A couple of minor typos were called to my attention on the example derivation of Pat must not have been sending flowers to Chris that I posted a while back. Neither should have caused too much confusion, but for the record: the [uN*] feature of little v was not crossed off in the tree when it was checked, and in fact survived un-crossed-off all the way until the end. It was actually checked when the NP Pat was Merged with v′ (as noted in the commentary text), I just forgot to strike it out in the tree, and then copied and pasted after that.
Also, there were two step 5s for some reason.
I’ve revised it and will post the revised version, but there’s really no need to print it out again for these changes if you already have a copy.
There were a couple of errors on the Fall 2004 midterm key, and a new version is now posted (if you haven’t downloaded it yet). The errors were in 6d (V would initially also have a [uN*] feature), and 9b (the sentence should have started with It had been… rather than It has been..).
It was just called to my attention that the addition to UTAH I suggested in Problem 3 on HW5 doesn’t quite work. Use this one instead, I think it is more generally applicable:
TP, sister of V, is a Proposition.
It seems that a couple of typos slipped by my late-night proofreading on homework 5. None are that serious with respect to understanding what you are to do, but for the record:
Problem 2, sentence (a): [Revised since initial posting]: The gloss for this sentence is a bit off. It’s probably better paraphrased as ‘Gianni hasn’t spoken anymore’ or just ‘Gianni didn’t speak anymore.’
Problem 3, Part 2. The question is supposed to be about what happens to should in the sentence Joss should not have been making movies. I omitted the have on the handout.
With respect to the lecture handout, there is an error there as well (repeated several times as slide header, in fact). The French for “Jean doesn’t call Marie” actually requires a preposition that I did not include: Jean ne téléphone pas à Marie. But then that wouldn’t really make the point, or at least the tree on the handout wouldn’t be applicable. I understand that Jean n’appelle pas Marie could also be used to mean “Jean doesn’t call Marie”, so let’s pretend the verb is appeler (’to call’) rather than téléphoner (’to telephone’). Next week, we’ll pick up there, and you’ll get new handouts with (I hope) better French.
Ch. 5: p. 174, under The progressive auxiliary, the sentence should read “Assume that the auxiliary be has an interpretable categorial feature Prog…” (not “uninterpretable”).
Ch. 5: p. 193, the branches between T, T, and Perf are missing. They should be connected in the same way they are on (20) on p. 207.
The derivation I suggested that you use as a model for the homework has a fairly confusing couple of typos in it, as it turns out.
In steps 2-4, the node labeled “V” should in fact be labeled “VP” (see the other recent blog post called “Derivations and Trees” for more on this).
I got a question about what “DP” and “CP” are, referred to in the upper left corner of page 4 of the handout from class 3A (”theta roles, feature checking”).
Sorry, I’m not sure how those got there, but we haven’t talked about DP and CP and won’t for some time. But just so you know anyway, a DP is a “noun phrase” basically and a CP is a “clause”.
Since we’re here, just a preview: The reason I called the noun phrase a “DP” is because it will actually turn out that the head of something like the students is the (not students). So, DP is to D as VP is to V as any XP is to its head. And a CP is a similar kind of thing, this is the kind of phrase whose head is a complementizer (like that).
But my inclusion of those terms in such an early handout was unintentional, so just read “noun phrase” instead of “DP” and “clause” instead of “CP” for now.
p. 105, the penultimate line says “teminal” rather than “terminal”. Probably not a very confusing typo.
p. 127, the penultimate line refers to “a new constituent”. Its label should be “?P” not “?”. Same on the second line of p. 128.
It was pointed out to me yesterday that the bracketed structure in (9) does not quite correspond to the tree notation in (10) [pp. 64-65]. See why?
The bracketed string in (9) does not mark “might have been cracked open” as a constituent, but yet that string is indicated as a constituent in the tree in (10). There should have been a left bracket before “might” and another right bracket at the end in order to make (9) correspond to (10).