MIT Fall A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory Chomsky The Minimalist Chronicles Episo de I MIT We Dec To start with some familiar observations regarding Economy Why do DPs move to Ap ositions a The ship was sunk t i i b The ice melted t i i c L es l les ont toutes dans French The girls have allFEMPL danced The girls have all danced Cf Toutes les l les ont dans Bil l seemed to t that the world is round a i i seemed to Bil l that the Cf It b Bil l struck t that the world is round i i Cf It struck Bil l that the Last Resort Move to Sp ec only if some prop erty of or requires it Some version of the Caselter This is an economy consideration Theory What else may not motivate movement to Ap ositions Binding a Sue b elieved herself to seem likely t to win the game i i would win the game b Sue believed herself to seem likely to t that Mary i i Cf Sue believed it to seem likely to her mother that Mary would win the game judgements O to seem to oneself to always be likely to t win is a welcome il lusion a PR i i b PRO to be liked t by everone is wishful thinking i i c PRO to seem to t that Bush is intel ligent is hard to believe i i or it to seem to anyone that Bush is intel ligent is impossible Cf F 1 Handout inspired in great part from Davids exegesis What ab out covert expletive replacement Though there is much to say ab out the story of ther e a There seem to be children in the room b There seem that children are in the room Cf It seems that children are in the room So what exactly do es motivate movement to an Ap osition Greed Move only to satisfy a featural requirement of Theory conditions and expletive replacement are not such requirements Binding These seem to b e prop erties of LF interpretation More later In any case Greed may well intro duce more problems than it solves More on this later as well a It do es lo ok as though its only Case that motivates such greedy movementGreed is another Economy consideration NB PRO also seems to move for Case reasons p erhaps for Null Case recall Idans lecture on PRO b But really is it only Case that drives Amo vement Consider eg Les tables ont toutes t repeintes French The tables have allFEMPL b een repaintedFEMPL The tables have all b een repainted Cf Toutes les tables ont t repeintes EPP We will return to that b elow Generalized c In the meantime what ab out visvis the plausibility of a Generalized EPP a It seems to some strange astronomist that the world is at b Some strange astronomist seems to t that the world is at i i Another Econonomy constraint on greedy movement Shortest Move cf Rizzis Relativized Minimality a It seemed that Sue was believed t to have won i i b Sue seemed that it was believed t to have won i rtest Move b eyond Amovement Sho a Would Sue t have left i i b Have Sue would t left i i a Whom did John persuade t to visit whom i i MIT Fall b Whom did John persuade whom to visit t i i Without Strict Cyclicity Shortest Move may lose its bite in a framework where Merge and Move are interleaved throughout the derivation ie a Dstructureless framework that mixes Generalized and Singulary Transformations Why not 0 seemed that was believed Sue to have won VP IP I 0 was believed t to have won Sue seemed that IP i IP i VP I 0 was believed t to have won it Sue seemed that IP i IP IP i VP I Why not Sue have left VP Have Sue t left CP i VP i would t left Have Sue VP i CP i IP Why not 0 to visit whom persuade John PAST I Whom did John persuade to visit t CP i VP i 0 to visit t Whom did John persuade whom VP i CP i IP j I Why do some typ es of movements eg VtoI not show up in certain languages Recall some of the EmondsPollo ck facts a We dont like spinach Sub j do not V Ob j IP b We often eat chocolate Sub j Adv V Ob j IP Mary Sub j al l V Ob j c They al l love IP a Nous naimons pas les pinards Sub j ne V pas Ob j IP b Nous mangeons souvent du chocolat Sub j V Adv Ob j IP c Ils aiment tous Marie Sub j V tous Ob j IP a We like not spinach b We eat often chocolate c They love al l Mary 2 But how come headmovement adjunction tuckingin la Norvin do not ob ey Strict Cyclicity Or do they cf Ken Sars collo quium this Friday a Nous ne pas aimons les epinards b Nous souvent mangeons du chocolat c Ils tous aiment Marie Why move at all a Movement for Convergence The only purp ose of movement is to ensure that a derivation converge at b oth the PF and LF interfaces b Sp ellout Separates out strips away the phonological features of a linearized expression and and sends them to the phonetic comp onent c If any morpheme contains an unpronounceable feature eg lowhigh or some Strong Vfeature see it will cause the derivation that contains it to Crash at PF unless the feature is deleted b efore Sp ellout d Unlik e Strong features Weak features eg Agr features and Vfeatures of T in English are invisible at PF though visible at LF until they get deleted e Deletion of a feature o ccurs when the feature is asso ciated via movement p er MPLT with a matching o ccurrence of the same feature eg the pl feature of AgrS in French and the pl inection feature in the V chanterons as in Nous chanterons We will features sing In MPLT this is called checking o Corollaries a Movement o ccurs only when necessary to check o a feature that would cause a Crash if not checked o b Truism Movement that aects PF must o ccur b efore Sp ellout eg French VtoI c Truism Movement that aects only LF might o ccur after Sp ellout eg English VtoI d Assumption There is movement on the LF leg after Sp ellout but nothing like movement on the PF side after Sp ellout NB This holds in MPLT but see PFb ound treatments of Germanic V in later Minimalist treatments e Strengthen might in c to must gives us Pr ocrastinateanother Economy considerationand we have a way of regulating overt vs covert movement eg the EmondsPollo ck observations on Vraising in French vs Vinsitu in English f Sstructure is not an indep endent level with its own levelsp ecic conditions but merely a p oint in the derivation determined by other factors MIT Fall MPLTs lexicalist theory of inection vs Pollo cks and Rohrbacher et al s syntax buildsinection theoriessome Minimalist implications a In MPLT eg verbs and nouns are taken ful lyine cted from the lexiconwords are merged in the derivation with their morphological features eg Tense and Casefeatures already inserted b These morphological features must b e uniformly eliminated by LFin al l languages Consequence Since movement is driven by the need fo check o features see by LF all languages will manifest similar movements and show similar congurations eg the EmondPollo ck contrasts in French vs English disapp ear at LF c Some of these featuresthose that are Strongmust b e eliminated by PF or else the derivation will crash see d Overt raising is banned when covert counterpart is p ossiblePro crastinate see e e Thus Pro crastinate maximizes LF movement while Strong features force overt move ment Pro crastinate Feature strength yield the PFvsLF branching without an indendep ent notion of Sstructure Holbmergs Generalization revisitedexplaining this tether on Amovement But see Holmb erg Fox Pesetsky for radically dierent approaches a Skli segir Sveini oft sgur Icelandic Skuli tells Sveini often stories Skuli often tells Sveini stories Holmb erg al lir vasann b Stdentarnir stungu smjrinu the students put the butter all in the p o cket The students all put the butter in their p o ckets Holmb erg ekki c Hann keypti bkina he b ought the b o ok not He did not buy the b o ok Holmb erg Stdentarnir hafa al lir stungig smjrinu vasann the students have all put the butter in the p o cket The students have all put the butter in their p o ckets Holmb erg Holbmergs generalization re Ob ject Shift pro jection of its governing Move an ob ject NP leftwards within the Xbar verb when this verb is phonetically empty Holmb erg Evidence that OS is Amovement a clauseb oundedness b binding by shifted ob ject into crossedover adverbial is p ossible c no weak crossover eect d no licensing of a parasitic gap Why is the ob jectshifted DP undergoing Amovement Assuming that all movement is Greeddriven Chomskys answer is that ob jectshift is related to Case checking On the p osition in which the shifted ob ject checks its Case Recall Pollo cks discovery ab out French short verbmovement in innitival clauses thus of INFL into T and Agr the explosion a Ne pas souvent lire les journaux To not often read the newspap ers b Ne pas lire souvent les journaux c Ne lire pas souvent les journaux ynes participleagreement facts in Homework III Also recall Ka a Jean a repeint les tables Jean a repeint les tables FEMPL John has repainted the tables b Jean les a repeintes Jean les a repeint es FEMPL FEMPL John has repainted them Jean a repeintes c Les tables que que Jean a repeint es les tables FEMPL FEMPL the tables that John has repainted Kaynes solution a Overt ob ject movement triggers morphological agreement b etween ob ject and par ticiple b Posit an extra Ap osition for the ob ject b etween the surface ob ject p osition and the surface p osition of the agreeing participle t AGR rep eintes t a Jean les a i i i AgrP b les chaises O que Jean a t AGR rep eintes t i i AgrP i i MIT Fall The MPTL brew of Holbmerg Pollo ck Kayne A new theory of Case a Pollo cks analysis makes available several INFL headsrelated to T