CAS LX 522 Syntax I November 4, 2002 Week 9: Wh-movement, supplement

Similar documents
Wh-movement. CAS LX 522 Syntax I Fall 2001 November 6, 2001

(7) a. [ PP to John], Mary gave the book t [PP]. b. [ VP fix the car], I wonder whether she will t [VP].

CAS LX 522 Syntax I Fall 2000 October 10, 2000 Week 5: Case Theory and θ Theory. θ-theory continued

Ch. 2: Phrase Structure Syntactic Structure (basic concepts) A tree diagram marks constituents hierarchically

2013 ISSN: JATLaC Journal 8: t 1. t t Chomsky 1993 I Radford (2009) R I t t R I 2. t R t (1) (= R's (15), p. 86) He could have helped

Semantics and Generative Grammar. Quantificational DPs, Part 3: Covert Movement vs. Type Shifting 1

X-bar theory. X-bar :

Semantics and Pragmatics of NLP Pronouns

Ling 98a: The Meaning of Negation (Week 5)

HPSG: Binding Theory

Semantics 2 Part 1: Relative Clauses and Variables

Semantics and Generative Grammar. A Little Bit on Adverbs and Events

CAS LX 523 Syntax II Spring 2001 March 13, (1) A qp. Kayne, Richard (1995). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Some binding facts. Binding in HPSG. The three basic principles. Binding theory of Chomsky

Constituency. Doug Arnold

1. Background. Task: Determine whether a given string of words is a grammatical (well-formed) sentence of language L i or not.

Introduction to Semantics. The Formalization of Meaning 1

Control and Tough- Movement

The Semantics of Definite DPs 1. b. Argument Position: (i) [ A politician ] arrived from Washington. (ii) Joe likes [ the politician ].

Models of Adjunction in Minimalist Grammars

Other types of Movement

Control and Tough- Movement

2 A not-quite-argument for X-bar structure in noun phrases

Assignment 3. Solution. 1. Give trees showing the derivations of the following sentences; show all movements.

On Strict Cyclicity and Label: Toward Elimination of Late Merge*

Stepanov 2007: The End of CED? Minimalism and Extraction Domains

Another look at PSRs: Intermediate Structure. Starting X-bar theory

Generalized Quantifiers Logical and Linguistic Aspects

Government, Agreement and Minimality Ian Roberts Downing College, University of Cambridge

A Context-Free Grammar

Parasitic Scope (Barker 2007) Semantics Seminar 11/10/08

Grundlagenmodul Semantik All Exercises

Presuppositions (introductory comments)

564 Lecture 25 Nov. 23, Continuing note on presuppositional vs. nonpresuppositional dets.

Systems of Equations. Red Company. Blue Company. cost. 30 minutes. Copyright 2003 Hanlonmath 1

Semantics and Generative Grammar. Quantificational DPs, Part 2: Quantificational DPs in Non-Subject Position and Pronominal Binding 1

Recap: Lexicalized PCFGs (Fall 2007): Lecture 5 Parsing and Syntax III. Recap: Charniak s Model. Recap: Adding Head Words/Tags to Trees

Chi Square Analysis M&M Statistics. Name Period Date

Computationele grammatica

Proseminar on Semantic Theory Fall 2010 Ling 720. Remko Scha (1981/1984): Distributive, Collective and Cumulative Quantification

An introduction to mildly context sensitive grammar formalisms. Combinatory Categorial Grammar

THE DRAVIDIAN EXPERIENCER CONSTRUCTION AND THE ENGLISH SEEM CONSTRUCTION. K. A. Jayaseelan CIEFL, Hyderabad

Karttunen Semantics. Last week. LING 147. Semantics of Questions Week 4 Yimei Xiang September 22, I. Intensionality

Explorers 4 Teacher s notes for the Comprehension Test: The Snow Queen

Logical Translations Jean Mark Gawron San Diego State University. 1 Introduction 2

Spring 2017 Ling 620 The Semantics of Control Infinitives: A First Introduction to De Se Attitudes

Quantification: Quantifiers and the Rest of the Sentence

Spring 2017 Ling 620. An Introduction to the Semantics of Tense 1

Moreno Mitrović. The Saarland Lectures on Formal Semantics

3.8.1 Sum Individuals and Discourse Referents for Sum Individuals

Semantics and Generative Grammar. The Semantics of Adjectival Modification 1. (1) Our Current Assumptions Regarding Adjectives and Common Ns

Degree pluralities : distributive, cumulative and collective readings of comparatives

Binding Theory Different types of NPs, constraints on their distribution

Chapter 26: Comparing Counts (Chi Square)

Alex s Guide to Word Problems and Linear Equations Following Glencoe Algebra 1

KB Agents and Propositional Logic

Introductory Quantum Chemistry Prof. K. L. Sebastian Department of Inorganic and Physical Chemistry Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

Two Reconstruction Puzzles Yael Sharvit University of Connecticut

= $ m. Telephone Company B charges $11.50 per month plus five cents per minute. Writing that mathematically, we have c B. = $

Chiastic Lambda-Calculi

Sharpening the empirical claims of generative syntax through formalization

a. Develop a fragment of English that contains quantificational NPs. b. Develop a translation base from that fragment to Politics+λ

Semantics and Pragmatics of NLP The Semantics of Discourse: Overview

CAS LX 500 Topics in Linguistics: Questions Spring 2006 March 2, b: Prosody and Japanese wh-questions

Spring 2018 Ling 620 The Basics of Intensional Semantics, Part 1: The Motivation for Intensions and How to Formalize Them 1

(1) If Bush had not won the last election, then Nader would have won it.

1 Propositional Logic

Recap: Tree geometry, selection, Θ-theory

Lesson 19. Jesus Walks on Water. John 6:16-21

Isaac Newton was a British scientist whose accomplishments

Andrew Carnie, Structural Relations. The mathematical properties of phrase structure trees

Spring 2018 Ling 620 Introduction to Semantics of Questions: Questions as Sets of Propositions (Hamblin 1973, Karttunen 1977)

Features. An argument DP must have been assigned Case by S-structure. A Specifier of IP must have been occupied by something by S-structure.

Probability and Independence Terri Bittner, Ph.D.

Proseminar on Semantic Theory Fall 2015 Ling 720 Adnominal Tenses Redux: Thomas (2014) Nominal Tense and Temporal Implicatures

Uncertainty. Michael Peters December 27, 2013

Serena: I don t think that works because if n is 20 and you do 6 less than that you get 20 6 = 14. I think we should write! 6 > 4

Predicate Logic. Predicates. Math 173 February 9, 2010

Quantifier Scope Constraints in ACD: Implications for the Syntax of Relative Clauses

Logic I - Session 10 Thursday, October 15,

Semantics and Generative Grammar. Pronouns and Variable Assignments 1. We ve seen that implicatures are crucially related to context.

How to write maths (well)

Hedging Your Ifs and Vice Versa

Position and Displacement

LING 130: Quantified Noun Phrases

Go Live! Simple Grammar answer key: Level 1

Indicative conditionals

Parsing Beyond Context-Free Grammars: Tree Adjoining Grammars

CS460/626 : Natural Language Processing/Speech, NLP and the Web

Semantics and Pragmatics of NLP. SPNLP: Dynamic Semantics and Drawbacks

Reference-Set Computation = Minimalism + Transformational Rules?

Astronomy 102 Math Review

8. TRANSFORMING TOOL #1 (the Addition Property of Equality)

Preface. Here are a couple of warnings to my students who may be here to get a copy of what happened on a day that you missed.

MACMILLAN READERS ELEMENTARY LEVEL BRAM STOKER. Tales of Horror. Retold by John Davey MACMILLAN

Basics of conversational implicatures

SOME NOTES ON LOGIC AND QUANTIFIER RAISING

Natural Logic Welcome to the Course!

SRC (Neven)

Chapter 1. ANALYZE AND SOLVE LINEAR EQUATIONS (3 weeks)

Transcription:

CAS LX 522 Syntax I November 4, 2002 Fall 2002 Week 9: Wh-movement, supplement () Italian Tuo fratello ( your brother ), [ CP a cui i [ TP mi domando [ CP che storie i [ TP abbiano raccontato t i t j... to whom I wonder which stories they-have told era molto preoccupato ( was very worried ). (2) * Tuo fratello, [ CP a cui i to whom [ TP temo [ DP la possibilità [ CP che [ TP abbiano raccontato tutto t i ]]... I-fear the possibility that they-have told everything,... CNP islands are respected, wh-islands aren t? () Mi sto domandando [ CP a chi i I am wondering to whom potrei chiedere t i [ CP quando j dovrò parlare di questo argomento t j ]] I-may ask when I ll-have-to speak about this topic (4) * Questo argomento, [ CP di cui k mi sto domandando This topic of which I am wondering [ CP a chi potrei chiedere [CP quando dovrò parlare t k ]]] to whom I-may ask when I ll-have-to speak mi sembra sempre più complicato to-me seems ever more complicated Italian bounding nodes: CP and DP. (Rizzi 982)

Argument wh-questions vs. adjunct wh-questions... 2 Argument wh-questions are subject wh-questions, object wh-questions. Who bought the book? What did Bill buy? What was eaten? Adjunct wh-questions are those which question constituents which in a declarative would be adjuncts. (5) I fixed the car with a wrench. (6) CP C C TP [ Q] DPi I T T VP [PAST] t i V V u PP V DP fix the car P DP with a wrench

(7) How i did you fix the car t i? (8) CP PP k C how C+Tj TP DP i T you tj VP t i V V t k V fix DP the car Adjunct wh-questions are more delicate than argument wh-questions. (9)?Whose car i were you wondering how to fix t i? (Ed s car...i was wondering how to fix Ed s car.) (0) *How i were you wondering whose car to fix t i? (With a wrench... I was wondering whose car to fix with a wrench.) What makes these different?

()...... VP VP V V V how V which car with a wrench Ed s car V 4 (2) *How i were [ TP you wondering [ CP whose car [ TP to fix t i ]]]? (With a wrench... I was wondering whose car to fix with a wrench.) () How i did [ TP you fix the car t i ]? (4) How i did [ TP Bill say [ CP t i that [ TP you fixed the car t i ]]? It appears that adjuncts are hyper-sensitive to Subjacency violations, but it possible to move an adjunct wh-word as long as it doesn t go too far. Interestingly, subjects generally act like adjuncts (5)? [Which car] i do you know [ CP how Bill fixed t i ]? (6) * How i do you know [ CP which car Bill fixed t i ]? (7) * Who i do you know [ CP which car t i fixed (with a hammer)]? (8) * Who i do you know [ CP how t i fixed (the Pacer)]? Usually... (9) [Which chair] i do you find [ t i will roll most smoothly]? (20) [Which taxi service] i do you consider [ t i most reliable]? It kind of looks like traces which get accusative Case are safe.

Nailing down the precise formulation of this restriction is very complicated... (see Chomsky 986, Rizzi 990) 5 Here is a close approximation: Empty Category Principle (ECP) Traces must be properly governed Lexical: N, V, A, P Functional: C, T, D Proper Government a properly governs b iff (i) a governs b and a is a lexical head or (ii) a antecedent-governs b. Idea: (i) accounts for?what i did you say knew how Bill fixed t i? (ii) allows for How i did you fix the car t i? antecedent governs means How and its trace are close. Antecedent Government (first attempt) a, a moved category, antecedent-governs b iff i) a binds b (c-commands & co-indexed) ii) no more than one bounding node dominates b but not a. if moving from b to a would not violate Subjacency (2)? Which song i were [ TP you wondering [ CP whether [ TP the band will play t i ]]? (22) * Which band i were [ TP you wondering [ CP whether [ TP t i will play that song]]]? (2)? Which car i do you know how to fix t i? (24) * Who i do you know how t i will fix the car? (25) Which band i did you consider [ t i to be the best ]?

That-trace effect 6 (26) What i did you say (that) Bill would fix t i? (27) *Who i did you say (*that) t i would fix the car? This differentiates subjects and objects it looks like a job for the ECP. When the trace must rely on antecedent government, that blocks it. Empty Category Principle (ECP) Traces must be properly governed a properly governs b iff (i) a governs b and a is a lexical head or (ii) a antecedent-governs b. a antecedent-governs b iff (i) a binds b (ii) no more than one bounding node dominates b but not a. (iii) there is no filled C governing b. (28) * C C TP that ti T

G That-trace effects aren t universal, though... 7 (29) Italian Chi hai detto che ha scritto questo libro? who have-you said that has written this book Who did you say wrote this book? (0) * CP chi i C C hai CP t i C C TP che not gov d by a lexical head ti T not antecedent gov d by t i : T... t i binds t i no bounding nodes intervene but there is a filled C (che) governing t i. () Hanno telefonato molti studenti have.pl phoned many students Many students have phoned. (2) Vinceremo noi will-win.pl we We will win.

() TP pro Vinceremo noi will-win.pl we pro i T We will win. T VP t i V V DP fl (something like this) noi vinceremo 8 Can this help? (4) How i did you say (that) he will fix your car t i? (5)... CP t i C C TP (that) hej T T VP will tj V V # t i fix your car

G (6) Italian Chi hai detto che ha scritto questo libro? who have-you said that has written this book Who did you say wrote this book? 9 (7) [ CP Chi i [ TP pro hai detto [ CP t i che [ TP pro ha (8) CP chi i C C hai [ VP scritto question libro] t i ]]]] CP t i C C TP che proj T T VP t j V V t i # scritto question libro

(9) Mario E parla Florentine It. Mario SCL speaks Mario speaks. 0 (40) E parla SCL speaks He speaks (4) * Parla (42) gl ha telefonato della ragazze SCL(M.SG) has phoned some girls(f.pl) Some girls telephoned. (4) Quante ragazze tu credi che gli abbia parlato? how.many girls you think that M.SG has.sg spoken How many girls do you think have spoken? (44) * Quante ragazze tu credi che le abbiano parlato? how.many girls you think that F.PL have.pl spoken ( How many girls do you think have spoken? )

The category of wh-words: (45) DP [+wh] DP [+wh] DP [+wh] D D D D D D NP what who which N N book (46) AdvP [+wh] AdvP [+wh] AdvP [+wh] AdvP [+wh] Adv Adv Adv Adv Adv Adv Adv Adv how why when where (47) DP [+wh] PP [+wh] DP [+wh] D P D D -se NP P for DP [+wh] D N D who N D book whom Pied-piping: [For whom] i did you buy that bagel t i? P-stranding: Who(m) i did you buy that bagel for t i?

Relative clauses 2 (48) Bill heard [ DP the speech i [ CP which i [ TP Mary made t i ]]]. " z--------m Restrictive relatives restrict the reference of the head noun. Semantically, we refer to something which is both: a speech and (something) which Mary made. Appositive relatives don t restrict the reference, but provide additional information (49) a. Mary, who you met yesterday, just bought a house. b. Mary, [ CP who i [ CP you met t i yesterday ] ],... Free relatives involve -ever and don t modify a head noun (50) a. I will buy [whatever i you sell t i ]. b. Whoever just arrived unplugged my lamp. (5) a. Bill heard the speech [which Mary made]. b. Bill heard the speech [that Mary made]. c. Bill heard the speech [Mary made]. (52) Bill heard [ DP the speech [ CP Op i (that) [ TP Mary made t i ]]]. " z------------m (5) CP CP CP Op i C Op i C Which i C C... C... C... that Ø Ø

Is it really wh-movement? What do we know about wh-movement? (54) * I know the way which i John wonders [ wh-island why Bill went t i ]. (55) * I know the way which i John made [ CNP the claim that Bill went t i ]. (56) *I know the way Op i (that) John wonders [ wh-island why Bill went t i ]. (57) *I know the way Op i that John made [ CNP the claim that Bill went t i ]. So: If relative clauses allow an Op, why can t wh-questions? Why can you have that with Op but not with which? *I heard the speech which i that Mary made t i. Recoverability Condition The content of a null category must be recoverable (from a co-indexed overt category in the sentence). (58) a. When did Mary buy the book? b. Where did Mary buy the book? c. How did Mary buy the book? d. * Op i did Mary buy the book? (59) a. * Op i did Mary buy t i? b. * Op i did Mary give a book t i? (60) Bill heard the speech i [ CP Op i that [ TP Mary made t i ]]. Doubly Filled Comp Filter *[ CP wh-xp that / if / whether ], if wh-xp is overt (non-null).

(6) DP Sample relative clause: The student Bill will meet. D D NP 4 the N N CP N Opi student C C TP [+Q] DPj Bill T T VP will tj V V meet t i