CAS LX 522 Back to the trees: X-bar Theory ¥ Consider our current NP rule: Syntax I Ð NP: (D) (AdjP+) N (PP+) ¥ This yields a “flat structure” where all of the components of DP c-command each other. NP Week 3. X-bar Theory DNPPAdjP PP thisAdj book P NP PNP big of N with D AdjP N poems the Adj cover blue

X-bar Theory: NP X-bar Theory: NP ¥ I bought this big book of poems with the blue cover. ¥ We can substitute one for book of poems with the blue ¥ You bought this small one. cover, which should mean book of poems with the blue cover is a constituent, but it isn’t in our structure.

NP NP

DNPPAdjP PP DNPPAdjP PP thisAdj book P NP PNP thisAdj book P NP PNP big of N with big of N with D AdjP N D AdjP N poems poems the Adj cover the Adj cover blue blue

X-bar Theory: NP X-bar Theory: NP ¥ I bought this small one with the red cover. ¥ This suggests a more deeply embedded structure: ¥ We can also substitute one in for book of poems alone, which should thus also be a constituent. NP ? NP ?

DNPPAdjP PP DNPPAdjP PP thisAdj book P NP PNP thisAdj book P NP PNP big of N with big of N with D AdjP N D AdjP N poems poems the Adj cover the Adj cover blue blue

1 X-bar Theory: NP X-bar Theory: NP ¥ We’ll call these “intermediate” nodes of NP N′ (N-bar). ¥ So, our final NP looks like this: ¥ Notice that you can also say I bought this one. NP NP N′ N′ N′ N′ N′

DNPPAdjP PP DNPPAdjP PP thisAdj book P NP PNP thisAdj book P NP PNP big of N with big of N with D AdjP N D AdjP N poems poems the Adj cover the Adj cover blue blue

X-bar Theory: NP X-bar Theory: VP ¥ We need to break up our NP rule; instead of Ð NP: (D) (AdjP+) N (PP+) ¥ The same kind of thing holds of VP as well ¥ We have: as NP. Instead of using one (which stands Ð NP: (D) N′′′ for N′) we can try doing replacements using Ð N′′′ : AdjP N′′′ Ð N′′′ : N′′′ PP do so, and we’ll get a very similar result. Ð N′′′ : N (PP) ¥ Our old rule generated a flat structure for ¥ Notice that these yield the same results on the surface VP as well (all PPs, NPs, CPs, etc. in a VP (note the recursion and the optionality) but produce c-command each other). different structures (in terms of constituency). ¥ Notice also that under these rules, any node of NP has Ð VP: (AdvP+) V ({NP/CP}) (PP+) (AdvP+) no more than two daughters (binary branching).

X-bar Theory: VP X-bar Theory: VP

Ð VP: (AdvP+) V ({NP/CP}) (PP+) (AdvP+) ¥ Again, it looks like we need to break our rule into parts using V′ (for which do so can substitute). ¥ I quickly left after Mary did so. Ð VP: (AdvP+) V ({NP/CP}) (PP+) (AdvP+) ¥ I left quickly after Mary did so. ¥ To: ¥ I ate the pizza with gusto and Mary did so Ð VP: V′′′ ′′′ ′′′ with quiet reserve. Ð V : AdvP V Ð V′′′ : V′′′ PP ¥ I ate the pizza with gusto immediately and Ð V′′′ : V′′′ AdvP Mary did so later. Ð V′′′ : V ({NP/CP}) ¥ Again, this is the (almost) same on the surface, but yields a different structure. And again, binary.

2 X-bar Theory: VP X-bar Theory: AdjP

¥ Our new rules do not quite make the same ¥ We should now be growing suspicious of our other predictions about the surface strings of VPs, rules, now that we have had to split up NP and VP and ′ ′ however. The old rules had (PP+) before introduce N and V nodes. Ð The governor was [AdjP very concerned about housing costs ]; (AdvP+), the new rules allow them to the tenants were [ even more so ]. intermingle. AdjP Ð The studio was [AdjP unusually pleased with its actors and ¥ But that’s actually better: confident of success ]. Ð John grabbed the book quickly from the table Ð The first statement was true; the second was less so. triumphantly. ¥ This gives us evidence of ′′′ Ð John grabbed the book off the table quickly Ð AdjP: (AdvP) Adj ′′′ with a devilish grin Ð Adj : Adj (PP)

X-bar Theory: PP X-bar theory

Ð The frisbee landed on the roof. ¥ The main idea behind X-bar theory is to Ð It landed right on the edge. explain the similarity between the rules for Ð John knocked it right off the roof and into the trashcan. Ð Mark was at odds with his supervisor. each category. It is an attempt to generalize Ð Mark was in love and at odds with his supervisor. over the rules we have. ′ ¥ So, this gives us (assuming right is an AdjP): Ð PP: (AdjP) P′′′ Ð NP: (D) N′′′ Ð VP: V′′ ′′′ ′ ′ Ð PP: (AdjP) P Ð P′′′ : P′′′ (PP) Ð N′′′ : AdjP N′′′ Ð V′′ : AdvP V′′ Ð P′′′ : P′′′ (PP) Ð P′′′ : P DP Ð N′′′ : N′′′ PP Ð V′′′ : V′′′ PP Ð P′′′ : P DP Ð N′′′ : N (PP) Ð V′′′ : V′′′ AdvP Ð AdjP: (AdvP) Adj′′′ Ð V′′′ : V ({NP/CP}) Ð Adj′′′ : Adj (PP)

X-bar theory X-bar theory

¥ The X in X-bar theory is a variable over ¥ The rules all have the following form: categories. When we talk of XP, we mean ¥ XP: ZP X′ X′ : (YP) X′ to be describing any kind of phrase (VP, NP, ¥ X′ : X′ (YP) X′ : X (WP) AdjP, AdvP, PP, TP, CP, …). ′ ′ Ð PP: (AdjP) P′′′ Ð NP: (D) N′′′ Ð VP: V′′ Ð PP: (AdjP) P′′′ Ð NP: (D) N′′′ Ð VP: V′′ ′ ′ ′ ′ Ð P′′′ : P′′′ (PP) Ð N′′′ : AdjP N′′′ Ð V′′ : AdvP V′′ Ð P′′′ : P′′′ (PP) Ð N′′′ : AdjP N′′′ Ð V′′ : AdvP V′′ Ð P′′′ : P DP Ð N′′′ : N′′′ PP Ð V′′′ : V′′′ PP Ð P′′′ : P DP Ð N′′′ : N′′′ PP Ð V′′′ : V′′′ PP Ð N′′′ : N (PP) Ð V′′′ : V′′′ AdvP Ð N′′′ : N (PP) Ð V′′′ : V′′′ AdvP Ð AdjP: (AdvP) Adj′′′ Ð V′′′ : V ({NP/CP}) Ð AdjP: (AdvP) Adj′′′ Ð V′′′ : V ({NP/CP}) Ð Adj′′′ : Adj (PP) Ð Adj′′′ : Adj (PP)

3 X-bar theory X-bar theory ¥ X-bar theory elevates this to a principle of phrase structure; it hypothesizes that all phrases in a syntactic ¥ Structurally, this looks like this XP tree conform to this template. (of course, there can be any ZP X′ ¥ XP : (ZP) X′′′ number of X′ nodes, here we see Ð A phrase (XP) consists of optionally another phrase and a bar- YP X′ level projection (X′). three). ′ ¥ X′′′ : YP X′′′ or X′′′: X′′′ YP ¥ Different parts of this structure X YP Ð A bar-level projection (X′) can consist of another X′ and another are given different names (and XWP phrase (recursive). they act different from one ¥ X′′′ : X (WP) Ð A bar-level projection (X′) consists of a head of the same another, as we’ll see). category (X) and optionally another phrase.

X-bar theory X-bar theory

¥ The phrase which is immediately XP ¥ We have posited a structural NP dominated by XP (designated ZP difference between complements ZP X′ ZP X′ here) is the specifier. (WP here, of which there is only YP X′ YP X′ ¥ A phrase dominated by X′ and one) and adjuncts (YP here, of the sister of X′ is an adjunct. X′ YP which there can be any number), X′ YP ¥ The phrase which is sister to X is X WP and so we should expect to find XWP the complement. that they behave differently. ¥ Consider NP…

X-bar Theory: NP X-bar Theory: NP ¥ The head of this NP is book. ¥ The head of this NP is book. NP NP ¥ The complement is of poems. N′ N′ N′ N′ N′ N′

DNPPAdjP PP DNPPAdjP PP theAdj book P NP PNP theAdj book P NP PNP big of N with big of N with D AdjP N D AdjP N poems poems the Adj cover the Adj cover blue blue

4 X-bar Theory: NP X-bar Theory: NP ¥ The head of this NP is book. ¥ The head of this NP is book. NP ¥ The complement is of poems. NP ¥ The complement is of poems. N′ ¥ With the blue cover and big are N′ ¥ With the blue cover and big are adjuncts. adjuncts. ′ ′ N N ¥ The is in specifier position. N′ N′ Note: D here is not a phrase; it does not DNPPAdjP PP DNPPAdjP PP conform to X-bar theory. We will fix theAdj book P NP PNP theAdj book P NP PNPthis soon. big of N with big of N with D AdjP N D AdjP N poems poems the Adj cover the Adj cover blue blue

X-bar theory: NP X-bar theory: NP

¥ The complement of a head (e.g., of poems in a ¥ An adjunct, on the other hand, feels more “optional” book of poems) tends to feel more intimately Ð A book on the table related to the head. Compare a book on the table. ¥ X-bar theory allows for any number of adjuncts (not ¥ The complement of N in English is almost always just one, like with complements). introduced by the preposition of. Ð The book with the blue cover on the third shelf about C++ ¥ Adjuncts can generally be re-ordered freely. ¥ X-bar theory allows for only one complement, and Ð The book with the blue cover about C++ on the third shelf indeed in NP we cannot have two of-PPs of this Ð The book about C++ with the blue cover on the third shelf sort: Ð The book about C++ on the third shelf with the blue cover Ð *The book of poems of fiction Ð The book on the third shelf with the blue cover about C++ ¥ Cf. The book of poems and of fiction Ð The book on the third shelf about C++ with the blue cover

X-bar theory: NP X-bar theory: NP

¥ X-bar structure also predicts that the XP ¥ Other tests differentiate adjuncts and complements too. complement PP of an NP must be first; ¥ Conjoining two elements of a given category yields an it cannot be re-ordered with respect to ZP X′ element of the same category; if conjunction is possible adjunct PPs. YP X′ the two conjuncts are of the same category. Ð The book of poems with the blue cover on ¥ You cannot conjoin a complement and an adjunct PP the third shelf ′ X YP (where could it go in the structure?), although you can Ð *The book with the blue cover of poems on the third shelf XWP conjoin complements and you can conjoin adjuncts: Ð *The book on the third shelf of poems Ð The book of poems and of essays with the blue cover Ð The book with the blue cover and with the red spine Ð *The book with the blue cover on the Ð *The book of poems and with the red spine third shelf of poems

5 X-bar theory: NP X-bar theory: NP

¥ Finally, recall our one- XP ¥ And this prediction is met: replacement test. One can ZP X′ Ð The book of poems on the third shelf stand in for an N′, but not Ð The one on the fourth shelf for an N. YP X′ Ð *The one of essays on the third shelf ¥ This predicts that you X′ YP ¥ So, X-bar structures seem to accurately should not ever be able to XWP get one followed by a characterize the structure of the NP. complement PP; One should only be able to be One would replace followed by adjunct PPs. an X′ node.

X-bar theory: NP X-bar theory: NP

¥ Adjuncts do not have to be on the XP ¥ In fact, it appears that complements do not always right, as all of the PP’s that we’ve ZP X′ have to be on the right. A complement is the looked as so far have been. phrase which is sister to the head, but either of YP X′ these structures has a complement XP. ¥ Left-handed adjuncts to NP X′ YP Nevertheless, there can be only one complement. include AdjP, like: XWP Ð The very big book of poems N′ N′ Ð The big red boring book of poems NXP XP N Ð The big boring red book of poems

X-bar theory: NP X-bar theory: NP

¥ An example of a left-sided complement is ¥ There can be only one complement linguistics in linguistics book. Ð The linguistics book ¥ Is it really a complement? What kind of Ð The book of essays tests can you think of to see if it is really a Ð *The linguistics book of essays complement? Ð The boring book of essays. Ð The boring linguistics book.

6 X-bar theory: NP X-bar theory: NP ¥ The complement has to be closest to the head. Adjuncts can be re-ordered. ¥ Complements cannot be conjoined with adjuncts; Ð The boring linguistics book likes can only be conjoined with likes. Ð *The linguistics boring book Ð The long and boring linguistics book Ð The boring old linguistics book Ð The linguistics and literature book Ð The old boring linguistics book ¥ Note: English adjectives tend to have a preferred order, Ð *The boring and literature book but putting them out of order sounds a lot better than Ð *The long and linguistics book having a complement separated from the head N. Ð The big red linguistics book Ð ?The red big linguistics book Ð *The big linguistics red book

X-bar theory: NP X-bar theory: NP

¥ One-replacement can’t strand the complement. ¥ An interesting ambiguity: Ð The big linguistics book Ð The French teacher Ð The big one ¥ What can this mean? Ð *The linguistics one Ð The teacher of French Ð The teacher from France ¥ In the first case, we paraphrased with a complement PP, in the second, we paraphrased with an adjunct PP.

X-bar theory: NP X-bar theory: NP

¥ French can be either a complement or an ¥ But, now we have a bag of tricks that we can use adjunct, but the two structures yield the to disambiguate this in one sense or another. same surface word order: ¥ Complements have to be closest to the head. Ð The French German teacher NP Ð The German French teacher NP ¥ One cannot strand the complement N′ N′ Ð The French one AdjP N′ ¥ Conjuncts must be of the same category NP N teacher Ð The French and Math teacher Ð The tall and German teacher French French N teacher

7 Side comment X-bar theory: VP ¥ A quick pause to remind us of what we’re doing… ¥ We are characterizing what native speakers know about ¥ X-bar theory hypothesizes that phrases of all language (in this instance, NPs). categories have the same basic structure. ¥ Chances are, those of you who are native speakers of ¥ In particular, VP has the same properties as NP: English, didn’t know about the distinction between Ð Only one complement complements and adjuncts and the rules governing their use. ¥ Yet, if you agree with my assignment of grammaticality and Ð Adjuncts which can be of any number and are re- ungrammaticality, you nevertheless knew the distinction and orderable the structures. ¥ So, let’s see how this plays out in phrases other ¥ That is, there really is a system here hiding beneath our than NP. consciousness. There really is something to this stuff.

X-bar theory: VP X-bar theory: VP

¥ In the VP, the direct object is the ¥ Let’s go through some of our bag of tricks… complement. ¥ There can be only one complement. Ð *The students ate the sandwiches the pizza. Ð The students ate the sandwiches. ¥ Cf. The students ate the sandwiches and the pizza. ¥ Other things (AdvPs, PPs) are adjuncts. ¥ The complement must be closest to the head. Ð The students left at 7 o’clock. Ð The students ate the pizza in record time. Ð *The students ate in record time the pizza. Ð The students left swiftly. ¥ Adjuncts may be re-ordered Ð The students ate the pizza in record time on Thursday. Ð The students ate the pizza on Thursday in record time.

X-bar theory: VP X-bar theory: PP, AdjP, AdvP

¥ Do so can’t strand the complement. ¥ It turns out to be more difficult to show Ð *John ate the pizza and Mary did so the sandwiches. parallels in PPs, AdjPs, and AdvPs, but we Ð John ate the pizza in short order but Mary did so in record time. will still assume that they follow the same ¥ Likes conjoin only with likes. structural rules as VPs and NPs. Ð John ate the pizza quickly and with gusto. ¥ Nevertheless, here are a couple of Ð ?Mary ate the pizza and with gusto. suggestive data points… ¥ Note: The reason this does not sound so bad is that it is possible to interpret this as Mary ate the pizza and (she did so) with gusto, leaving she did so unpronounced. It is hard to get around this problem, so this test is not very reliable for VP.

8 X-bar theory: AdjP, PP X-bar theory: Specifiers

¥ So-replacement can’t strand the complement (AdjP). ¥ One position we haven’t XP addressed yet is the specifier Ð John was afraid of tigers; Mary was less so (*of lions). position (ZP here), the daughter of ZP X′ XP and sister of X′. ¥ There can be only one complement (AdjP). YP X′ Ð *John was afraid of tigers of lions. ¥ In our rules so far, we have had almost nothing which occupies X′ YP ¥ There can be only one complement (PP). that position, but we will see more XWP Ð *John fell off the roof the house. shortly. ¥ X-bar theory allows for only one specifier (like with the complement).

X-bar theory: Specifiers X-bar theory: DP

¥ The main example of a specifier we have ¥ So what’s the deal with this D, anyway? seen so far is the D in the NP (the in the ¥ If we want to believe in X-bar theory, our books or this in this book). structure for NP that has D in its specifier cannot really be the structure. Specifiers ¥ But as you’ve probably heard by now, this should have phrases (XPs), yet D is a head. is problematic for X-bar theory because D is a head, and specifiers are supposed to be ¥ Where do we start? phrases.

X-bar theory: DP X-bar theory: DP

¥ Well, if D is really a head, we have an ¥ Actually, no. In fact, the DP immediate conclusion we can draw based is not inside the NP at all. DP on X-bar theory: D′ ¥ D heads a DP. There must be a structure ¥ Rather, the NP is inside the D NP like this: DP. The NP is the the DP ′ ¥ So is it actually DP which is complement to D. N D′ in the specifier of NP? N book D the

9 X-bar theory: DP X-bar theory: DP ¥ Consider the genitive (possessive) ’s in English: ¥ This structure is in accord Ð John’s hat with X-bar theory, but what DP Ð The student’s sandwich other evidence can we come D′ Ð The man from Australia’s book up with that it is actually Ð The man on the hill by the tree’s binoculars D NP ¥ Notice that the ’s attaches to the whole possessor phrase—in right? the the last two examples, it isn’t even attached to the head ′ N noun (it’s the man’s book and binoculars, not Australia’s or N the tree’s, after all). book ¥ This is not a noun suffix. It seems more like a little word that signals possession, standing between the possessor and the possessee.

X-bar theory: DP X-bar theory: DP ¥ This suggests a structure like this ¥ It is impossible to have both a ’s and a determiner. for possession phrases: DP Ð *The building’s the roof DP D′ ¥ Cf. The roof of the building ¥ The possessor DP is in the specifier Ð *The tiger’s the eye of DP. And of course, this can be as D′ D NP ¥ Determiners like the and the possession marker ’s complex a DP as we like, e.g., the ’s seem to be in complementary distribution—if one very hungry linguistics student by D NP N′ appears, the other cannot. the tree with the purple flowers over the N′ N ¥ This would make sense if both the and ’s are there. book instances of the category D; DP can have only one N head. ¥ The possessed NP is the student complement of D.

X-bar theory: DP X-bar theory: DP

¥ Note that if we took the old view and ¥ We used to think that the subject of a sentence supposed that D is in the specifier of NP, (like the student) or the object of a verb or then we shouldn’t be able to have anything preposition (like the sandwiches) was an NP, but now we know better. Accordingly, we’ll need to else in the specifier of NP, since we’re only revise our rules that refer to NP to instead refer to allowed one specifier. DP. ¥ We would have no way to draw the student’s book, since there would be no ¥ Having done that, the only rule we will have left place to attach the student. that introduces an NP is the one which says: Ð D′′′ : D NP

10 X-bar theory: DP X-bar theory: DP ¥ The student’s DP mother’s ¥ Another thing of interest about the DP D′ possessor phrase is its recursive property. brother’s roommate DP D′ D NP ¥ The possessor is a DP in the specifier of DP. ’s ′ That means that the DP possessor could DP D D NP N′ ’s ′ have a possessor too… D D NP N′ N ’s ¥ The student’s father’s book roommate D NP N′ N ¥ The student’s mother’s brother’s roommate the brother N′ N mother N student

X-bar theory: DP X-bar theory: Pronouns

¥ One thing worth addressing is the question of ¥ Consider pronouns like me, you, him (or I, what to do with apparently simple “NPs” like you, he). John or students (e.g., Students in the class ¥ Since a pronoun can be the subject of a complained bitterly). sentence (e.g., I left), a pronoun must be ¥ Are these also DPs? part of a DP. ¥ According to what we just said, the subject of the ¥ For pronouns, however, there’s some reason sentence is always a DP (as is the object of a verb to believe that they actually head the DP. or of a preposition, etc.) and never just an NP. That is, that the pronoun I is a D. ¥ So, how do we draw these?

X-bar theory: Pronouns X-bar theory: Pronouns

¥ Consider the following: ¥ So in the basic case, it looks like DP Ð You politicians are all alike. DP we should treat pronouns as being D′ Ð We linguists need to stick together. D′ of category D. Ð The media always mocks us academics. D D NP ¥ These seem to have a pronoun we we followed by a noun inside the DP; we N′ can make sense of this if the pronoun is a D which can optionally take an NP N linguists complement.

11 X-bar theory: Bare nouns and X-bar theory: Bare nouns and proper names proper names ¥ How about something like students (in Students ¥ So for the bare noun students, poured out of the auditorium at noon) or John (in we have a structure like that DP John went for a walk)? shown here. D′ ¥ For students, we want to believe that it is an ¥ As for proper names like John, instance of the N category (in order to make sense D NP of the students or we students or John’s students. we will for the moment assume ¯ But if this N is contained in a DP (the complement that they are more like N′ of a D head), where is the D? pronouns than like bare nouns—the proper noun is an N ¥ In order to maintain consistency, we’ll suppose students that in bare nouns D is present but null (it has no instance of the category D. phonological representation; we write this as ¯).

X-bar theory: Proper names X-bar theory: Specifiers

¥ We can draw John as shown here. ¥ We have now seen at least one XP DP case of a specifier, namely the X′ ¥ It’s worth pointing out that there is a lot more D′ possessor phrase in a DP. ZP to say on the subject of proper names and on ¥ X-bar theory allows for only one YP X′ the structure of DP in general, but we will D specifier (like with the John ′ return to these questions in Syntax II. complement). X YP Ð For something to ponder, consider that in many ¥ And, as predicted, there can only XWP languages you would say something analogous to be one possessor phrase per DP: “the John” for John, and consider the implications Ð The student’s book of something like Good old John left early. Nevertheless, we’ll draw proper names as shown. Ð *The student the professor’s book

X-bar theory: Specifiers X-bar theory: Specifiers

¥ The structure also predicts that the XP ¥ Incidentally, if we look back to the rules we had for PP and specifier should be the element AdjP, we initially posited things in these specifiers as well. ′ furthest away from the head, ZP X ¥ It turns out to be hard to get any internal evidence to show outside of all adjuncts and YP X′ whether these are or are not really specifiers; in the book, complements. this is simply glossed over as we skip to the next step. I X′ YP opted to present them as the simplest structures we had Ð The student’s big red book of poems evidence for at the time. Ð *Big the student’s red book of poems XWP ′′′ ′′′ Ð *Big red the student’s book of poems Ð PP: (AdjP) P Ð AdjP: (AdvP) Adj Ð P′′′ : P′′′ (PP) Ð Adj′′′ : Adj (PP) Ð P′′′ : P DP

12 X-bar theory: Specifiers X-bar theory: TP ¥ However, for the purpose of a) consistency and b) compatibility down the road, we will assume this was not in ¥ Now, let’s look a bit more globally. We left off fact correct. last time with a rule for TP (which we used to call ¥ Instead, we will assume that, except for the possessor in DP, “S”) that looks like this: we have not met any specifiers yet. Ð TP: NP T VP ¥ So, when you go back and look over your notes, consider ¥ Since X-bar theory has been working so far, we the proper interpretation to be as follows: assume that TP too must have an X-bar-compliant structure, not the flat structure this rule provides. Ð PP: P′′′ Ð AdjP: Adj′′′ ¥ And, of course, now that we know the student is a Ð P′′′ : (AdjP) P′′′ Ð Adj′′′ : (AdvP) Adj′′′ DP and the student is a perfectly fine subject, we need to change the NP in the rule to a DP. Ð P′′′ : P′′′ (PP) adjuncts Ð Adj′′′ : Adj (PP) Ð P′′′ : P DP

X-bar theory: TP X-bar theory: CP

¥ This one is pretty easy; we can see exactly what to ¥ The last phrase we need to deal with is the try first. The subject should be in the specifier of CP phrase headed by complementizers like TP and the VP should be the complement of T. that. The obvious proposal is that they look Our new rules look like this: like this: Ð TP: DP T′′′ ′ Ð CP: C′′′ Ð T′′ : T VP TP CP ′′′ ¥ The subject is in the specifier of TP Ð C : C TP ′ ′ (“SpecTP” for short). That’s like DP T ¥ We’ll make use of SpecCP C saying “DP daughter of TP”. T VP later; for now it remains empty. C TP that

Sentencing guidelines A basic sentence

¥ We now have all of the pieces organized to ¥ Here’s the structure for the TP draw a structure of a basic sentence. very simple sentence ¥ With X-bar theory, our structures will in Ð I left. DP T′ general be taller, because they involve only ¥ We see that: D′ T VP binary branching. -ed Ð There is a TP. ¥ Every phrase (XP) has a head and at least D V′ one X′ constituent. Ð There is a VP. I V ¥ Every sentence will have a TP and a VP. Ð The subject is in SpecTP. leave Ð Every XP has a head and an X′.

13 More complex… TP Where we are… DP T′ ¥ Slightly more complex: Ð John’s dog chewed a bone. DP D′ T VP ¥ X-bar theory says that all XP -ed ¥ We see that: phrases have the structure D′ D NP V′ ZP X′ Ð There is a TP. ’s here. YP X′ Ð There is a VP. D N′ V DP chew Ð ZP is the specifier, Ð The subject is in SpecTP. John X′ YP N D′ Ð The YPs are adjuncts, Ð Every XP has a head and an X′. dog Ð The WP is the complement, XWP Ð The possessor is in SpecDP. D NP Ð The direct object is the a Ð The X is the head, N′ complement of V. Ð The XP is the phrase N bone

Where we are… Matrix clauses

¥ X-bar structure constrains the form XP ¥ A simple clause (subject, predicate) which that structures can take. “stands on its own” is often called a root ZP X′ Ð Specifiers, adjuncts, and clause or a matrix clause or a main clause. complements must themselves be YP X′ phrases (XP-type trees, not heads) Most of the sentences we’ve seen so far are ′ Ð There can be only one complement X YP of this type. and only one specifier. XWP Ð The students ate the sandwiches. Ð There can be indefinitely many Ð Mary left. adjuncts, iterating at the X′ level.

Embedded clauses Finiteness

¥ We also know that it is possible to embed a ¥ There are several different kinds of clauses. clause inside another clause. ¥ We’re all probably familiar with the Ð John said that the students ate the sandwiches. infinitive form of verbs: to walk, to sing, … Ð Sue claimed that Mary left. ¥ In general, the infinitive form of the verb is ¥ These are called, sensibly enough, to plus a bare stem. By “bare stem” we mean the verb without any marking for past embedded clauses or subordinate clauses. tense (eat not ate) or for subject agreement (eat not eats).

14 Finiteness Finiteness

¥ We refer to the infinite forms of the verb as ¥ Matrix clauses seem never to be nonfinite; nonfinite, and forms of the verb without to and all matrix clauses are finite. with tense marking or subject agreement marking ¥ Embedded clauses can be either nonfinite or as finite. finite (depending on certain other factors). ¥ We’ve already discussed the idea that tense Ð I want John to leave. information is something that is represented in the Ð I said that John left. tree in the T node. Ð I said that Mary should leave. ¥ T can be either finite (past, present) or nonfinite Ð I see that Ben exercises regularly. (in which case it often holds to).

Finiteness: tense and agreement Finiteness: tense and agreement

¥ The hallmark of finiteness is the presence of ¥ Although other languages of the world often tense and agreement. This is generally mark tense and/or agreement more reflected on the verb in the form of suffixes. explicitly, in English we find a lot of zero Ð I walk; I walked. morphology in the tense and agreement Ð You walk; you walked. system. Ð He walks; he walked. ¥ Remember, all matrix clauses are finite, yet Ð She walks; she walked. the you (2nd person) form of walk looks just like the bare form in to walk.

Finiteness: tense and agreement Finiteness: tense and agreement

¥ We think of walked as having two parts, the verb ¥ In English, there is also (limited) agreement with stem (walk) and the past tense suffix (-ed). the subject of the clause. We can see this most ¥ In the present tense, we often see only the verb clearly with the verb to be: stem (I walk), but it is, after all, present tense—it Ð I am; he is; we/they/you are is finite. The assumption is that the pronunciation ¥ And with most other verbs, there is an -s suffix of the present tense suffix in English is ¯, null, that appears when the subject is 3rd person nothing. That is, a finite verb always has a tense singular; in the other cases, we assume a ¯ suffix. suffix, but sometimes it is pronounced as -ed, Ð I/you/they/we walk; she walks sometimes as ¯. ¥ Finite verbs are those which have tense and/or ¥ Present tense is a zero morpheme. agreement marking (even if it is ¯).

15 Finiteness: tense and agreement Finiteness ¥ In English, an overt (non-¯) tense suffix generally “takes priority” over subject agreement. Having a past tense ¥ Because of all the zero morphology, it isn’t always suffix (-ed) for nearly all verbs precludes having an overt obvious when a clause is nonfinite. Although to is subject agreement in 3sg: a good tip-off, it’s not always present in a Ð I walk; he walks nonfinite clause. Ð I walked; he walked. Ð I told you to eat broccoli. ¥ The only exception is the copula (to be) which shows both tense and subject agreement: Ð I saw you eat broccoli. Ð I am; he is; you/they/we are Ð I know you eat broccoli. Ð I/he was; you/they/we were ¥ The first is clearly nonfinite, but so is one of the ¥ Nevertheless, the assumption is that they are both there other ones. Which one? abstractly. Finite verbs agree with the subject and have tense morphology.

Finiteness Finiteness

Ð I saw you eat broccoli. Ð I saw him eat broccoli. Ð I know you eat broccoli. Ð I know he eats broccoli. ¥ Because the you form (2sg; 2pl) does not show overt subject agreement, one thing to try is to Ð He eats broccoli. change the subject to 3sg: Ð *Him eats broccoli. Ð I saw him eat broccoli. ¥ Another point to notice is the form of the Ð I know he eats broccoli. pronoun: In finite sentences the masculine ¥ Ah-ha! With a 3sg subject, we find agreement in the second sentence; it must be finite. There is no 3sg pronoun is he, but in nonfinite agreement in the first sentence, so it must be sentences it is him. nonfinite.

Finiteness and Case Finiteness and Case

¥ This difference between he and him is a difference ¥ Although in English, Case is limited to the in Case—Case, basically, marks the position (or pronominal system, many languages show role) of a pronoun in the structure. Case distinctions on all nouns. ¥ A pronoun in subject position of a finite clause has Ð Korean: nominative (subject) case: Chelswu-ka Sunhi-lul manna-ss-ta Ð I left; he left; she left; we left; they left. Chelswu-nom Sunhi-acc met-past-decl ¥ A pronoun in almost any other position (object ‘Chelswu met Sunhi.’ position; subject of a nonfinite clause) has Ð Japanese: accusative (object) case: Akira ga ringo o tabeta Ð J met me; J met him; J met her; J met us; J met them. Akira nom apple acc ate Ð J saw me eat broccoli; J saw her eat broccoli. ‘Akira ate an apple.’

16 Finiteness Some more thoughts on T

¥ Another way to tell whether a clause is finite is to ¥ Let’s narrow in just a little bit on T for a moment. look at the complementizer, if there is one. ¥ A clause, finite or nonfinite, must have a T node, ¥ The complementizer that always introduces finite must have a TP. In a nonfinite clause the T often is clauses, and the complementizer for always (in where we see to. contemporary English) introduces nonfinite ¥ In a finite clause, T is where we see modals like clauses. should, would, might, shall, … Note that these clauses do not show subject agreement, but they Ð John’s parents wish for him to succeed. are nevertheless finite (and arguably show tense Ð John’s parents said that he will succeed. distinctions, e.g., should vs. shall, could vs. can) Ð He should leave Ð I might leave.

Some more thoughts on T Some more thoughts on T

¥ T is also where we seem to see auxiliary ¥ So why do we see auxiliary verbs in T? verbs, namely have and be. ¥ This is something we will cover in more Ð I am (not) hungry. detail later, but the idea which we will be Ð She has (not) eaten. adopting here (generally, the mainstream ¥ Auxiliary verbs are a special kind of verb, view) is that auxiliary verbs are verbs, the but they are verbs after all. They aren’t head of a VP, and then they move into T. modals, and it isn’t clear that they really should be classified as being of category T (rather than category V).

Auxiliary be Auxiliary be Ð John is (not) happy. Ð John is (not) happy. TP TP ¥ The verb be starts out (abstractly) ¥ The verb be starts out (abstractly) as shown here, the head of the DP T′ as shown here, the head of the DP T′ VP. VP. D′ T VP D′ V+T VP [+past] ¥ The verb then moves (before we be+[past] pronounce it) up to T. D V′ D V′ John ¥ But not if there is a modal in T John V AdjP Ð John might (not) be happy. V AdjP be — ¥ This is sort of similar to (but Adj′ Adj′ backwards from) the idea of how Adj [past] -ed “hops” down from T to Adj happy V to form past tense verbs. happy

17 Auxiliary have
¥ The same can be said of have. TP ¥ In general have is a “helping verb”;

when it is an auxiliary is not the DP T′ only verb in the sentence. The other verb is in its own VP, in the
D′ V+T VP complement of have’s VP. have+[past]

Ð John might (not) have written. D V′ John

¥ For the moment, we’ll treat the V VP participle written as if it were a —
simple verb (not worrying about V′ where the -en came from); we’ll
come to that within a couple of V weeks. written

For next time:

¥ Read: Ð Chapters 5-6 ¥ Homework: Ð Chapter 5: problems 1(a,c), 2 Ð Chapter 6: problems 4(a-d), 6

18