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 and Agr

b Shifted ob jected in eg Icelandic o ccupies the Sp ec of one of these headsthe one

closest to V

c Chomsky conates the Sp ec in b with the Sp ec of Agr as identied by Ka yne

in Call the coresp onding head AgrO

But how would Chomsky answer our Homework question on Case and agreement

We will return to this b elow

A null hyp othesis

a If Amovement always checks Case then ob ject shift is the way ACC Case in Icelandic

is checked

b In Icelandic Sp ecAgrO and not ob jectofV is the ACCCase p osition

c Sp ecAgrO is the ACCCase p osition in al l languagesmo dulo the fact that some

languages with the corresp onding Weak features will pro crastinate ob ject shift until

LF

Is English one such language with strictlyLF ob jectshift See last homework

d ACC Case like NOM Case is checked in a Sp ecHead conguration with an In

0

like element All Case checking may then take place in a Sp ecF relationship b e

it pre or p ostSp ellout Perhaps the notion of Government can b e done away with

altogether

What ab out ob ject of P and Casemarking by for in COMP

e A similar treatment would derive VS order for some languages where sub ject Case

can b e checked at LF with sub ject remaining in VP preSp elloutor phrased more

cautiously in some Sp ec b elow the surface p osition of the verb

Implementing asp ects of Shortest Move for eg Holmb ergs Generalization

shift a ShortestMove violation Why isnt object

0

V Ob j a Sub j

VP

V

0

b t t Sub j Ob j t

0

V VP i i j j

V

Agr P Agr P

Agr

s o

o

Compare with the sup erraising case in

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

Answer Crucially dep ends on what counts as nearer Ap osition for Shortest Move

Holmb ergs Generalization might give us a hint as to the adequate denition of

nearer What exactly allows leapfrogging VtoI

Sp eciers that are in the same mininal domain are equidistant and Vto

I and headmovement in general enlarges domains in a constrained way

see cf Bakers Government Transparency Corollary

Chomsky oers cyclic revisions of the apparatus in

Dening Domains Minimal Domain Internal Domain Checking Domain etc

Chomsky

Consider a head

a MAX the least fullcategory maximal pro jection dominating

b Domain the set of no des contained in in Max that are distint from

and do not contain cf mcommand

NB Recall the distinction b etween containment and domination the latter

entails the former but not viceversa

Domain of the subset of domain that is reexively c Complement

dominated by the complement of the construction cf ccommand

d Residue of domain complementdomain

The Residue is an heterogeneous set Sp ec anything adjoined to the maxi

mal pro jection of to its Sp ec or its head

e Given a set S of categories MINS the smallest subset K of S such that for

in S there is some in K that reexively dominates any

f Internal domain of Minimal complement domain of

g Checking domain of Minimal residue of

MIT Fall

Back to Holmb ergs Generalization

a b

Agr P

Agr P

o

o

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

0

0 Sp ecAgr

Agr

o

o

Sp ecAgr Agr

o

o

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

Agr VP

o

VAgr VP

o

H

H

H

H

H

0

Sub j V

0

Sub j V

H

H

H

H

V Ob j

Ob j t

V

raising VtoAgr DomainV Before

o

t After VtoAgr raising CHV

V o

Sub j Ob j

DomainCh Sp ecAgr Sub j Ob j

o

ev erything they dominate

InternalDomainCh Sp ecAgr

o

Sub j Ob j

If are in the same minimal domain they are equidistant from a Equidistance

b VtoAgr movement in makes Sp ecAgr and Sp ecV equidistant from ob ject

o o

of V Thus ob ject shift do es not violate Shortest Move

c After overt preSp ellout VtoAgr movement with Strong Vfeature in Agr Ice

o o

landic ob jects can move overtly preSp ellout to Sp ecAgr and they must do so

o

if Agr s NPfeatures are Strong

o

a Why no overt ob ject shift in Haitian Creole Among other things a morphological

Strong vs Weak dierence in the Vfeatures of the relevant INFL heads

b What ab out Swedish with ob ject shift of pronouns only What ab out French

Relativizing Strong NP features

Another p otential problem Although the shifted ob ject must b e semantically

sp ecic it cannot b e sp ecicity that is driving movement in a conventional MPLT

way without verbmovement a syntactic factor sp ecic DPs will not ob ject shift

and the corresp onding sentence is still acceptable What checks the Strong NP

feature of Agr in such cases Similarly how come insitu nonsp ecic ob jects in

o

VtoAgr environments do not cause the derivation to crash

o

Chomsky will provide an answer in a later episo de