidental) failure to apply certain constituency tests

!!!! additional tests often do reveal asymmetric structure

» dependency subject to configurational relations (c-command)

John loves himself (*Himself loves John) bindingNoone did anything (*Anyone did nothing) polarity licensing

12/55


Conclusion

!!!! strong hypothesis: clauses are invariably structured like this

!!!! each terminal nodemay have a similarstructure (recursion)

13/55



Describing structure

!!!! constituents!!!!

!!!! sisters

!!!! dominance !!!! !!!!

» immediate dominance!!!! !!!!

!!!! c-command

14/55




!!!! sisters

!!!! dominance !!!! !!!!


!!!! c-commandNB, the other nodes are also constituents,but trivially so

15/55




!!!! sisters

!!!! dominance !!!! !!!!


!!!! c-command

16/55




!!!! sisters

!!!! dominance !!!! !!!!


!!!! c-command

17/55




!!!! sisters

!!!! dominance !!!! !!!!


!!!! c-command

18/55




!!!! sisters

!!!! dominance !!!! !!!!


!!!! c-command

= sisterhood + dominance

19/55


Labeling structure

!!!! XP

!!!! head (X0)(adjunct) !!!! XP

!!!! specifier

!!!! complement !!!! !!!! X’specifier

!!!! maximal projection (XP)!!!! !!!! complement

!!!! (intermediate projection) (X’) X0

» is all this structure always there? We return to this.

20/55


Be aware

!!!! a tree structure is just a notation: it is not real

!!!! what is real?

» constituency» the relations among constituents

!!!! other notations are possible, and perhaps helpful

» set theoretical notation (sets, ordered pairs)» mereological representation (part-whole relations)

!!!! minimalism: no rule should refer to properties of the notation

21/55



Deriving structure

!!!! constituent

!!!! structure

!!!! sister

!!!! immediate dominance

!!!! dominance

!!!! c-command

22/55


Deriving structure

!!!! constituent

» """" is a constituent if """" is the product of Merge

!!!! structure

!!!! sister


!!!! dominance

!!!! c-command

23/55


Deriving structure

!!!! constituent

!!!! structure

» a structure is the product of Merge applied to the output of Merge(i.e. a function of recursive Merge)

!!!! sister


!!!! dominance

!!!! c-command

24/55


Deriving structure

!!!! constituent

!!!! structure

!!!! sister

» """" is a sister of $$$$ if """" and $$$$ are merged


!!!! dominance

!!!! c-command

25/55


Deriving structure

!!!! constituent

!!!! structure

!!!! sister


» """" immediately dominates $$$$ if """" is the product of Merge involving $$$$

!!!! dominance

!!!! c-command

26/55


Deriving structure

!!!! constituent

!!!! structure

!!!! sister


!!!! dominance

» """" dominates $$$$ if """" is the product of Merge involving (a term of) $$$$

!!!! c-command term = """" is a term of $$$$ if there is a stage **** in a derivation)))) such that $$$$ is the output of **** and """" is the outputof a stage in )))) prior to ****

27/55


Deriving structure

!!!! constituent

!!!! structure

!!!! sister


!!!! dominance

!!!! c-command

» """" c-commands $$$$ if """" is merged with (an element dominating) $$$$

28/55


Deriving binary branching

!!!! Merge requires minimally two elements

!!!! not excluded:C

» bizarre (unattested?) structures

Resource = { """", $$$$, (((( } 1. Merge """", $$$$ yielding A A B2. Merge """", (((( yielding B3. Merge ((((, A yielding C4. etc """" $$$$ ((((

!!!! Extension Condition

» always merge on top

(hard to derive in a principled way; we return to this)

29/55


B. Hierarchical organization

(1) John kissed Mary (2) Who kissed Mary ?

(3) Who did John kiss ?

GF: subjectargument: agent

GF: objectargument: patient

GF = grammatical function GF: subject/objectargument: agent/patientfunction: interrogative operator

!!!! how do we know these functions exist ?!!!! how do they relate to structure ?

30/55



a. arguments/grammatical functions: definitions 31-37

b. arguments/grammatical functions: relation to structure 38-51

c. operators 52-55

Terminology

argument/GF = Aoperator = A’ (A-bar)

31/55



Definitions: arguments

!!!! argument

» an element required by the lexical specification of a verb

» actually, a noun phrase (DP), i.e. an element that refers to an entity

» an argument is said to carry a thematic role (hhhh-role)

!!!! types of arguments (loosely defined)

» internal argument: less responsible for the event referred to by V(thematic roles: patient, theme, experiencer)

» external argument: more responsible for the event referred to by V(thematic roles: agent, causer)

32/55


Types of verbs based on presence of arguments

TOKEN PRESENCE OF ARGUMENTS TYPE

EXTERNAL INTERNAL

kill UUUU UUUU transitive

die - UUUU intransitive:unaccusative

dance UUUU - intransitive:unergative

give UUUU UUUUUUUU ditransitive

happen to - UUUUUUUU ‘di-unaccusative’

33/55


Digression:distinguishing the two types on intransitives

Key reference: Levin & Rapaport-Hovav 1995, Unaccusativity, MIT Press.

!!!! tests:

#### unergatives take resultative complements

(1) He worked his fingers to the bone*He died his children rich

#### unaccusatives form the perfect with be, unergatives with have

(2) Hij is/*heeft gestorven vs. Hij heeft/*is gedanst (Dutch)

he AUX die:PART he AUX dance:PART

#### participle of unaccusative can be used as an attributive adjective

(3) De gestorven / *gedanste man The died/danced man (Dutch)

34/55



Definitions: grammatical functions

!!!! subject

#### hard to make the intuition (‘foundation of the clause’) explicit

#### subject identification tests:

» the subject vanishes in controlled infinitivals

(1) a. John kissed Maryb. It is easy -- to kiss Mary

» trigger of verb agreement» target of promotion in passive construction» leftmost argument in unmarked constituent order» unmarked element (case, dependency marking)

35/55


!!!! object

#### any argument that is not a subject

!!!! subject/object are arguments (noun phrases)

36/55


The need to distinguish arguments and grammatical functions

EXT = subject John kissed Mary

INT = subject Mary was kissed (by John) passive

INT = object John kissed Mary

EXT = object Bill saw John/him kiss Mary AcI (ECM)

AcI: accusative cum infinitiveECM: exceptional casemarking

37/55


Argument positions vs. GF-positions

!!!! Hypothesis:

» argument positions and GF-positions are (completely ?) separate

» there must be a process (movement) linking argument positions andGF-positions

!!!! Classical GB conditions GB = Government & Binding theory

Chomsky 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding

» Every GF has an argument role (theta criterion)

» Every argument realizes a GF (Case Filter)

#### No longer considered as primitives in Minimalism

38/55



Arguments/GFs: relation to structure

!!!! key difference:

» argument positions are a function of lexical information (of the verb)

» GF-positions are not

!!!! structure:

GFs

T

arguments

V

39/55


Argument positions ~ merge

!!!! hypotheses: » x is an internal argument of y (y = V)iff x is merged with y

» x is an external argument of y (y = V)if x is merged with a projection of y (to be revised)

!!!! consequence: unergative intransitives must have a covert internal argument

V ////dance conflation

Hale & Keyser, 1993, On argument structure and thelexical expression of syntactic relations. In The viewfrom Building 20, MIT Press.

40/55


Complication: ditransitives

(1) ... give Mary a book

!!!! decomposition: give = cause to have

(2) ... CAUSE Mary HAVE a book

!!!! if so, the external argument is an argument of CAUSE (= v or ‘little v’)

!!!! structure:EXT

v

INT

V INT

41/55


The external argument

!!!! transitive verbs generally have an element of causation/agentivity

!!!! revision of hypothesis:

» x is an external argument of y (y = v)if x is merged with a projection of y

!!!! x is an (external/internal) argument because it is merged in a particular position

42/55


What is outside VP/vP ?

!!!! tense

» verb-argument relations remain constant when Tense changes

(1) John kisses/kissed Mary

» constituency tests show VP is a constituent without Tense

(2) Kiss Mary he did (*Kissed Mary he)

» verb-argument structure can be used without Tense

(3) John’s kissing Mary was a mistake

!!!! the subject

43/55


Finiteness

!!!! arises when a subject is merged with a tensed event

» no subject, no finite clause (to kiss/*kisses Mary)

» no tense, no subject ((*John) to kiss Mary)

!!!! components: tense, agreement

!!!! realized as verbal inflection, determined by features of the subject

De jongens kus-t-en Marie (Dutch)

the boys3PL kiss-PAST-3PL Mary

44/55


Subject ~ Merge

!!!! hypothesis:

» x is the subject of a clause y if x is (a noun phrase) merged with the projection of T of y

!!!! ‘structural subject position’ = specifier of TP

TP

subject

T vP

45/55


Consequences

!!!! subject need not be adjacent to V

(1) John probably kissed Mary

(2) ..dat Jan Marie kust (Dutch, embedded clause)

that John Mary kisses

!!!! argument status feeds GF-status

» VP-internal subject hypothesis: a subject is a raised argument

46/55


What about the object ?

!!!! observation: objects may be nonadjacent to V as well:

(1) ..dat Jan Marie waarschijnlijk kust (Dutch, embedded clause)

that John Mary probably kisses

!!!! two approaches:

#### split structure: special GF-positions for subjects and objects outside vP

#### squeezed structure: GF-position for objects is a specifier of vP

» requires multiple specifiers

47/55


Objects: split structure

subject

AgrST

object

AgrOvP

!!!! AgrS = subject agreement headAgrO = object agreement headT = tense head

48/55


Object agreement

(1) Juma a-li-ki-soma ki-tabu (Swahili)

Juma:1 AGRS1-PAST-AGRO7 7-book

!!!! Mirror effect

» morphology: [ AgrS [ T [ AgrO [ V ]]]]

» morpheme closest to stemcorresponds to functional head closest to VP

Key reference: M. Baker in Linguistic Inquiry 1985.

49/55


Objects: squeezed structureTP

subject

tense vP

object vP

EXT

v VP

50/55


Conclusion

!!!! argument positions and GF-positions defined in terms of Merge

» argument positions: merge with V/v

» GF-positions: merge with T (subject)

!!!! argument roles feed GF-roles

» we need a movement process raising arguments to GF-positions

» call this A-movement

!!!! movement is ‘ up’

» argument role defined first, GF later in the derivation

51/55


Movement as a form of Merge

!!!! ‘ internal’ Merge

» 1 element is the entire structure built so far (the Extension Condition)

» 1 element is a term of the structure built so far

!!!! example: passiveNB, was is taken to be in T

was [VP kissed Mary ]

[TP Mary was [VP kissed Mary ] ]

!!!! what remains in the argument position is a ‘copy’ or a ‘trace’ of Mary

52/55



Operators

!!!! we now enter the A’-domain

(1) Who kissed Mary ? (2) Who did John kiss ?

!!!! paraphrase:

(1)’ for which x | x kissed Mary (2)’ for which x | John kissed x

!!!! the operator position is clearly distinct fromboth argument positions and GF-positions

53/55


The operator position

!!!! specifier to C (= complementizer position)

(1) ik denk [CP dat [TP Jan Marie gekust heeft ] ] (Dutch)

I think that John Mary kissed has

(2) ik vraag [CP of [TP Jan Marie gekust heeft ] ]I ask if John Mary kissed has

(3) ik vraag [CP wie of [TP Jan Marie gekust heeft ] ]I ask who if John Mary kissed has

!!!! hypothesis:

» an operator is merged with a projection of C

54/55


Stepwise movement to operator position

!!!! the operator also carries information regarding GF

(1) Ich habe ihn gesehen (German)

I:NOM have he:ACC seen ‘I saw him’

(2) Wen hast du gesehen ?who:ACC have:2SG you:NOM seen ‘Who did you see?’

!!!! the operator must be interpreted lower than we see it

(3) Who does everyone love ?

A loves aB loves betc.

cf. Everyone loves someone

55/55


Conclusion

!!!! hierarchy

» OP => GF => TH (if you are an operator, you also have a grammatical function

and a thematic role)

» GF => TH

» TH

!!!! elements acquire functions by merging in positions

!!!! additional functions are acquired by moving upwards

!!!! clause structure has domains:

[ A’-domain [ GF-domain [ argument domain ] ] ]

Date post:	17-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Introduction to syntax · 8/55 LOT Summer School, Introduction to syntax 2 Utrecht 2008 to show...

Documents