The computational system 2

A “bottom-up” – merge based procedure

The minimal language system

PF interface C-I interface

Sensori- CHL Interpretation

Motor system system

Lexicon

- dedicated +dedicated(?) -dedicated

Local dependencies

• Selection: conceptual (semantic-roles)

??Sincerity admires John• Subcategorization: formal/arbitrary

John loves Mary | Jan houdt van Marie• Case

He saw her again | *her saw he again• Agreement

You love(*s) Fluffy | These/*this boys

Putting categories together(I saw) John feed Fluffy (bare VP)(I expect) John to feed Fluffy (to + VP but!! mismatch)John will feed Fluffy (T+VP, T takes over, but!! mismatch)John feeds Fluffy (T+VP, but !! mismatch)

TP

T'T VP

will/to V'John V

feed Fluffy

Rearranging elements(I saw) [John [feed Fluffy]] (bare VP)------ [John [to [(John) feed Fluffy]]] (to+VP+rearrangement)

[John [will [(John) feed Fluffy]]] ([Twill]+VP+rearrangement)

[John [(-s) [ (John) feeds Fluffy]]] ([T –s] +VP+ rearr.)

TPJohn T'

T VPto/will/-s V'

(John) Vfeed Fluffy

Dislocation 1Dislocation: Mismatch between positions of interpretation and position of realization

• Metaphorical term: Movement

• Dislocation/Movement expresses Double Duty:

Essence: One and the same element is active in two (or more) positions.

Dislocation 2

The specifier of T must be filled: • it will rain• there arrived a man

Dual use: re-use an element from the structure TP

He T'T VPwill V'

(he) Vlove Mary

Ditransitive constructions

• Verbs like give, introduce, donate assign three roles: agent, theme, goal (beneficiary)

• How to represent these verbs?

• Asymmetries between arguments hierarchical structure

The Force Layer

Classical representation:• S’ Complementizer S

Exocentric like S NP VPQuestions:• If S’ is endocentric what should be the head?• Candidate: C

Leads to: CP Spec C’ & C’ C TP (in rule notation)• Rizzi (1988) explores the empirical consequences of the endocentricity of

S and S’Illustrates general methodological guide line:

Hypothesize the most elegant theory: explore its consequences

Adding Force: CP 1

• (I thought) [that [TP John would love *(her)]]

(........) CP declarative marker: that

---- C'

C TP

that T'

John T VP

would V'

(John) loveV her

Expressing questions: CP 2

• (Mary wondered) [CP ifC [TP John would love her]]

(........) CP Question marker added

---- C'

C TP

if T'

<+wh> John T VP

would V'

(John) loveV her

How to express dislocation?

• (Mary wondered) [whom [TP John would love - ]]

(........) CP

whom C'

C TP

- T'

John T VP

would V'

(-) loveV -

The canonical trace notation

• (Mary wondered) [whomi [TP John would love ti]]

(........) CP

whomi C'

C TP

- T'

Johnj T VP

would V'

tj loveV ti

The status of traces

• What do traces represent?• What kind of elements are they?• Are they needed? If so, why?Answer in Minimalist Program: • Double duty can be expressed without an additional

element in the theory• Copies can do the same job

Why not pronounced?Merge: Internal/External traces only for convenience

Expressing Questions: CP 3

• (Mary wondered) [whom [TP John would love]]

(........) CP

whom C'

C TP

- T'

John T VP

would V'

(John) loveV (whom)

Questions in root clauses

• Whom did [John love t]

CP

whomh C'

C TP

didj Johni T'

T VP

tj V'

ti V th

love

Clausal layersPredicational core: verb + argumentsTense/mood layer: coordinates for evaluationForce layer (C): assertion, question, command

Movement enables one and the same element to be used in more than one layer

• Whomi did [John love ti]

Whom: argument of love in predicational core; signals question in Force domainDid: carrier Tense in Tense/mood layer; identifies C in Force domain

Wh-movement: illustrations

a. (John was wondering) whom he loved b. (John was wondering) [ --- [he loved whom] ]

c. (John was wondering) [whomi [he loved ti ]

Possible over an unbounded domain:

Whomi did you say that Bill told Mary that he was willing to bet a million bucks that she never considered to promise Cindy she would leave ti alone?

Question formationInstruction:Merge a question word (Wh-word) in the position of which you wish to elicit the value, and link it to the Force layer of the clause by moving it there.

• wh relates to a theta-role but is not a ‘normal’ argument• wh is interpreted as an operator • the copy is interpreted as a variable (theta-marked)• who binds the variable, creating a set {x: x called L.}• whox (x called Lucie)• Interpretation: the set of all true answers

A very similar operation works in relatives

Some questions and relatives

• Wh-movement: Movement to a Force position (non-argument: no semantic role, no Case)

• Question formation

I wonder [Cpwho/which mani [ ti read the book]]

I wonder [Cpwhat/which booki [the man read ti]]

Relativization:

I admired the man [CPwhoi [ti wrote the book]]

I admired the book [CP whi that [the man wrote ti]]

Relativization

• Lucie saw the man who caught the cat• Lucie saw the man whox (x caught the cat) • Interpretation as {x: cat catcher x}• How semantically integrated?• Depends on configuration:• Adjunction modification intersection of

{x: man x} and {x: cat catcher x}• Structure: [NP the [N’ [N’ [N man]] [CP who ….]]]• Or: [DP the [NP [N’ [N’ [N man]] [CP who ….]]]]

Intermezzo: the DP

Consider the rule for NP

NP Det N’

Problem for interface rule:• The in the man is not an argument of man

Leads to: • D as a functional head in the N-projection• DP Spec D’ & D’ D NP (in rule notation)

Alternative forms for relatives

• Lucie saw the man that - caught the cat

• Lucie saw the man who(m) the cat scratched –

• Lucie saw the man that the cat scratched –

• Lucie saw the man (OP) the cat scratched –

the relative operator may be null

As in questions: long-distance relatives Note the following contrast:

• the fact that John doubted was surprising

• the fact that John had quit was surprising

Wh-movement as a dependency

The interpreter must crucially know:

i) an operator-element up front of the clause is part of the Force layer, and must therefore interpreted as signalling a question/relative

ii) the operator-element up front must be related to a gap (a trace, silent copy, etc.) and his computational system must be able to figure out where that gap is.

Requires clues what are possible clues?

Another instance of movement: Passive

• John discovered *(Mary) Mary was discovered (by John)

• John fed the catThe cat was fed by John

• John gave (Mary) *(a book)Mary was given a book (by John)*A book was given Mary (why??)

Systematic combination of three factors: • i) the verb is in participial form• ii) there is a form of to be as a passive auxiliary• iii) the object shows up in subject positionQuestion: why dislocation?

Case theory

An overt DP is marked for Case