Developmental syntax 1

05_MScDL_Ovhd01_Clauses

Developmental syntax 1: Recap; Structure of the clause Principles and parameters............................................................................................................. 2 Principles (Universals) ............................................................................................................. 2 Constituent structure............................................................................................................. 2 X-Bar Theory........................................................................................................................ 4 The Projection Principle ....................................................................................................... 5 Parameters ................................................................................................................................ 6 Head-complement order ....................................................................................................... 6 Specifier-head order ............................................................................................................. 7 V-movement to Infl .............................................................................................................. 7 Lexical and functional categories ................................................................................................. 8 The clause as the “extended projection” of V............................................................................... 9 VP............................................................................................................................................. 9 IP ............................................................................................................................................ 11 CP........................................................................................................................................... 12 Ways to follow up ...................................................................................................................... 15

Principles and parameters What are the characteristics of the syntax of human language? What is common to the syntax of all human languages? To what extent can individual languages differ from each other?

Principles (Universals) Examples of possible general properties of syntax:

Constituent structure All natural languages have a syntax that imposes a RECURSIVE, HIERARCHICAL structure. A further assumption is that there is a connection between this hierarchical structure and linear order. At a minimum, it has been proposed that the branches of the trees are NON-TANGLING.

2

VP V

DP

V

Part

fill

up

the glass

VP V

V fill

DP Part the glass

3

up

X-Bar Theory A hypothesis that the phrase structure of all human languages is restricted in certain ways, for example: • binary branching • every lexical item X heads a phrase of category XP • every category XP contains a head of category X • between X and XP there may be an intermediate category X’ Terminology associated with this: a sister of a head X is a _________ of X; a sister of X’ that is also a daughter of XP is the _________ of XP. XP YP X’ YP (Spec) (Spec) ZP X (Compl)

ZP (Compl) 4

It is also possible for there to be recursion within this structure: up to now you have focussed on recursion at the X’ level—but in fact it is generally assumed that recursion is also possible at the XP level and also at the X level (in fact these are sometimes taken to be the only possibilities). Categories that have a mother and daughter of the same type are said to be __________.

The Projection Principle One version (this from Roberts 1997: Comparative Syntax: 59): All θ-roles associated with all lexical heads present in the structure must be realized by arguments at all points in the syntactic derivation. The idea is that structures are built up in such a way that the projection principle is satisfied, and the result is consistent with X-Bar Theory.

5

Parameters

Head-complement order 1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

6

Japanese

a. Yokohama kara b. * kara Yokohama a. * Leith from b. from Leith a. okaasan-wa tori-o mita mother-TOP bird-ACC saw Mother saw a bird. b. * okaasan-wa mita tori-o mother-TOP saw bird-ACC a. * Mother a bird saw. b. Mother saw a bird. a. Claus sah eine Frau. Clause saw a woman b. * Claus eine Frau sah a. * Ich weiss, dass Claus sah eine Frau. I know that Claus saw a woman b. Ich weiss, dass Claus eine Frau sah. I know that Claus a woman saw

Japanese

German

German

6

Specifier-head order Head-specifier order seems suspiciously rare…

V-movement to Infl French vs English (or, even more clearly, Swedish): 1. a.

Il disait qu’il voyait pas la différence. he said that he saw NEG the difference He said that he didn’t see the difference. b. * Il disait qu’il pas voyait la différence. he said that he NEG saw the difference

2. a. * Han sade att han såg inte skilnaden. he said that he saw not difference-the b. Han sade att han inte såg skilnaden. he said that he not saw difference-the 7

French

Swedish

Lexical and functional categories vs FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES. These correspond more or less to what are also called “open-class” and “closed-class” categories, or “content words” and “grammatical words”. It seems that θ-role assignment is restricted to lexical categories. Further, functional categories are typically restricted to being associated with a particular lexical category: so for example the complement of Infl is always VP (never NP or AP). In terminology due to Grimshaw, the projection of a lexical head together with all associated functional projections forms an EXTENDED PROJECTION of the lexical head. Some mechanism is necessary to guarantee that a lexical head occurs with its associated functional heads (i.e. that you get the whole extended projection); in the Minimalist Program (and to some extent elsewhere) it is proposed that lexical heads have certain features which have to be put into association (CHECKED) with those carried by functional heads (and vice versa). Functional categories and parameterisation… LEXICAL CATEGORIES

8

The clause as the “extended projection” of V VP A verb has to combine with the elements to which it assigns θ-roles (its ARGUMENTS). If two arguments, one will be the complement and one the specifier. VP DP Dione

V’ V

DP

admired

Ben

9

What if there is only one argument? It has been proposed that the single argument may appear as a specifier or as a complement, depending on the verb (UNERGATIVES vs UNACCUSATIVES): VP

VP

DP

V’

V’

Dione

V’

V

DP

laughs

appears

Dione

10

IP The semantics of tense is associated with a distinct functional head—Infl[ection]—which as well as Tense features also has the features for subject Agreement. Infl is part of the extended projection of V: I’ IP I

DP

VP

[Pres;3s] DP Dione

Dionei

V’ V

I’ I

VP

[Pres;3s] DP

DP

ti admires

V’ V

DP

admires

Ben

Ben

The DP in Spec,VP moves to Spec,IP. As a result it is in a configuration of AGREEMENT with Infl. 11

CP If the clause is subordinated, generally a further functional head is introduced into the structure: Comp (in English, instantiated by e.g. that, if, for) CP C’ C that

IP DP Dionei

I’ I

VP

[Pres;3s] DP ti

V’ V

DP

admires

Ben 12

Different complementisers are associated with different types of clause. It seems that the “force” of the sentence (whether it is e.g. a statement, a question, a command) may be associated with the functional head Comp. But what about main clauses? Possible conclusion: main clauses also are CPs. If so, then we must allow complementisers with no phonological content. Also needed for subordinate clauses. 1. a. b. c. d.

I wondered if the girls heard the musicians last month. I wondered which musicians the girls heard ____ last month I wondered which month the girls heard the musicians ____ . I wondered which girls ____ heard the musicians last month.

Where are the fronted wh-phrases? A reasonable hypothesis: in Spec,CP:

13

V’ V wonder

CP DP

which musiciansi

C’ C Ø

IP DP

the girlsj

I’ I [PAST]

VP DP tj

V’ V

DP

heard

ti

14

Note that in Dutch the complementiser is overt in such cases, so there is straightforward evidence in that language at least for positing that wh-phrases move to Spec,CP, to the left of the position of the head of CP (data from Roberts 1997: 36): 1.

Ik vraag me af welk meisje dat Jan gekust heeft. I ask myself of which girl that Jan kissed has I wonder which girl Jan kissed.

Ways to follow up Roberts, Ian. 1997. Comparative Syntax. Arnold: London. Chapter 1: Categories and Constituents Adger, David. 2003. Core Syntax. Ms., University of York. Chapters 1–5. This book gives an introduction to syntax within the Minimalist Program. The chapters most relevant to the structure of the clause are Chapters 5 and 8, but you would need to at least skim through the earlier chapters before tackling these.

15