C-selection CAS LX 522 Verbs are recorded in the lexicon with the θ-roles they assign as part of their meaning. Syntax I But, verbs are more selective than that. Pat felt a tremor. Pat felt uncomfortable. Pat felt that Chris had not performed well. Pat is the Experiencer; a tremor (noun), uncomfortable (adjective), or that…well (sentence) Week 3b. Merge, feature checking is the Theme/Source. So θ-role does not determine 3.6-4.2 syntactic category. And syntactic category certainly does not determine θ-role. So verbs also need to be recorded with information about the syntactic categor(y/ ies) they combine with.
C-selection C-selection (“Subcategorization”) Kick needs a nominal object. Not all transitive verbs (that take just one Pat kicked the pail. object) can take the same kind of object. Kick has a [V] category feature, but also needs Sue knows [ the answer ] to have some form of [N] category feature DP Sue knows [ that Bill left early ] indicating that it needs a nominal object. CP Sue hit [ the ball ] We don’t want to risk interpreting kick as a noun, DP though. So, the [V] and [N] features must have a *Sue hit [CP that Bill left early] different status. So know can take either a DP or a CP as On kick, the [V] feature is interpretable— the [N] its object argument; hit can only take a DP feature is just for use in assembling the structure, as its object argument. it is not interpreted—hence uninterpretable.
Feature checking S-selection To model this, we will say that if a syntactic object Verbs also exert semantic control of the kinds of has an uninterpretable feature, it must Merge with arguments they allow. a syntactic object that has a matching feature— and once it’s done, the requirement is met. The feature is checked. For example, many verbs can only have a volitional (agentive) subject: Specifically: Bill likes pizza. Bill kicked the stone. Full Interpretation: The structure to which the semantic #Pizza likes anchovies. #The stone kicked Bill. interface rules apply contains no uninterpretable features. Checking Requirement: Uninterpretable features must be checked (and once checked, they are deleted) We’ll assume that this is not encoded in the syntactic features, but if you mess up with respect Checking (under sisterhood): An uninterpretable feature F on a syntactic object Y is checked when Y is sister to to s-selection, the interpretation is anomalous. another syntactic object Z which bears a matching feature F.
1 Feature checking Feature checking
To distinguish interpretable To distinguish interpretable features from uninterpretable features from uninterpretable features, we will write features, we will write uninterpretable features with a u uninterpretable features with a u in front of them. in front of them.
D has uninterpretable feature F D has uninterpretable feature F E has interpretable feature F. C E has interpretable feature F.
D E If we Merge them, the D E If we Merge them, the [uF] [F] uninterpretable feature can be [uF] [F] uninterpretable feature can be checked (under sisterhood). checked (under sisterhood).
Feature checking Feature checking
Or, for a more concrete example Or, for a more concrete example
kick is a verb (has an kick is a verb (has an interpretable V feature) and c- interpretable V feature) and c- selects a noun (has an selects a noun (has an uninterpretable N feature). uninterpretable N feature). V me is a noun (a pronoun in fact, me is a noun (a pronoun in fact, has an interpretable N feature, has an interpretable N feature, kick me and others like accusative case, kick me and others like accusative case, first person, singular) first person, singular) [uN, V] [N, acc, 1, sg] [uN, V] [N, acc, 1, sg]
Merging them will check the uninterpretable feature, and the structure can be interpreted.
Feature checking glance at Pat
The head is the “needy” one. The one that had the Pat [N, …] at [P, uN, …] uninterpretable feature that was checked by Merge. glance [V, uP, …]
The combination has the features of the verb kick and so V its distribution will be like a verb’s distribution would be. kick me Pat wants to kick me. [uN, V] [N, acc, 1, sg] Pat wants to drive. I like to draw elephants. *Pat wants to elephants. *I like to draw kick me.
2 Chris glanced at Pat The idea
Pat [N, …] Chris [N, …] Sentences are generated derivationally, by means at [P, uN, …] glanced [V, uP, uN, …] of a series of syntactic operations. A sentence that can be generated by such a procedure is grammatical. One that cannot is not grammatical. Syntactic operations operate on syntactic objects. Lexical items are syntactic objects. A derivation starts off by selecting a number of syntactic objects from the lexicon, and proceeds by performing syntactic operations on them.
Syntactic operations Feature checking Syntactic objects have features. Merge is a syntactic operation. It takes two Lexical items (syntactic objects) are bundles of features. syntactic objects and creates a new one out of them. Some features are interpretable, others are uninterpretable. The new syntactic object created by Merge inherits the features of one of the components By the time the derivation is finished, there must be (the head projects its features). no uninterpretable features left (Full Interpretation). Merge cannot “look inside” a syntactic object. Uninterpretable features are eliminated by Syntactic objects are only combined at the root. checking them against matching features. This The Extension Condition: A syntactic derivation can happens as a result of Merge: Features of sisters can only be continued by applying operations to the root projection of ate tree. check against one another. Merge doesn’t just happen. It has to happen.
Heads and complements Heads and complements
When Merge combines two A syntactic object that has not maximal maximal syntactic objects, one projects its minimal minimal projected at all (that is, a projection projection features, one does not. projection projection lexical item) is sometimes called a minimal projection. When a lexical item projects its Where X is the category, this is features to the combined syntactic min object, it is generally called the alternatively called X or X. head, and the thing it combined The head is a minimal VP with is generally called the VP projection. complement. kick me kick me In traditional terminology, [uN, V] [N, acc, 1, sg] A syntactic object that projects no [uN, V] [N, acc, 1, sg] the complement of a verb is further is called a maximal projection. generally called the object (or Where X is the category, this is “direct object”). max alternatively called X or XP. So, often, is the complement head complement The complement is necessarily a head complement of a preposition (“object of maximal projection. the preposition”).
3 Linear order The head parameter
Merge takes two syntactic objects and Languages generally have something like a basic word order, an order in which words come in in “neutral” combines them into a new syntactic object. sentences. Merge does not specify linear order (which English: SVO Akira ate an apple. of the two combined objects comes first in Japanese: SOV pronunciation). John wa ringo o tabeta. John top apple acc ate ‘John ate an apple.’ In our terms, this amounts to a (generally language-wide In the English VP, heads always precede choice) as to whether heads are pronounced before complements. But languages differ on this. complements or vice-versa. English: head-initial Japanese: head-final
Specifiers, heads, and Second Merge complements A transitive verb like called Merge occurs when there is a selectional feature that needs two arguments (the caller and the callee). needs to be satisfied. If there is more than one such feature, Merge must happen We encode this knowledge more than once. by hypothesizing two As always, the node that projects is the one whose selectional features for N. The first selectional feature will selectional feature was satisfied by the Merge. be checked by the callee. they The sister of the head (that projects) after the first Merge The second selectional feature [N, nom, will be checked by the caller. involving that head is called the complement (as above). 3, pl] called me [uN, uN, V] [N, acc, So, called is Merged with me. The nonprojecting sister of a syntactic object that has 1, sg] already projected once from a head is called the specifier.
Specifiers, heads, and Specifiers, heads, and complements complements So, called is Merged with me. The second selectional maximal feature has been eliminated. projection One of the selectional features is checked off, the The sister to this second remaining features project to specifier intermediate Merge is the specifier. the new object. projection VP A node that does not project A selectional feature still further is a maximal they V [uN] remains. they V [uN] projection. [N, nom, [N, nom, 3, pl] 3, pl] called me Merge applies again, called me A node that has been [uN, uN, V] [N, acc, Merging the new object with [uN, uN, V] [N, acc, projected and projects further 1, sg] they. 1, sg] is neither maximal nor minimal and is usually called head complement head complement an intermediate projection.
4 Specifiers, heads, and complements Historical note: X′-theory
maximal In English, specifiers are on In the ’70s and ’80s, these ideas went by the projection the left of the head name “X′-theory”. Unlike complements, which are maximal Every XP has exactly one: specifier on the right. projection intermediate intermediate head (a lexical item) As with the head- projection complement (another XP) projection VP complement order, languages (arguably) also differ in the specifier (another XP) linear order of their for any X (N, V, A, P, I, etc.) XP they V [uN] specifiers. [N, nom, However, Spec-initial order is 3, pl] YP X′ called me overwhelmingly more specifier common… [uN, uN, V] [N, acc, X ZP 1, sg] VOS order (Malagasy) Nahita ny mpianatra ny vehivavay. minimal head complement projection head complement saw the student the woman ‘The woman saw the student.’
Merge vs. X′-theory Adjuncts
The system of selectional *Pat put the book. features and Merge is preferable because it gets this maximal Pat put the book on the shelf. structure without stipulating projection intermediate Pat put the book on the shelf dramatically. the template. projection Pat put the book on the shelf dramatically on The structure assigned to sentences is generally the Tuesday. same—except that for us, there XP Pat put the book on the shelf dramatically on no intermediate or maximal projections unless they are Tuesday before several witnesses. needed. YP X′ specifier Some things are required. Some things are not. X ZP minimal head complement Arguments get θ-roles and are required. projection Adjuncts are modificational and are optional.
Adjuncts and distribution Adjoin
Adjuncts are relatively “transparent”— having The operations Merge and Adjoin are two different ways an adjunct does not seem to change the to combine two objects from the workbench. distributional characteristics. Merge takes two objects and creates a new object (with Pat wants to eat lunch (quickly). the label/features inherited from one of them). Pat wants to dine. Adjoin attaches one object to the top of another one. *I like to draw eat lunch (quickly). The linear order of adjuncts does not appear to be set parametrically, so they can either before or after the object they I like to draw (happy) elephants. attach to. *Pat wants to (happy) elephants. VP VP
Idea: A verb (phrase) with an adjunct is still a VP quickly VP VP quickly verb (phrase), just as if it didn’t have an adjunct. eat lunch eat lunch eat lunch
5 The luxury of adjunction The luxury of adjunction
We will also assume that Adjoin only applies to maximal Any number of adjuncts can be added, and generally in any order. projections. Adjuncts come in many different categories— “adjunct” is not a category, but rather a structural description. That is: If a syntactic object still has a selectional feature, Adjoin cannot attach something to it. Merge must VP happen first. Once all of the things that need to happen are taken care of, then you have the luxury of adjunction. VP PP before VP VP PP tea in the VP quickly VP PP study with the Pat V′ Colonel V′ candlestick Mustard ate lunch killed Mr. Boddy
A phrase Complements vs. adjuncts
maximal maximal So, a full phrase can projection PPs seem to be freely reorderable— when they are have all of these projection adjuncts. pieces I ate lunch on Tuesday at Taco Bell with Pat (plus perhaps some I ate lunch on Tuesday with Pat at Taco Bell additional adjuncts) XP I ate lunch with Pat on Tuesday at Taco Bell I ate lunch on Tuesday with Pat at Taco Bell XP adjunct etc… intermediate But consider glance at Chris. specifier X′ projection I glanced at Chris on Tuesday head complement *I glanced on Tuesday at Chris minimal [X, …] Ok: Why? projection
6