(Preliminary) Principles,of,Projecon · 2016. 7. 17. · Hedde$Zeijlstra(Göngen)$ $ (Preliminary)...

Hedde Zeijlstra (Gö0ngen)

(Preliminary) Principles of Projec3on

Goe5he-‐Universität Frankfurt Workshop on agreement

July 14, 2016

Ques3on

3

I. Ques3on

What, if any, is the label of γ?

γ

α β Is labelling required, and if so, is there a unified labeling algorithm that will suffice for all cases?

4

II. Previous approaches

Chomsky (1995, 2000), Adger (2003), Boeckx (2008): What selects projects.

§  In {α , β }, if α selects for (a feature present on) β, α is the label

of {α , β }.

T D[ϕ] T[uϕ]

T[uϕ][uv] v

5

Advantages: §  Unified LA (except for adjunc\on): applies to Head-‐Comp

configura\ons and to both internally and externally specifiers §  Determines the syntac\c behaviour of the top node


6


Problems:

§  Unmo\vated why the selector should project §  Does not apply to adjunc\on §  Ordering problem (why not have T first merge with DP and then with vP)?

§  If selec\onal features are uninterpretable features, why can’t they be checked on a distance?

§  Various selec\onal features are taken to be seman\c features (s-‐selec\on vs. c-‐selec\on). But why would seman\c features play a role in syntax?

§  What happens if the complement also selects a feature of the head (e.g. case feature checking to sisters of V or P)?

7

III. Aims

These problems (and other reasons) have called for various alterna3ve approaches to labelling: §  Chomksy (1995, 2000, 2008): γ is either α or β §  Collins (2002): no label at all §  Adger (2012): something else than α or β §  Chomsky (2013, 2014): either α, β or a shared feature of α and β

8

III. Aims

But would it be possible to formulate a labelling theory based on the idea that selec3on projects that:

§  Mo\vates why the selector projects §  Can account for labelling in all configura\ons (including adjunc\on)

§  Can overcome the ordering problem §  Can account for the differences between selec\on and Agree §  Can circumvent the problems rela\ng s-‐selec\on vs c-‐selec\on and mutual selec\on (e.g. with case)

Background

10

IV. Background

What features are involved in labelling and other syntac3c opera3ons?

§  Chomsky (1995 et seq): minimally interpretable and

uninterpretable formal features: §  Later on, a variety of other features have been postulated:

categorial features, selec\onal features, edge features, EPP-‐features, fully uninterpretable features, etc.

Ideally, any theory of syntac\c dependencies must be based on the smallest set of types of features: minimally, interpretable and uninterpretable formal features.

11

IV. Background

Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001): §  The set of formal features and the set of seman\c features intersect:

§  Uninterpretable features must be deleted under checking with interpretable features

12

IV. Background

Zeijlstra (2014): §  The sets of formal features and seman\c features do not intersect:

§  Language acquisi\on determines that most, but crucially not all, lexical items with the seman\cs of F are assigned a formal feature [iF].

§  It is a property of syntax that [uF] features need to be c-‐checked by [iF] features (otherwise the sentence crashes).

13

IV. Background

Advantages: §  Interpretable features are no longer ‘interpretable’; they are purely syntac\c features.

§  A be5er terminology would be dependent and independent features.

§  If independent features are void of seman\c content, they can be unified with categorial features.

§  Lexical items then contain only two sets of features: dependent and independent categorial features:

Example: ON {{[P]},{[uD]}}

Proposal

15

V. Proposal

Two approaches to the central ques3on: …

α β §  Why should the top node receive some content (i.e. why must

α or β percolate)? §  Why don’t α and β not both percolate?

Most theories of labelling focus on the gain of informa\on; hardly any theory focuses on the loss of informa\on (Neeleman & Van der Koot 2002 being a notable excep\on).

16

V. Proposal

Principle of Containment of Syntac3c Informa3on (CSI): syntac'c informa'on may not disappear in the tree (i.e. all syntac'c features percolate). §  Merge results in the union of the sets of dependent and

independent features of its daughters.

{{[F] , [K]}, {[uG], [uL] } } {{[F]}, {[uG]} } {{[K]}, {[uL]} }

17

V. Proposal

However, since both dependent and independent formal features are categorial features, merger of an element with a dependent and an element with a matching independent formal feature, results in removal of both:

{{[F]}} {{[F]}, {[uG]} } {{[G]}}

18

V. Proposal

However, since both dependent and independent formal features are categorial features, merger of an element with a dependent and an element with a matching independent formal feature, results in removal of both:

{{[F]}, {[uL] } } {{[F]}, {[uG]} } {{[G]}, {[uL]} }

Applica3on

20

VI. Applica3on

Now, let‘s see how the proposal deals with the desiderata for a labelling theory based on selec3onal projec3on: §  Mo\vates why the selector projects §  Can account for labelling in all configura\ons (including adjunc\on)

§  Can overcome the ordering problem §  Can account for the differences between selec\on and agree §  Can circumvent the problems rela\ng s-‐selec\on vs c-‐selec\on and mutual selec\on (e.g. with case)

The selector projects: labelling of head-‐complement configura\ons

and configura\ons involving specifiers

22

VI. Head-‐Complements

Given the categorial status of both dependent and independent features, sisterhood of two matching dependent and independent features results in removal of both from the top node. This accounts for the fact that: §  The selected feature does not project §  the selec\ng feature does not project

§  that all other features s\ll project.

23


Example: D selec3ng NP

{{[D]}} {{[D]},{[uN]}} {{[N]}}

24


Example: P selec3ng DP

{{[P]}} {{[P]},{[uD]}} {{[D]}}

25

VII. Specifiers

Following the earlier proposals, the same mechanism applies to specifiers merging with bar-‐levels. Example: vP (involving External Merge):

{{[v]}} {{[D]}} {{[v]},{[uD]}}

{{[v]},{[uV], [uD]}} {{[V]}}

26

VII. Specifiers

Following the earlier proposals, the same mechanism applies to specifiers merging with bar-‐levels. Example: TP (involving Internal Merge):

{{[T]}} {{[D]}} {{[T]},{[uD]}}

{{[T]},{[uD], [uv]}} {{[v]}}

27

VII. Specifiers

Hence, the proposal so far explains why the selector probes, and also how labeling works for Head-‐Complement rela3ons and specifiers (irrespec3ve of their original posi3on). §  However, an problem for unifying labelling in both Head-‐

Comp and Spec-‐Head configura\ons concerns the ordering of the fulfilment of the selec\onal requirements.

* {{[T]}} {{[v]}} {{[T]},{[uv]}}

{{[T]},{[uD], [uv]}} {{[D]}}

28

VII. Specifiers

Two solu3ons suggest themselves: §  Add ordering diacri\cs: for some reason, the [uv] feature on

the T-‐head needs to be checked first, and only then the [uD] feature (same for [uV] and [uD] on v).

§  Rule out the unwanted orders by means of interface

condi\ons: the seman\cs of T require a seman\c complement that can only be realized by vP, not by DPs; same for v.

29

VII. Specifiers

Theore3cal consequences: §  Apart from the addi\on of (ordering) diacri\cs, the first

solu\on runs against the more central principle of the proposal, namely that the set of (in)dependent features present on a lexical item is unordered.

§  Not immediately clear how every unwanted selec\on order can be ruled out, something required by the second solu\on.

30

VII. Specifiers

Empirical consequences: the two solu\ons make a very clear empirical predic\on:

§  Under the ordered features solu\on flexible selec\on orders are never possible;

§  Under the interface solu\on flexible selec\on orders are expected when the interfaces do not rule them out;

Spoiler: we will indeed a5est cases where selec\on orderings are flexible.

Adjunc3on

32

VIII. Adjuncts

Adjuncts form a notorious problem for labelling under Bare Phrase Structure (cf. Hornstein & Nunes 2009 and references therein). §  Under Bare Phrase Structure Bar levels and Maximal

projec\ons are structurally defined:

XMAX

YMAX X

XMIN ZMAX

33

VIII. Adjuncts

But adjunc3ons consists of two layers of the same feature that should both count as maximal:

XMAX

XMAX WMAX

YMAX X

XMIN ZMAX

34

VIII. Adjuncts

For this reasons, adjuncts have been taken outside the system that derives structures by means of set-‐merge and labelling:

§  Chomsky (2001): Set-‐Merge vs Pair-‐Merge

§  Lebaux (1989): Late inser\on of adjuncts into already labelled structures

§  Hornstein & Nunes (2009): Unlabelled adjuncts

All these approaches have been primarily introduced to account for the special status of adjuncts under Bare Phrase Structure.

35

VIII. Adjuncts

However, under the proposal proposed here, adjuncts can be derived under Bare Phrase Structure. Take the following structure

{{[X]}} {{[Y]}} ... Irrespec\ve of the phrasal status of the elements represented by {{[X]}} and {{[Y]}}, we can compute the feature representa\on of the unknown sister/daughter, which must be: {{[X]}, {[uY]}}

36

VIII. Adjuncts

Adjuncts are cases where the top node must be featurally iden3cal to one its sisters, otherwise its distribu3on would not be iden3cal.

{{[X]}} {{[X]}} ...

But that means that every X-‐adjunct, should have a representa\on: {{[X]}, {[uX]}}.

37

VIII. Adjuncts

VP adjuncts, e.g. adverbs, should then be taken to be elements with a featural representa3on {{[V]}, {[uV]}}. But, as the picture shows, this solves the adjunct problem. In the configura\on below, both V-‐layers are maximal projec\ons (where colours show projec\on lines;

{{[V]}} {{[V]}} {{[V]}, {[uV]}}

38

VIII. Adjuncts

Note that, as things stand now, adjuncts must be specified for the phrases they adjoin. §  For VP-‐adverbs we can indeed say that they are elements with

a categorial feature set {{[V]}, {[uV]}}. §  But how about other types of adjuncts? Various adjuncts may

modify different types of phrases, even phrases that belong to different extended projec\ons.

39

IX. PPs

The kind of adjuncts that are syntac3cally most flexible are PPs. If PPs can be used as VP adjuncts, they should be analysed as {{[V]}, {[uV]}}. But such an analysis gives rise to the following two issues: §  If PPs are {{[V]}, {[uV]}}, what are Ps? §  PPs may adjoin to (at least) NPs, APs and VPs.

Let’s discuss the two issues in turn.

40

IX. PPs

Ps selec3ng DPs

{{[V]}, {[uV]}}

... {{[D]}} If a PP is {{[V]}, {[uV]}}, then P must be: {{[V]}, {[uV], [uD]}}.

41

IX. PPs

Ps selec3ng DPs

{{[V]}, {[uV]}} {{[V]}, {[uV], [uD]} } {{[D]}} But now the ordering problem re-‐appears: why could P, then, not first select / merge with a V, and then with a DP? The proposal predicts the following to be gramma\cal:

42

IX. PPs

{{[V]}}

{{[V]},{[uD]}} {{[D]}}

{{[V]},{[uV], [uD]}} {{[V]}} But how bad are these structures?

43

IX. PPs

Many languages allow preposi3ons to form syntac3c structures with verbs (so called par3cle verb construc3ons), before they merge with their arguments.

§  [[Eat up] [the sandwich]] §  Ich rufe [Marie [an-‐rufe]] (German, I call Mary to)

Even though such construc\ons are strongly constrained (not every preposi\on and verb can form a par\cle verb), the fact that some can shows that an analysis of preposi\ons being able to select verbs and jointly select a subsequent argument is necessary.

44

IX. PPs

According to Van Riemsdijk (1978), Baker (1988), Koopman (1995), Neeleman (1994, 2002), Zeller (2001), among many others, par3cle verbs are complex verbal heads:

§  Zeller (2001): par\cle verbs are complex heads, where the verbal subfeatures of the verb do not percolate to the verb-‐par\cle complex (as only the verbal part can receive inflec\onal morphology):

V

VF Part

45

IX. PPs

This is indeed what is derived by the proposal: the verb is adjoined by the preposi3onal par3cle, but the verbal feature on the top node stems from the par3cle, not form the verb itself.

V {{[V]},{[uD]}}

VF Part {{[V: F]}} {{[V]},{[uV], [uD]}}

46

IX. PPs

The existence of par3cle verbs §  thus supports the proposed analysis

§  and forms an empirical argument for flexible selec\onal ordering, showing that constraints on sec\onal ordering must follow from the interfaces (with seman\cs) and not be encoded in syntax proper; when the interfaces do not rule out one of two logically possible orderings, both orderings are indeed ruled in.

47

X. Predicates

The next ques3on is how to deal with PPs modifying NPs and APs. §  In principle PPs may modify NPs.

The book about Trump §  Also, (predica\ve) adjec\ves may be modified by PPs (albeit

more rarely, presumably a consequence of the fact that most adjec\ves assign only one theta-‐role):

The doctor is afraid of the pa\ent *The afraid of the pa\ent doctor commi5ed suicide

48

X. Predicates

If PPs (as any other adjuncts) select for their sisters, and PPs do not only select for verbs, there are two logical op3ons: §  PPs are ambiguous between verbal, nominal and

(predica\vely used) adjec\val PPs (and there are, thus, three types of preposi\ons).

§  There is a supercategory above verbs, nouns and (predica\vely used) adjec\ves.

The first op\on can hardly be supported as virtually every PP can be used to modify VPs, NPs and APredPs.

49

X. Predicates

The second op3on, however, has been proposed for a variety of other reasons in the literature: §  In various languages various lexical items (if not all) can be

used both verbally and nominally. §  The idea that lexical items are not stored in the lexical as

nouns/verbs, but as roots, which are rendered nominal/verbal by having them merge with a N-‐/V-‐ feature is very much in line with elements having some kind of a supercategorial feature.

§  Seman\cally, verbs, nouns and adjec\ves all seem to denote predicates, with addi\onal argumental or other requirements; this seman\c core would then be reflected in the syntac\c featural inventory.

50

X. Predicates

Proposal: §  There is a superfeature [Predicate]

§  This feature can receive a feature value (i.e. become a subfeature) V or N.

§  Predica\vely used adjec\ves are unvalued predicates.

51

X. Predicates

[PRED(ICATE)]

[PRED: N] = [N] [PRED: V] = [V] Now, if this is correct, Ps are nothing but elements that are: §  {{[PRED]},{[uPRED], [uD]}}

§  Immediately valued for V/N (and thus become {{[V]},{[uV], [uD]}}and {{[N]},{[uN], [uD]}} respec\vely) when merged with a V-‐ or N-‐labelled element.

52

X. Predicates

V PP merger:

{{[V]}} {{[V]}} {{[V]}, {[uV]} {{[V]}} {{[Pred: V]}, {[uPred: V]} {{[V]}} {{[Pred]}, {[uPred]}

53

X. Predicates

N PP merger:

{{[N]}} {{[N]}} {{[N]}, {[uN]} {{[N]}} {{[Pred: N]}, {[uPred: N]} {{[N]}} {{[Pred]}, {[uPred]}

54

X. Predicates

If preprosi3ons are indeed elements carrying {{[PRED]},{[uPRED], [uD]}}: §  Their behaviour of PPs as N, V and A modifiers follows

naturally.

§  The analysis of adjuncts as elements selec\ng their modifiee can be maintained.

§  It is shown that the set of selec\ng features ([uF]s) on a par\cular element should indeed remain unordered.

55

XI. An excursion to the DP

If predica3ve adjec3ves are indeed elements carrying {{[PRED]}}, ques3ons concerning the internal structure of DPs arise . §  Determiners select nouns, or nominal elements:

D {{[D]}}

D N the car {{[D]}, {[uN]}} {{[N]}}

56


Under this system, proper names and pronouns are D-‐heads to do not select for any NPs. §  John, Mary, the US: {{[D]}}

§  They, her, we: {{[D]}}

Two consequences: §  No need for a complex internal covert NP complex inside the

DP (pace Abney 1997 et seq).

§  (Interpretable) phi-‐features are hosted on D (and not on N).

57


But if Ds select NPs, nouns modified by (alribu3vely used) adjec3ves must be NPs too.

D {{[D]}}

D N the {{[N]}} {{[D]}, {[uN]}}

A N red car {{[N]},{[uN]}} {{[N]}}

58


But now we face a problem. If predica3vely used adjec3ves are {{[Pred]}}, how can alribu3vely used adjec3ves be {{[N]},{[uN]}}? §  In some languages (e.g. Dutch) only a5ribu\vely used

adjec\ves receive morphological inflec\on, predica\vely used adjec\ves do not.

De auto is rood/*rode The car is red De rode /*rood auto The red.INFL car

59


Arguably, this shows that inflec3onal morphology on alribu3vely used adjec3ves has a different formal func3on than that on predica3vely used adjec3ves. §  This allows us to hypothesize that inflec\onal morphology on

adjec\ves func\ons as a type-‐shi{er: it changes predicates into nominal adjuncts.

60


N

{{[N]}}

Aa5 N {{[N]},{[uN]}} auto {{[N]}}

Pred Infl Rood -‐e {{[Pred]}} {{[N]},{[uPred],[uN]}}

61


Evidence for the idea that inflec3onal morphology changes predicates into nominal adjuncts comes again from PP modifica3on. §  As in English, Dutch predica\vely used adjec\ves can be

modified by (right-‐adjoined) PPs; a5ribu\vely used adjec\ves cannot be modified by (right-‐adjoined) PPs

De student is bang van Marie The student is afraid of Marie *De bang van Marie(-‐e) student The afraid of Mary student

62


Evidence for the idea that inflec3onal morphology changes predicates into nominal adjuncts comes again from PP modifica3on. §  But a5ribu\vely used adjec\ves can be modified by le{-‐

adjoined PPs:

De van Marie bang-‐e student The of Mary afraid.INFL student

§  [De [[[van Marie bang]-‐e] student]]

63


Under this proposal, at least for some instances of inflec3onal morphology their presence can be mo3vated in formal terms (instead as some piece of redundant uninterpretable informa3on). §  Moreover, note that this way, adverbs are the verbal

counterparts of a5ribu\vely used adjec\ves; they are elements carrying {{[V]},{[uV]}} that can be created in the same way from predicates.

§  adverbial –ly would then just be {{[V]},{[uPred],[uV]}}: merged with a predicate like quick, this would then yield: quick-‐ly, carrying {{[V]},{[uV]}}.

64


Finally, one ques3on needs to be addressed. If preposi3ons carry {{[Pred]},{[uPred],[uD]}}, mo3vated by their ability to modify nouns and verbs in the same way, why don‘t we have par0cle noun construc0ons?

*The in car seat (int.: the car-‐internal seat) §  The proposed system ruled this out. Apart from theta-‐

theore\c requirements, in car seat would end up carrying {{[N]},{[uD]}}. But determiners carry {{[D]},{[uN]}}. Merger of these two would yield a label-‐less element.

§  Of course merger of a proper name / pronoun and a par\cle noun construc\on should then be ruled out independently (in terms of seman\c mismatches).

65

XII. Summing up

Summing up: §  In this way, the system meets several of the desiderata for any

labelling account: it can account for all labelling configura\ons and it can circumvent the ordering problem.

§  However, the difference between Agree and selec\on, as well as various issues concerning VP-‐internal labeling, are s\ll in need of explana\on.

Selec3on and Agree

67

XIII. Agree

So far, the system proposed exploits uninterpretable (or beler: dependent) features to encode selec3onal requirements. But if (local) selec3on results from feature checking, how can Agree apply on a long distance? §  Proposal: Long-‐distance Agree is the result of local checking

plus asymmetric feature percola\on (cf. Neeleman & Van der Koot).

68

XIV. Upward and Downward Agree

Currently: a debate about the direc3onality of Agree. §  Downward Agree (Chomksy 2001, Preminger 2013,

Preminger & Polinsky 2015): an uninterpretable feature must c-‐command an interpretable matching feature.

§  Upward Agree (Wurmbrand 2011, 2012, Zeijlstra 2012, Bjorkman & Zeijlstra 2015): an interpretable feature must c-‐command an uninterpretable matching feature.

69


Major arguments come from different perspec3ves: §  Downward Agree: certain cases of long-‐distance agreement

involve clear cases where the goal never c-‐commands the goal.

§  Upward Agree: all syntac\c dependencies (binding), strict NPI-‐licensing, Nega\ve Concord, Sequence of Tense) except morphological co-‐varying phi-‐agreement involve clear ‘upward’ checking; long-‐distance agreement is o{en dependent on other instances of Upward Agree and defec\ve.

70


Solu3on: separate valua3on from checking (Bjorkman & Zeijlstra 2015) §  Checking: every uninterpretable feature must be checked by a

c-‐commanding matching interpretable feature.

§  Valua3on: every unvalued feature must be valued; only if the checker does not value this feature itself, a lower interpretable feature can do this to (provided that this lower goal stands in a checking rela\on with the goal itself).

71


Examples: In languages with nomina\ve-‐accusa\ve case systems, agreement is with the subject.

§  [[DPNOM] T [uPHI: __] … [DPACC]] (English)

In languages with erga\ve-‐absolu\ve case systems, agreement is either with the subject or the object (cf. Bobaljik 2008). If erga\ve case is structural, the phi-‐features on the subject are ac\ve and can value the probe (e.g. Nepalese); if erga\ve case is inherent, these phi-‐features are inac\ve and the absolu\ve object (receiving case from T) fulfils the valua\on requirement (e.g. Hindi) §  [[DPERG] T [uPHI: __] … [DPABS]]

72


So far: §  Under this approach instances of downward agreement are

compa\ble with the Upward Agree approach. For our purposes here, it suffices to say that every [uF] needs to be checked by a matching [F], the la5er c-‐commanding the former.

§  If valua\on cannot take place under checking, another goal can complete the valua\on process (under par\cular configura\onal condi\ons).

73

XV. Checking under sisterhood

Now Agree (i.e. feature checking) is fully compa3ble with selec3on. Recall the Principle of Containment of Syntac3c Informa3on (CSI): syntac'c informa'on may not disappear in the tree (i.e. all syntac'c features percolate). §  By defini\on, interpretable features can never percolate

beyond their maximal projec\on.

§  Uninterpretable features always percolate up, un\l they stand in a sisterhood rela\on with a matching interpretable feature.

This derives Upward Agree!

74


§  Assume that all Wh-‐elements carry a feature [D: Wh] and a feature [uQ]; and that interroga\ve C carries a feature [uWh] and [Q]. Then, the Wh-‐elements can have its [uQ] feature checked off in situ by percola\ng it up \ll the C-‐level:

C[uWH]

C[Q][u: Wh] T[uQ] T vP[uQ]

v VP[uQ]

V[uD] DPWH[D: Wh][uQ]

75


§  Movement is subsequently triggered by the need to check the higher [u: Wh] feature on C:

C

DPWH[D: Wh][uQ] C[uWH]

C[Q][u: Wh] T[uQ] T vP[uQ]

v VP[uQ]

V[uD] DPWH[D: Wh][uQ]

76


Summing up: §  The proposal is fully compa\ble with uninterpretable features

triggering both selec\on and (Upward) Agree

§  Upward Agree follows directly from the proposal (it was, in fact, developed as a mo\va\on to derive the asymmetric nature of Upward Agree).

§  Note: Agree is not the same as agreement; not every checker (fully) values its checkee; in those cases alterna\ve, lower valuers may complete the valua\on process.

Selec3on in the V-‐domain

78

XVI. Selec3on in the V-‐domain

So far, the proposal predicts that every selector forms the label. However, this is not par3cularly clear for VP-‐internal selec3on.

§  Are the selec\onal requirements of a V s-‐selec\onal or c-‐selec\onal requirements? For this proposal it is necessary that V selects its arguments syntac\cally, not seman\cally. Otherwise the label of merger of V and D can never be V.

§  How do case proper\es fill in? For this proposal, again, it is necessary that selected DPs do not check their selec\ng heads in return (as is o{en assumed in case theory).

79


Roadmap:

§  Show that every V c-‐selects no more than one DP argument.

§  Show that case requirements stem from the fact that Vs cannot select more than one DP argument.

80


The idea that verbs do not c-‐select, but rather s-‐select (DP) arguments comes from two reasons:

§  Vs o{en select non-‐DP arguments, but PP or CP arguments:

Mary knows Bill Mary knows about Peter Mary knows that Theo is ill

81


The idea that verbs do not c-‐select, but rather s-‐select (DP) arguments comes from two reasons: §  Not every DP is selected as an argument

John works this week As the la5er type of argument could be analysed in terms of covert preposi\ons ([PP P [DP this week]]) (cf. Corver 2015), we focus on the first argument, which is generally taken to be the strongest argument against c-‐selec\on.

82

XVII. PP arguments

However, as shown before, PP arguments do not require any V to select them; PPs select VPs (or elements headed by [Pred] features).

V {{[V]}}

V PP {{[V]}} {{[V]},{[uV]}} sleep in the bed

83

XVII. PP arguments

In fact, even if V selects for a DP argument, it can be modified by a PP argument as well:

V {{[V]}, {[uD]}}

V PP {{[V]}, {[uD]}} {{[V]},{[uV]}} sleep in the bed

84

XVII. PP arguments

Under this proposal, Verbs do not syntac3cally select for PP arguments (or adjuncts), but they can be modified by PPs. §  PP arguments and PP adjuncts are syntac\cally iden\cal; their

differences follow from the (different) seman\c proper\es of argument and adjunct PPs and the the verb.

§  At the same \me the ques\on arises if, and of so, how the argument-‐adjunct dis\nc\on of PPs is syntac\cally reflected.

85

XVII. PP arguments

PP adjuncts and PP arguments of a verb can be syntac3cally dis3nguished, as long as this verb also selects for a DP. §  A PP sister of a verb behaves argumental if it is merged before

the verb selects other arguments:

V {{[V]}}

V D {{[V]}, {[uD]}} {{[D]}} she V PP {{[V]}, {[uD]}} {{[V]},{[uV]}} count on Mary

86

XVII. PP arguments

PP adjuncts and PP arguments of a verb can be syntac3cally dis3nguished, as long as this verb also selects for a DP. §  A PP sister of a verb behaves adjunct-‐like if it is merged a{er

the verb selects other arguments:

V {{[V]}}

V PP {{[V]}} {{[V]},{[uV]}} in the garden V D {{[V]}, {[uD]}} {{[D]}} count she

87

XVIII. CP arguments

So, PPs do not form an argument against c-‐selec3on of Vs. §  Hence, the only argument against c-‐selec\on is the difference

between DP arguments and CP arguments.

§  In order to assess these differences, first it must be established what the syntac\c features of CP arguments are.

§  Most crucially, it should be determined what the differences and correspondences between (argument) CPs and (argument) DPs are.

88

XVIII. CP arguments

Closer scru3ny shows that (argument) CPs share a number of prototypical proper3es of (argument) DPs. §  They control (3rd singular) agreement: That it rains is clear.

§  They can be referred to by pronouns: That (John is ill) I know.

§  They have case (in a clause with a CP subject, the DP receives dependent case): That Bill le{ Susanne shocked her.

Note that this not necessarily apply to every CP. It only holds for those CPs that can be used as (verbal) arguments.

89

XVIII. CP arguments

CPs differ from DPs in the sense that complemen3zers select clauses (TP, vP, VP). Focusing on (argumental) that-‐CPs: §  That selects a TP

§  The merger of that and a TP behaves like a DP

§  On these grounds, it makes sense to think of complemen\zers like that as elements that change TPs into DPs. (Note that the pronominal nature of complemen\zers has been proposed earlier by Kayne 1994, among others).

90

XVIII. CP arguments

Proposal: that carries {{[D]}, {[uT]}}.

CP = DP {{[D]}}

C = D TP {{[D]}, {[uT]}} {{[T]}} that John le{

91

XVIII. CP arguments

But this means that every verb that selects a DP or CP argument must carry [uD] (cf. Wurmbrand). The lexical seman3cs of these verbs determines whether the argument is an individual or a proposi3on. §  But now the ques\on arises as to how verbs that select for

mul\ple (DP) arguments encode these selec\onal proper\es

§  In order to address this turn ques\on it is necessary to discuss case.

92

IXX. Case

The final desideratum for a labelling theory is how to deal with case. Under the Chomskyan view that case manifests an Agree rela3on between a DP and some (func3onal) head, our proposal faces severe problems. §  To see this, assume that accusa\ve case is [uv].

§  Once [uv] is the sister of v (carrying [v]) their merger would be labelless:

93

IXX. Case

The result would yield an element that lacks any (interpretable) feature:

… v[v][uV] VP[V][uv]

V[V][uD] DP[D][uv]

§  Note that assigning v a [uD] feature would not solve the problem, as then merger with a DP would then render the merger labelless again.

94

IXX. Case

Of course, this problem can be circumvented by ad hoc solu3ons; e.g., accusa3ve reflects some feature [uCase] that at PF is realized as dependent accusa3ve case:

v[v] v[v][Case][uV] VP[V][uCase]

V[V][uD] DP[D][uCase]

§  But apart from lacking independent mo\va\on, this solu\on is problema\c for a number of other reasons.

95

IXX. Case

§  No principled mo\va\on for [(u)Case] features

§  Not clear whether case reflects Agree (cf. Marantz 1990, Baker 2015)

§  No understanding why DPs should exhibit structural case in

the first place.

96

IXX. Case

Major problem for any case theory: §  Morphological case seems to be PF-‐determined (cf. Marantz

1990, Bobaljik 2008, Legate 2008). §  But DPs require licensing by some func\onal head (generally

captured by syntac\c Agree): structural case.

§  Is there any way how the DP requirement to be licensed by a func\onal head can follow without encoding this in a direct feature-‐checking rela\on?

97

IXX. Case

Answer: yes, there is. Let’s solve this problem with the previous ques3on: what happens with verbs selec3ng for mul3ple DP arguments. §  Suppose that a verb selects two DP arguments: §  Such a verb cannot carry two [uD]-‐features:

{{[V]}, {[uD], [uD]}} = {{[V]}, {[uD]}}

98

IXX. Case

In order to be able to select for more than one DP argument, a verb needs to merge with another DP-‐selec3ng element (P or v):

v[v]

DP[D] v[v][uD] v[v][uD][uV] V[V]

V[V][uD] DP[D]

99

IXX. Case

Indeed, every licenser of structural case is a head that selects for (phi-‐valued) DPs: Finite T, v, P. §  The func\on of introducing a head that can ‘assign’ structural

case is nothing but selec\ng a new DP.

v[v]

DP[D] v[v][uD] v[v][uD][uV] V[V]

V[V][uD] DP[D]

100

IXX. Case

Structural case follows from the requirement that DPs need to be selected. §  Even if seman\cally a verb allows for mul\ple arguments,

syntac\cally it cannot select mul\ple DPs, given that the set of selec\onal features is unordered.

§  However, such an intui\on of what is behind structural case is only valid if non-‐DP selec\ng elements cannot be merged with DP.

101

IXX. Case

It needs to be prevented that DPs (and other elements) do not merge with elements that do not select them:

* N-‐D[N][D]

N D [N] [D]

§  There are various ways of implemen\ng this. The most straigh�orward one would be to allude to the more general constraint on Merge that it may only take place if it leads to feature checking (cf. Pesetsky & Torrego 2006, Wurmbrand 2014).

102

IXX. Case

Finally, note that of structural case amounts to ac3ve phi-‐feature values, every DP carrying structural case cannot be in the specifier of non-‐valued T (if non-‐finite T indeed means unvalued T):

* T

D T [D: p, n] [uD: ∅,∅]

§  Together, this yields the pa5ern that valued DPs must stand in a feature checking rela\on with either finite T, v or P, which is the classical structural case requirement.

103

IXX. Case

Under this proposal, structural case is nothing but the requirement that every DP is to be selected, i.e. to be merged with, an element carrying [uD]. This correctly predicts that §  Every known ‘case-‐assigner’ (P, finite T, v) is an element

selec\ng for DPs.

§  DPs must Merge with these selectors.

§  If the difference between elements carrying structural case and inherent case is that only elements with structural case have syntac\cally ac\ve phi-‐values, every agreement probe agrees with the closest DP ‘carrying’ structural case (cf. Bobaljik 2008).

104

IXX. Case

Now we can also address the previous ques3on: which verb select for DPs (i.e., carry a [uD] feature)? §  If all arguments need to be base-‐generated inside the VP; if

every DP needs to be selected; and if every verb requires one DP subject, each verb must carry a feature [uD].

§  Every transi\ve verb has an addi\onal v-‐head, selec\ng a second (higher) argument.

§  PP arguments are no arguments in the strict sense (but rather modifiers). Verbs with PP objects are strictly speaking intransi\ve. The structural posi\on of a PP s\ll determines its status of argument/adjunct.

105

IXX. Case

This way, we even further conjecture that DP-‐selec3on is what renders a predicate being a verb. §  V = {{[Pred]}, {[uD]}}

Analogically, Nouns should then be predicates that select for finite tense (cf. Pesetsky & Torrego 2006):

§  N = {{[Pred]}, {[uT: fin]}} But this poten\al extension is le{ for future work (with many other things).

Conclusions

107

XX. Conclusions

The proposal for a labelling algorithm: §  Mo\vates why the selector projects §  Can account for labelling in all configura\ons (including adjunc\on)

§  Can overcome the ordering problem §  Can account for the differences between selec\on and agree §  Can circumvent the problems rela\ng s-‐selec\on vs c-‐selec\on and mutual selec\on (e.g. with case)

108

XX. Conclusions

Moreover, it provides: §  A principled understanding of a syntax-‐internal labelling mechanism

§  A mo\va\on why Agree (in the sense of feature checking) applies in an upward fashion

§  A mo\va\on why DPs need to be licensed by func\onal heads (a.k.a. structural case)

§  A severe reduc\on of the set of formal features (essen\ally T, D and Pred, and their underlying feature values)

THANK YOU!

(Preliminary) Principles,of,Projecon · 2016. 7. 17. · Hedde$Zeijlstra(Göngen)$ $ (Preliminary)...

Documents

Transcript of (Preliminary) Principles,of,Projecon · 2016. 7. 17. · Hedde$Zeijlstra(Göngen)$ $ (Preliminary)...