introduction to syntax - rijksuniversiteit groningen · lot summer school, introduction to syntax 4...

LOT Summer School, Introduction to syntax 4 Utrecht 2008

LOT Summer School 2008

Introduction to syntax

Utrecht, June 30 - July 4

Jan-Wouter ZwartUniversity of Groningen

www.let.rug.nl/[email protected]

2/37


LOT Summer School 2008

Introduction to syntax

Day Four

Some controversial issues

July 3, 2008

3/37


RECAP

!!!! syntax is a system combining elements creating information(sound/meaning interpretability)

!!!! it minimally needs an operation Merge

!!!! Merge gives us for free:

#### structure, with its basic properties (constituency, binary branching)

#### hierarchical organization of the clause

#### c-command, and dependencies restricted by c-command

!!!! some key properties of syntax still unexplained (locality)

4/37


TODAY

Some controversial issues

A. the structure/order correspondence 6-25» the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA)» Bare Phrase Structure theory» relation to Merge

B. the cartography project 26-37» cartographic vs. dynamic structure» evidence for cartography» a concrete analysis» the concept ‘syntactic position’

C. movement day five» evidence» triggers for movement» movement without Merge ?

5/37


A. Structure-order correspondence

a) empirical observations 6-14

b) explanations 15-18

» the LCA

c) Bare Phrase Structure 18-20

d) can Merge help? 21-25

6/37



Empirical observations

Kayne, R. 1992, Word order. Key-note lecture GLOW Lisbon.

!!!! verb second (V2) must be counted from the front of the clause

» many languages put the verb after the first constituentno languages put the verb before the last constituent

(1) a. Jan kuste Marie (Dutch)

John kissed Mary

b. Gisteren kuste Jan Marieyesterday kissed John Mary

7/37


(continued)

!!!! Preposition stranding involves movement to the left

» many languages strand a preposition to the rightno languages strand a preposition to the left

(2) a. Which boy she new from high school did Mary talk [ to — ]

b. Mary talked [ to — ] yesterday a boy she new from high school

!!!! Wh-movement never to the right

» when languages mark interrogatives by movement of wh-elements,the movement is always leftward, never rightward

!!!! etc.

8/37


Conclusion from the observations

!!!! movement is to the left

!!!! but we already knew that movement is up (Extension Condition)

» merge always on top of the existing derivation

!!!! hence:

LEFT = UP

!!!! Kayne’s conclusion: » XP-movement: specifiers are to the left» head-movement: heads are to the left› complements are to the right

!!!! this must be fixed, universal, innate

9/37


Head-final languages

!!!! SOV-languages: 40-45%SVO-languages: 40-45%

!!!! a) mixed languages (Dutch, German)b) strict languages (Japanese, Burmese)c) unclear languages (Australian lgs)

(1) VO Jan kust Marie (Dutch)

John kisses Mary

(2) OV ..dat Jan Marie kustthat John Mary kisses

(3) VO ..dat Jan Marie vertelde [dat hij van haar hield]that John Mary told that he loved her

10/37


Digression: figuring out the basic order

!!!! is the placement of an element marked ? (if so, ignore)» construction specific» rule governed

#### Dutch: V2-language» the finite verb is always second in main clauses» ignore position of finite V in main clauses > OV is the rule

(1)’ Jan heeft Marie gekustJohn has Mary kissed ‘John kissed Mary.’

adjacent to:

!!!! is the complement adjacent to its head ? (if not, ignore) inseparable from

» nonadjacency: suspicion of movement

(1)’ Jan heeft Marie niet gekustJohn has Mary not kissed ‘John didn’t kiss Mary.’

» still undecided

11/37


More tests

#### order of adposition (pre/postposition) and complement

(1) a. in de tuin b. de tuin in (Dutch)

in the garden the garden in‘into the garden’

(2) a. naast de boom b. *de boom naastnext the tree the tree next‘beside the tree’

#### position of the top heads: C (clause) and D (noun phrase)» very strong tests (results are valid even if the heads were moved)» final complementizers/determiners much rarer than final verbs

(3) ..dat Jan Marie kustthat John Mary kisses

12/37


#### position of conjunction (ab&, a&b, &ab)

NUMBER OF LGS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL

&-INITIAL (A&B) 149 82.7

&-FINAL (AB&) 12 6.6

UNCLEAR/DIVERGING 46 25.5NB the numbers don’t add up because languages may display more than one pattern

(1) Kinnauri, Himalayish, Sino-Tibetana. ccccn0000 rccccn0000 do++++ chan0000 due (head-final)

1sg:gen with 3sg:gen son be:3past‘His son was with me.’

b. gcccc rccccn0000 ki bi-ti………… (conjunction initial)1sg:dir and you:hon go-fut:1du.incl.hon‘I and you will go.’

Zwart, C.J.W. 2005. Some notes on coordination in head-final languages. Linguistics in theNetherlands 2005.

13/37


Solutions

!!!! mixed type

» object shift to the left

(1) Jan heeft Marie niet gekust MarieJohn has Mary not kissed ‘John didn’t kiss Mary.’

» A-position or A’-position?

(2) Ik heb Marie [aan zichzelf] voorgesteld MarieI have Mary to herself introduced‘I introduced Mary to herself.’ NB, binding is only possible

from out of an A-position

» regular TH > GF movement

Vanden Wyngaerd, G. 1989. Object shift as an A-movement rule. MIT Working Papers inLinguistics 11.

14/37


Solutions (continued)

!!!! strict type (final complementizers)

» Kayne: move TP to Spec,CP (i.e. across C)(The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, 1994)

CP

TP

C TP

» expected correlation: final C ~ no wh-movement(e.g. Japanese)

» why ? (unclear)

15/37



Explanations

!!!! there is no ‘order’ in syntax Chomsky

» linear order is established at the sound-interface

!!!! the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) Kayne

» order is a function of asymmetric c-command (~ Merge)

!!!! Merge itself is asymmetric Zwart

» order is a function of Merge

16/37


The LCA

x x c-commands y y does not c-command xx c-commands z z does not c-command x

y y c-commands z z does not c-command y

z

!!!! basic idea

» ordered pairs ++++ x, y ,,,,, ++++ x, z ,,,,, ++++ y, z ,,,, YYYY ++++ x, y, z ,,,, YYYY / x y z /

!!!! caveat» Kayne assumes a distinction between nodes and terminals» the order of terminals is a function of the ordered pairs of the nodes dominating theterminals

!!!! linear order of terminals < total/transitive/antisymmetric order of nonterminals

17/37


Problems with the LCA

!!!! mutual c-command > no order x

» way out: vacuous projection y z(no branching) x

» = structure without Merge ;;;; y ZYP

z!!!! complex specifier > no order XP Y’

» way out: intermediate X Y ZPprojection doesn’t count

» ad hoc ;;;;

18/37



Bare Phrase Structure

!!!! Chomsky’s reaction to the LCA(Categories and Transformations, Chapter 4 of The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, 1995)

#### empirical observations seem right#### fundamental problem with the approach to structure» vacuous projection (structure without Merge)» capitalizing on the notation of phrase structure

!!!! Bare Phrase Structure» no structure without merger (no vacuous projection)» no separation between node and terminal

Follows from an ‘Inclusiveness Condition’: derivation knows only • material from the numeration, and• relations among them

19/37


Digression: the bottom of the tree

!!!! Bare Phrase Structure: no asymmetry between head and complement

!!!! this is not a problem, if order is established at the sound interface

» the bottom complement must be empty› trace› incorporated in V (conflation with unergative intransitives)› cliticization

» or the verb must have moved

20/37


Problem

!!!! no story about ordering at the sound-interface

!!!! no fundamental account of Kayne’s empirical observations

21/37



Can Merge help ?

!!!! Assumption so far:

#### Merge takes two elements#### ..and creates a set

!!!! Order is automatic if:

#### Merge takes one element#### ..or creates an ordered pair

22/37


The history of the derivation

!!!! After the first merge is out of the way:

#### merge adjoins a new element to existing structure

!!!! any distinction among members of a set suffices to call it an ordered pair

» every merge but the first merge creates an ordered pair

!!!! can we bring first merge in the fold as well ?

Jaspers, D. 1998. Categories and recursion. Interface 12.Zwart, C.J.W. 2003. What’s in a name? Syntactic and asyntactic accentuation in Dutch. InGrammar in focus, Lund.

23/37


‘Unary’ Merge

!!!! picture Merge as transfer operation» from the resource» to a structure

!!!! then the first step may be#### merger with nothing (just moving one element)#### merger with the empty set

!!!! at the next step, the old/new asymmetry kicks in

C.J.W. Zwart. 2004. Unary merge. Talk University of Tilburg.J. Fortuny. 2007. The emergence of order in syntax. Dissertation Barcelona. (publ. Benjamins 2008)

!!!! ‘funny’ consequence (if structure is head-initial): #### the first element merged must be a complement

24/37


Digression:Order as a function of nested sets

!!!! if each step yields a set, we get (assuming unary merge)

step 1 { """" } the output of step 1

step 2 { """", { """", $$$$ } } the outputs of step 1 and step 2

step 3 { """", { """", $$$$ }, { """", $$$$, (((( } } the outputs of step 1, 2, and 3

!!!! but we know:

{ """", { """", $$$$ } } //// ++++ """", $$$$ ,,,,

!!!! so the nested set is equivalent to an ordered n-tuple, which is what the derivation yields

{ """", { """", $$$$ }, { """", $$$$, (((( } } //// ++++ """", $$$$, (((( ,,,,

Fortuny, 2008, The emergence of order in syntax.

25/37


Simplified LCA

!!!! ++++ a, b ,,,, = / a, b /

!!!! linear order is a function of the temporal ordering of steps in a derivation

» last in, first out

26/37


B. The cartography project

a) cartographic vs. dynamic structure 27-31

b) evidence for cartography 32-35

c) consequence for a concrete analysis 36

d) the concept ‘syntactic position’ 37

27/37



Cartographic vs. dynamic structure

!!!! general observation:

specifier

head complement

!!!! types of explanation:

#### a separate (innate) component of the grammar

#### a function of the way Merge works

28/37


The X’-theory

!!!! every head projects a phrase

XP

— X’

X0 —

!!!! this template is there, regardless of the presence of material in —

29/37


Cartography

!!!! assumes the X’-template for each phrase

!!!! assumes a fixed/universal/innate ordering of phrases

» universal hierarchical structure

!!!! the structure as a whole must be extrapolated from partial observations

30/37


Example of extrapolation

!!!! finite complementizers in Dutch

#### 3 morphemes: als ‘if/when/like’ (conditional)of ‘if/whether’ (interrogative)dat ‘that’ (declarative)

#### may cooccur in pairs

als of ‘as if’ *of alsals dat ‘that’ *dat alsof dat ‘if/whether’ *dat of

#### never in a triple *als of dat

!!!! extrapolation: a single layered CP-structure

[CP als [CP of [CP dat [TP (etc) ] ] ]

31/37


Dynamic Approach

!!!! no fixed template

!!!! no merger: ambiguous category X0/XP (e.g. clitics ?)

!!!! structure only as a result of Merge

!!!! label of the structure is a function of the nature of the elements merged

» X’-template arises when both a complement and a specifier are merged

» labeling: """"n + $$$$m = """"m (where """" projects, and n/m are projection levels)

» labels are relative concepts

32/37



Evidence for cartography

!!!! the hierarchical organization of the clause A’ > GF > TH

!!!! typological observations: Cinque 1999 Adverbs and functional heads, Oxford,

and other related work

#### the order of noun (pre-)modifiers:» demonstrative > numeral > adjective these three red cars

#### the order of adjective types (preceding N)» size > color > nationality big red Hungarian cars

#### the order of adverb types» speech act > modal > aspectual/temporal > manner

frankly probably already fully#### the order of modal verbs» epistemic > deontic may have to

33/37


Facts still allow both approaches

!!!! cartographic approach

» the complete structure of the functional domainis universal and part of the innate language faculty

!!!! dynamic approach

» the expansion of the structure is dynamic (function of Merge)

» there are laws guiding the interpretation of structure(a semantically motivated ‘functional sequence’ of elements)

34/37


Some argumentation

!!!! Failure of expected transitivity transitivity:

if x>y and y>z then x>z

(1) Swedish (Nilsen 2003)a. possibly > NEGStåle har muligens ikke spist hvetekakene sine (*ikke muligens)

Ståle has possibly not eaten his weaties

b. NEG > alwaysStåle hadde ikke alltid spist hvetekakene sine (*alltid ikke)

Ståle had not always eaten his weaties

c. always > possibly..hvor spillerne alltid muligens er et klikk fra å vinne $1000where players always possibly are one click away from winning $1000

Nilsen, Ø. 2003. Eliminating positions. Utrecht dissertation.Van Craenenbroeck, J. 2006. Transitivity failures in the left periphery and foot-driven movementoperations. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006.

35/37


(continued)

!!!! free mixing of cartographies

(2) a. low GF > high adverb..dat Jan Marie het boek eerlijk gezegd niet gegeven heeft (Dutch)

that John Mary the book frankly not given has

b. low adverb > high GF..dat Jan snel Marie het boek gegeven heeftthat John quickly Mary the book given has

» Both hierarchies appear to play in different dimensions

Bobaljik, J. 1999. Title coming soon.

36/37



Consequence for a concrete analysis

(1) a. .. dat Jan Marie kust (Dutch)

that John Mary kisses

b. Opeens kust Jan Mariesuddenly kisses John Mary

!!!! V and C show the same distribution

!!!! what does it mean for subject-initial main clauses?

(2) a. Jan kust Marie V-to-Cb. Jan kust Marie V-to-T

!!!! cartographic approach: » there is always a CP > analysis (2a)(requires subject movement to Spec,CP)

!!!! dynamic approach: » V follows first constituent > analysis (2b)(subject is in the structural subject position)

37/37



What is a syntactic position ?

Nilsen 2004, Eliminating positions, Utrecht dissertation.

!!!! cartographic approach:

» a fixed location defined in terms of cartography

!!!! dynamic approach:

» a location relative to a sister ( < Merge)

introduction to syntax - rijksuniversiteit groningen · lot summer school, introduction to syntax 4...

Documents