Syntax I

I have as of this moment not actually posted the keys to homeworks #7 through #9, but they do exist. I’ve partly been holding back the keys a bit because I’ve allowed people here and there to turn in homework a little bit late, but in the meantime, if you’ve turned in one of these and want me to just email you the key, I’m happy to do so. Just send me a quick note, it’s no problem. I’ll try to get the rest posted on the syllabus site as soon as I can.

Just to clarify, there are a couple of inconsistencies with respect to how I drew the trees with the infinitive marker to on some of the handouts. Specifically, there are slides here and there where to is drawn into the trees as if it were T—rather than an M that moves up to T. The official version of the theory we’re working with (and different from what is in the textbook) is that to is an M that moves up to T, just as in the homework problem from a few weeks ago. So, if you see somewhere to given as being a T, just think of it as a shorthand for a T that takes an MP complement, headed by the M to, which has moved up to T. I’ll try to catch this in future handouts, but I still might miss one here and there.

[Edit after original post: Part of the point of that homework was showing that to doesn’t in fact move up to T.]

The handout labeled “10b” has a couple of slides where the text is unreadable due to the background in the text boxes having been too dark. I’ve posted a new version of the handout on the syllabus page that fixes that problem, but if you don’t wish to print it out again, here’s what you missed:

First slide:

• Charlie seems to dislike bees
• First, does Charlie get a θ-role from seem?
• Well, no. Seem only assigns the one θ-role.
• So, unlike in Charlie tried [PRO to elude the bees], we have as many DPs as we have θ-roles.

Second slide:

• Charlie seems to dislike bees
• So, what θ-role does Charlie get?
• Still seems to be the Experiencer of dislike
• So, suppose that Charlie starts out in the same place, SpecvP.
• But now, after building vP, we add a nonfinite T…

We’ve just met quite a number of different kinds of embedded clauses, particularly embedded infinitive clauses, and I just want to take a moment to summarize what we have and suggest strategies for determining what we’re looking at in any given sentence.

Some things to keep in mind, in no particular order, are:

• DPs need case. Every single one.
• Each θ-role must be assigned to a distinct argument.
• Infinitive T (generally marked by the modal to) cannot check case.
• Finite clauses always have a C.
• T (whether finite or non-finite) requires there to be a DP in its specifier.
• PRO is a DP, and can only survive if it is assigned null case.
• The only thing that can assign/check null case (so far) is the silent C, ∅_NULL.
• If an embedded subject gets case from the higher clause, the embedded clause is a TP (not a CP).

When you have a sentence embedded inside another one, the first question to ask yourself is whether the embedded sentence is finite or non-finite. The non-finite sentences generally have a to in them, which is a pretty good tip-off. Modals like should, may, etc., only appear in finite clauses.

If the embedded clause is finite, it is a CP (even if the C is silent). Finite clauses are always CPs.

If the embedded clause is non-finite, there are several possibilities. For one thing, it might be a CP or it might be a TP—it depends in large part on the verb that the embedded clause is the complement of. There’s also the question of whether (if no subject is visible in the embedded clause) there is a PRO or not.

The way to determine whether there is a PRO is to count the θ-roles. That’s pretty much the only reliable way to do it.

In a sentence like John wants Mary to leave, there are two verbs to consider: want and visit. The participants in want are the wanter (Experiencer, John in this instance), and the thing wanted (Proposition, the embedded clause Mary to leave in this instance). The sole participant in leave is the leaver (Agent, Mary here). So, nothing here is unaccounted for, all θ-roles are going to visible/audible DPs—there is no PRO here.

In a sentence like Mary seems to be leaving, if we run through that same procedure, we will again find that all θ-roles are accounted for. Seems has a single θ-role, the Proposition that appears to be true, and leave again has one θ-role, the Agent doing the leaving (Mary). However, in this case, there is no visible subject in the embedded clause, and moreover the logical subject (Mary) shows up as the subject of seems. There are two TPs here, one in the main clause, and one in the embedded clause. Each requires a DP to be in its specifier, but only the top one appears to have a DP in its specifier. There can’t be a PRO in the specifier of the lower TP because there aren’t enough θ-roles for there to be a PRO (if there were a PRO, it wouldn’t get a θ-role). The only conclusion is that the subject of the lower clause (Mary) was first in the specifier of the lower TP (checking the [uD*] feature of the lower T), and then moved up to the specifier of the higher TP.

Considerations of how case is checked also point to the same conclusions with respect to these two sentences. Every DP needs case. In John wants Mary to leave, the DP John gets case from the finite T in the main clause, and Mary gets case from wants (the non-finite T in the lower clause is incapable of checking case features, like all non-finite Ts). In Mary seems to be leaving, there is nothing in the lower clause that can check the case of Mary, so the main clause T values/checks its case as nominative.

In both of these two sentences (John wants Mary to leave and Mary seems to be leaving), the embedded clause is just a TP, not a CP. Since Mary in both cases, while originating in the lower clause, gets case from the higher clause, there can be no CP there. If it helps, you can think of CP as a kind of a “case shield”, you can’t check case across a CP.

In the sentence John wants to leave, if we run through the θ-role-counting procedure, we’ll find that there are more θ-roles than visible DPs. There’s the wanter (John) and the leaver. Since the visible DP John can’t get both θ-roles, there must be a PRO. And if there’s a PRO, there there must also be a null C (∅_NULL) to value/check null case on PRO.

Finally, consider the sentence John asked Mary to leave. Here, again, the procedure of counting θ-roles comes up short. We have the asker (John) and the askee (Mary), and the leaver. Since there are more θ-roles than visible DPs, there must be a PRO in the embedded clause (and therefore a ∅_NULL C as well).

To summarize in bracket notation we have:

• John wants [_TP Mary to leave] (ECM)
• Mary seems [_TP <Mary> to be leaving] (Raising)
• John wants [_CP ∅_NULL [_TP PRO to leave]] (Subject control)
• John asked Mary [_CP ∅_NULL [_TP PRO to leave]] (Object control)

Once we have these four kinds of verbs, it’s always possible to mix-and-match them (and it makes for good homework problems and test questions too). For example, John seems to want to ask Mary to leave:

John seems [_TP <John> to want [_CP ∅_NULL [_TP PRO to ask Mary [_CP ∅_NULL [_TP PRO to leave]]]]].

I_i seem [_TP t_i to have overlooked the fact that we never added into the UTAH the statement that a TP can be assigned a Proposition θ-role when it is the complement of verbs like seem.] I sort of assumed it without explicitly incorporating it into the system.

So:

• CP sister of V: Proposition
• TP sister of V: Proposition

Notice that even though there are two ways to get a Proposition θ-role, it’s still possible to tell, based on where the TP or CP is in the tree, what &theta-role is assigned. The relation between structural positions and θ-roles is not one-to-one. In fact, this observation is not really new—for example, we already had two places where Agents could be found as well (SpecnP and SpecvP).

There are a couple of tricky things on homework #9 that I hadn’t noticed before I gave it out. Here’s one of them:

The first sentence is Lois forced Reese to walk home. The question is: what is home here? If you think about what it means, and what you can substitute in for it, it seems to specify the endpoint of a path, and means much the same as to his house might mean. Moreover, although home itself appears to be a DP, you can’t very easily substitute any other DPs in that position preserving a similar meaning (*Lois forced Reese to walk his house).

Taken together, we might speculate that home is a somewhat unusual word in English, in that it has a hidden preposition. That is, home in this sentence is actually a PP somehow. Given that we now have no fear of silent things (e.g., ∅_GEN, ∅_INDEF, PRO, …), the best way to capture this would seem to be to suppose that in this case there is a silent preposition hiding there. That is:

     PP
    /  \
   P    DP
   ∅    home

So, that is my suggestion for how to handle this. It is not the only option, but it seems like the most straightforward. Something exceptional needs to be said about home, no matter what (either it is a DP that is exceptionally able to function like a PP, or it has a silent P that goes only with home).

The other thing I wanted to mention is that this sentence (Lois forced Reese to walk home) is actually (sorry if I’m giving something away) an object control verb. We haven’t seen these in class yet (I showed you subject control verbs, but not object control verbs), although there is some discussion of them in the book. Basically, the PRO in this sentence has to refer to the object of the higher verb (not the subject—hence the name “object control verb”). This doesn’t really affect how you draw the tree, but it is nevertheless slightly different from what we saw in class.

Just a quick note about the BUCLD extra credit: As you may have discovered, there was something of a handout shortage at many of the talks (this happens every year, and it happens at almost every conference I’ve ever been to). If you wanted to write up a talk that you didn’t get a handout for, there are a couple of things you can do to remind yourself about what the talk was about. One is to look at the short abstract in the yellow conference book, if you have one. Another is to email me about it, because I might be able to either get you a copy of the handout or of the abstract (just tell me which talk you’re looking for). You can remind yourself of which talks there were by clicking on the BUCLD link off on the right side of the screen and then clicking on Schedule.

I’ve gotten a couple of questions about this, so let me mention something about the sentence about traumatizing students:

The sentence itself is ambiguous, it could be taken either to mean this:

1) The nervous students who happened to be in the room were traumatized, and where the traumatizing happened was in the class.

or this:

2) The students in the class who were nervous were traumatized.

The difference between these meanings translates into a structural difference in where the PP in the class is adjoined. If in the class is inside the DP ([nervous students in the class]), then it is the second meaning: the ones who were traumatized were the nervous students in the class. If in the class is adjoined to the TP (or the vP, although I’d adjoin it to the TP), then it is the first meaning: the place the traumatizing happened was in the class.

So, either option is open to you, both meanings are possible.

I’ve been meaning to write up some of the things that were covered during the review class on Tuesday, but I haven’t had a spare moment. However, since I was asked something over email that relates obliquely to this, let me run through one of those things here.

The only place that the genitive case ever shows up is in the specifier of DP, and more specifically, it shows up in the specifier of a DP whose head is ∅_GEN. The D ∅_GEN has the features [D, ucase:gen*, ucase: ] (that is, it is a D, it assigns genitive case to its specifier, and the DP it heads must itself get case).

So, if you see something in the genitive case (something like his, her, their, senator’s or Pat’s), you know that it is in SpecDP. In fact, that is the basic function of Case, to tell you where something is in the tree.

(Likewise, if you see something that is in nominative case, you know that it is in the specifier of TP.)

Meanwhile, if we consider the function of the UTAH, the UTAH tells us the θ-role that goes with a DP (or, in the case of Goal, a PP) is based on the position in which it first appeared in the tree (as it was built from the bottom up using Merge). A DP in the specifier of vP (the DP daughter of vP) or a DP in the specifier of nP (the DP daughter of nP) will be an Agent (or, sometimes, an Experiencer). The DP daughter of NP and the DP daughter of VP will be a Theme. A PP sister of N and a PP sister of V will be a Goal.

Thinking first about verbal clauses (TPs), notice that the θ-role of the nominative argument (the subject) can be one of several different possibilities:

(1) I jumped.
(2) I fell.
(3) I was pushed.
(4) I was given a book.
(5) I was introduced to Mary.

In each case above, I is of course nominative, it is the subject, it is in the specifier of TP. But it started in different places in different sentences, even though in each case it moved into the specifier of TP. In (1), I is an Agent, so it started in SpecvP. In (2-5), I is a Theme, so it started in SpecVP. In (2), we have an unaccusative verb, in (3) we have a passive transitive verb, in (4) we have the passive of a ditransitive verb (of the “have” type, it was caused to be that I had a book), and in (5) we have the passive of a ditransitive verb (of the “go” type, it was caused that an introduction of me went to Mary).

The point here is that: Case tells you where a DP ends up, and the θ-role tells you where that DP started out.

The same is true in DPs. So, we have several possibilities:

(6) [My hat] was ugly.
(7) [My buying of a hat] was a mistake.
(8) [My falling] was painful.

In each case (6-8), my is genitive, meaning that it is in SpecDP. In (6), my is the possessor of the hat (it has a Possessor θ-role). In (7), my is the agent of the buying event (it has an Agent θ-role). In (8), my is the theme of the (unaccusative) falling event (it has a Theme θ-role). So, my started out in a different place in each of the three examples in (6-8).

Starting first with (7), we know that because my is getting the Agent θ-role, it must have started in SpecnP. In (8), we know that my started as the DP daughter of NP (in this case the sister of N), since it is getting the Theme θ-role.

In (6), because my is a Possessor, we know that it started in the specifier of a PossP. Because it is not Agent or Theme, it couldn’t have started as DP daughter of nP or DP daughter of NP. Because there is a Possessor θ-role assigned, there must have been a PossP in whose specifier my was first Merged.

The Hierarchy of Projections within the DP goes like this: D > (Poss >) n > N. So, the PossP was between n and D.

This also means, incidentally, that the only time you need a PossP is when you have something that gets a Possessor θ-role (the Poss is optional in the HoP for the DP, just like Pass, Perf, Prog, Neg, and M are in the HoP for the TP).

Anyway, the strategy for deciding what the tree should look like when you are drawing a DP is to first determine the θ-role of the genitive DP. If it is a Possessor, you need a PossP, and the Possessor starts in SpecPossP, then moves to SpecDP. If it is an Agent, you don’t need a PossP, and the DP starts in SpecnP, then moves to SpecDP. If it is a Theme, you don’t need a PossP, and the DP starts as the DP daughter of NP, and moves to SpecDP.

A question I’ve gotten a couple of times is whether you always have an nP or whether you only have it “when you need it.” I’m sorry to report that the answer is that we always have it, whether we need it or not. Here’s the logic:

We need the nP in order to handle deverbal ditransitive nouns, such as “John’s gift of cheese to Mary”, for the same reasons that we needed a vP in order to handle ditransitive verbs, such as “John gave cheese to Mary”.

We incorporated nP into the Hierarchy of Projections, like vP: D > n > N.

At this point, that means that whenever we have an N, we always have an n just above it. It appears (again based on evidence from ditransitives) that N moves to n (just like V moves to v), so n always has a [uN*] feature.

And, so, we end up drawing pretty much every single DP with the full range of projections and movements, e.g., “cats” and “the book of poetry”

      DP                DP
    /   \             /   \
   D     nP          D     nP
∅indef  /  \        the   /  \
       n   <NP>          n    NP
      / \               /\   /  \
     N   n             N  n <N>   PP
   cats             book         /__\
                                 of poetry