CAS LX 522 Syntax I. We give trees to ditransitives. We give trees to ditransitives. We give trees to ditransitives. Problems continue UTAH (4.3-4.

Transcription

1 7 CAS LX 522 Syntax I UTAH ( ) You may recall our discussion of θ-theory, where we triumphantly classified erbs as coming in (at least) three types: Intransitie (1 θ-role) Transitie (2 θ-roles) Ditransitie (3 θ-roles) Theta roles go obligary arguments, not adjuncts. We gie trees ditransities We gie trees ditransities We gie trees ditransities You may also recall that we beliee that trees are binary branching, where: Syntactic objects are formed by Merge. There s just one complement and one specifier. Fantastic, except that these things just don t fit gether. We know what do with transitie erbs. But what do we do with ditransitie erbs? We re out of space! SUB ʹ OBJ roblems continue roblems continue 1) I showed Mary herself. 2) *I showed herself Mary. 3) I introduced nobody anybody. 4) *I introduced anybody nobody. This tells us something about the relationship between the direct and object in the structure. (What?) The OBJ c-commands the. But how could we draw a tree like that? Een if we allowed adjuncts get θ-roles, the most natural structure would be make the an adjunct, like this, but that doesn t meet the c- command requirements. * SUB ʹ OBJ

2 Some clues from idioms Often idiomatic meanings are associated with the erb+object complex the meaning deries both from the erb and the object gether. Suppose that this is due being Merged in the structure gether initially. 1)Bill threw a baseball. 2)Bill threw his support behind the candidate. 3)Bill threw the boxing match. Idioms in ditransities In ditransities, it seems like this happens with the. Beethoen gae the Fifth Symphony the world. Beethoen gae the Fifth Symphony his patron. Lasorda sent his starting pitcher the showers. Lasorda sent his starting pitcher Amsterdam. Mary ok Felix task. Mary ok Felix the cleaners. Mary ok Felix his docr s appointment. So and are sisters n Larson (1988) ok this as eidence that the is a sister the originally. n Yet, we see that on the surface the OBJ comes between the erb and the. 1)Mary sent a letter Bill. n Where is the OBJ? It must c-command the, remember. Why is the the left of the OBJ when we hear it? Where s the? The OBJ? n We can paraphrase John gae a book Mary as John caused a book go Mary. n Chichewa: n Mtsikana ana-chit-its-a kuti mtsuku u-gw-e girl agr-do-cause-asp that waterpot agr-fall-asp The girl made the waterpot fall. n Mtsikana anau-gw-its-a kuti-mtsuku girl agr-fall-cause-asp that waterpot The girl made the waterpot fall. n Suppose that in both cases Merge puts things gether in the same way initially: n [[that waterpot] fall] n [[that waterpot] fall] Causaties n Then it s merged with cause (basically transitie: needs a causer and a causee): n [cause [[that waterpot] fall]] n And then it s Merged with the Agent n [girl [cause [[that waterpot] fall]]] n At which point, one can moe fall oer cause. n [girl [cause+fall + [[that waterpot] <fall> ]]] Ditransities again n The proposal will be that English ditransities are really a lot like Chichewa causaties. n Starting with n [[the book] [go [ Mary]] n Merging cause and an Agent n [John [cause [[the book] [go [ Mary]]]]] n One then moes go oer cause get: n [John [cause+go [[the book] [<go> [ Mary]]]]] n John gae the book Mary.

3 Un peu de français Un peu de français If you e tried learn any French at all, you e come across this phenomenon: de of le the (masc.) à at la the (fem.) à la bibliotheque the library (fem.) *à le cinéma the moies (masc.) au cinéma the moies (masc.) de la mayonnaise of mayonnaise (fem.) *de le lait du lait of milk (masc.) of milk (masc.) This is usually taught as: au = à + le du = de + le If your underlying intent is à at + le the, say au. So is au a preposition or an article? There s no reason beliee that au cinéma has a different syntactic structure from à la bibliothèque. This is just about how it is pronounced. Au = à + le. Gie = cause + go. D N N Where s the? The OBJ? Where s the? The OBJ? n Larson s proposal was basically this. Logically, if we re going hae binary branching and three positions for argument Xs (SUB, OBJ, ), we need hae another X aboe the. n Since the subject is in the specifier of the higher X, that must be a o. n Ditransitie erbs really come in two parts. They are in a shell structure. n Furthermore, the higher part seems correlate with a meaning of causation. SUB + OBJ <> The higher erb is a light erb (we ll write it as signify that) its contribution is assign the θ-role the subject. The lower erb assigns the θ-roles the OBJ and the. That is, has [u, un] features, and has a [un] feature. Hierarchy of rojections (so far): > ( comes with ) SUB + OBJ <> Where we are We e just come up with an analysis of sentences with ditransitie erbs, such as at gae that accords with the constraints N of the syntactic system we at hae deeloped so far. Merge is binary θ-roles are assigned specifiers and complements. The solution is assume a two-tiered structure, with a little in addition the. N gae N Where we are The three θ-roles for gie are assigned like this: The gets a Goal θ-role. The lower N gets a Theme θ-role. The highest N (in the specifier of ) gets an Agent θ-role. But how did we know that? More importantly, how do kids come know that? Do they memorize this list for each erb they learn? N at N gae N

4 Uniformity of Theta Assignment If kids are really memorizing which θ-role goes where for each erb, there should be some erbs that do it in other ways. For example, there might be a ditransitie erb with Theme in the specifier of, Goal in the specifier of, and Agent in the complement of. E.g., tup: Books tup on the shelf put on the shelf. Theme Goal tup? Agent UTAH But that just neer happens. It seems that all erbs hae θ- role assignment that looks pretty much the same. If there s an Agent, it s the first (uppermost) N. If there s a Theme it s down close the erb. Gien that things seem be relatiely uniform, it has been proposed that this is a fundamental property of the syntactic system. Each θ-role has a consistent place in the structure. Theme Goal tup D Agent UTAH The Uniformity of Theta-Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH): Identical thematic relationships between predicates and their arguments are represented syntactically by identical structural relationships when items are Merged. That is, all Agents are structurally in the same place (when first Merged). All atients are structurally in the same place, etc. We can take this be a property of the interpretation. When a structure is interpreted, the θ-role an argument gets depends on where it was first Merged. Great. So, the Agent (at) in at gae is in the specifier of. Because that s where Agents go. But.. What about structures like the ones we had before for things like at? N at? N N at N gae N Well, if we re serious about working within the constraints of UTAH, we need a there o host the Agent. Hierarchy of rojection: > N at Specifier of = Agent But where s the Theme? Isn t that in different places in at and at gae? N at N at N N gae N N at N N gae N

5 N, daughter of = Agent N, daughter of = Theme, daughter of ʹ = Goal That seems work, and it seems a reasonable interpretation of UTAH. N at N N at N gae N Unaccusaties The ice, the boat, the door, all Themes: N daughter of. The ice melted. The boat sank. The door closed. melt Unaccusaties hae a relatiely inert, no causal meaning. There are two kinds of, the causal one that needs an N (Agent), and a non-causal one. What if we pick the causal (and proide an Agent N)? N the ice Transit i e s Unergaties N Bill melt N the ice Bill melted the ice. The causal adds an Agent. Bill was the agent/instigar of a melting that affected the ice. Bill lied. That s got an Agent, and Agents must be N daughter of. N Bill lie So, it would look like this. Double object constructions at gae a book. Agent: at; Theme: a book; Goal: at gae a book. Agent: at, Theme:? a book?, Goal:?? Don t these mean the same thing? at gae a book N, daughter of = Agent, daughter of ʹ = Goal N, daughter of = Theme The word order suggests this structure. UTAH (so far) doesn t tell us what theta role a book gets. And in what sense is a Theme of a going? N at? N go gae N abook

6 Two kinds of giing The two forms of gie are not quite equialent, though: 1) at gae a book. 2) at gae a book. 3) *at gae a headache. 4) at gae a headache. Try paraphrasing 5) at sent a letter Chicago. 6) *at sent Chicago a letter. 7) at taught French the students. 8) at taught the students French. N, daughter of = Agent N, daughter of = Theme, daughter of ʹ = Goal N, daughter of ʹ = ossessee N at has N abook To hae N at N hae gae N abook On beyond Our trees hae now expanded beyond being mere s being s. The Hierarchy of rojections: > Once you hae finished the (uninterpretable selection features are checked), if there s a on the workbench, Merge it. The UTAH: N, daughter of : Agent N, daughter of : Theme, daughter of ʹ: Goal N, daughter of ʹ: ossessee But this is only the beginning.