CAS LX 522 Syntax I
We give trees to ditransitives CAS LX 522 You may recall our discussion of !-theory, Syntax I where we triumphantly classified verbs as coming in three types: Intransitive (1 !-role) Transitive (2 !-roles) Episode 4b. UTAH Ditransitive (3 !-roles)
4.3-4.4 Theta roles go to obligatory arguments, not to adjuncts.
We give trees to ditransitives We give trees to ditransitives
You may also recall that Fantastic, except that we believe that trees are these things just don’t fit binary branching, where: Syntactic objects are formed together. VP by Merge. We know what to do There’s just one complement SUB V" and one specifier. with transitive verbs. V OBJ But what do we do with ditransitive verbs? We’re out of space!
Problems continue… Problems continue…
I showed Mary to herself. The OBJ c-commands the PP. *I showed herself to Mary. But how could we draw a VP I introduced nobody to anybody. tree like that? * SUB V" *I introduced anybody to nobody. Even if we allowed adjuncts V" PP to get !-roles, the most natural structure would be to This tells us something about the V OBJ make the PP an adjunct, like relationship between the direct and this, but that doesn’t meet to-object in the structure. (What?) the c-command requirements.
1 Some clues from idioms Idioms in ditransitives
Often idiomatic meanings are associated In ditransitives, it seems like this happens with the verb+object complex—the with the PP. meaning derives both from the verb and Beethoven gave the Fifth Symphony to the world. the object together. Beethoven gave the Fifth Symphony to his patron. Lasorda sent his starting pitcher to the showers. Suppose that this is due being Merged into the structure together initially. Lasorda sent his starting pitcher to Amsterdam. Bill threw a baseball. Mary took Felix to task. Bill threw his support behind the candidate. Mary took Felix to the cleaners. Bill threw the boxing match. Mary took Felix to his doctor’s appointment.
So V and PP are sisters… Where’s the V? Where’s the OBJ?
We can paraphrase John gave a book to Mary as John caused a book to go to Mary. Larson (1988) took this as evidence that the V is a sister to the PP “originally.” Chichewa: Mtsikana ana-chit-its-a kuti mtsuku u-gw-e Yet, we see that on the surface the OBJ comes girl agr-do-cause-asp that waterpot agr-fall-asp between the verb and the PP. ‘The girl made the waterpot fall.’ Mary sent a letter to Bill. Mtsikana anau-gw-its-a kuti-mtsuku Where is the OBJ? It must c-command the PP, girl agr-fall-cause-asp that waterpot remember. Why is the V to the left of the OBJ when ‘The girl made the waterpot fall.’ we hear it?
V" Suppose that in both cases Merge puts things together in the same way initially: V PP [[that waterpot] fall]
Causatives Ditransitives again
Mtsikana ana-chit-its-a kuti mtsuku u-gw-e The proposal will be that English ditransitives are really a girl agr-do-cause-asp that waterpot agr-fall-asp lot like Chichewa causatives. ‘The girl made the waterpot fall.’ Mtsikana anau-gw-its-a kuti-mtsuku One moves fall over to cause to get: girl agr-fall-cause-asp that waterpot [girl [cause+fall [[that waterpot]
2 A very, very little bit of French A very, very little bit of French
If you’ve tried to learn any French at all, you’ve This is usually taught as: come across this phenomenon: au = à + le de ‘of’ le ‘the (masculine)’ du = de + le à ‘at’ la ‘the (feminine)’ If your underlying intent is à ‘at’ + le ‘the’, you pronounce it like au.
à la biblioteque ‘to the library (fem)’ *à le cinéma ‘to the movies (masc)’ So is au a preposition or an article? au cinema ‘to the movies (masc)’ There’s no reason to believe that au de la mayonnaise ‘of mayonnaise (fem)’ cinéma has a different syntactic structure PP *de le lait ‘of milk (masc)’ from à la bibliotèque. This is just about how it is pronounced. du lait ‘of milk’ (masc) P NP Au = à + le. Give = cause + go.
D N
Where’s the V? Where’s the OBJ? Where’s the V? Where’s the OBJ?
Larson’s proposal was basically this. The higher verb is a “light verb” (we’ll Logically, if we’re going to have binary write it as vP to signify that)—its branching and three positions for argument XPs (SUB, OBJ, PP), we need to contribution is to assign the !-role to the have another XP above the VP. subject. The lower verb assigns the !-roles vP to the OBJ and the PP. vP Since the subject is in the specifier of the higher XP, that must be a VP too. SUB v" That is, V has [uP, uN] features, SUB v"
Ditransitive verbs really come in two parts. and v has a [uN] feature. They are in a “VP shell” structure. v VP v+V VP Hierarchy of Projections (so far): Furthermore, the higher part seems to OBJ V" OBJ V" correlate with a meaning of causation. v > V “V comes with v” V PP
Where we are Where we are
We’ve just come up with an The three !-roles for give are analysis of sentences with assigned like this: The PP gets a Goal !-role. ditransitive verbs, such as Pat vP vP gave books to Chris that The lower NP gets a Theme !-role. The highest NP (in the specifier of vP) accords with the constraints NP v" gets an Agent !-role. NP v" of the syntactic system we Pat Pat have developed so far. v VP But how did we know that? v VP Merge is binary !-roles are assigned to specifiers NP V" More importantly, how do kids NP V" and complements. books come to know that? books The solution is to assume a V PP V PP gave gave two-tiered structure, with a Do they memorize this list for each P NP P NP little v in addition to the VP. to Chris verb they learn? to Chris
3 Uniformity of Theta Assignment Uniformity of Theta Assignment
If kids are really memorizing But that just never happens. which !-role goes where for each verb, there should be It seems that all verbs have !-role some verbs that do it in other assignment that looks pretty much ways. vP the same. vP If there’s an Agent, it’s the first For example, there might be a ? (uppermost) NP. v v ditransitive verb with Theme in the Theme " If there’s a Theme it’s down close to the Theme " specifier of vP, Goal in the specifier verb. of VP, and Agent in the v VP v VP complement of VP. Given that things seem to be relatively uniform, it has been proposed that this is E.g., to tup: Goal V" a fundamental property of the syntactic Goal V" Books tup on the shelf Chris system. Each !-role has a consistent place ‘Chris put books on the shelf.’ in the structure. V Agent V Agent tup tup
UTAH !-roles and structure
Great. So, the Agent (Pat) in Pat The Uniformity of Theta-Assignment gave books to Chris is in the specifier of vP. Because that’s Hypothesis (UTAH): Identical thematic vP relationships between predicates and their where Agents go. arguments are represented syntactically by NP v" identical structural relationships when items But.. What about structures like Pat are Merged. the ones we had before for things like Pat called Chris? v VP That is, all Agents are structurally in the same place (when first Merged). All Patients are structurally in VP NP V" the same place, etc. books We can take this to be a property of the NP V" ? interpretation. When a structure is interpreted, the - V PP ! Pat gave role an argument gets depends on where it was first V NP P NP Merged. called Chris to Chris
!-roles and structure !-roles and structure
Well, if we’re serious about Specifier of vP = Agent working within the constraints of UTAH, we need a v there too— vP But where’s the Theme? Isn’t vP to host the Agent. that in different places in Pat called Chris and Pat gave NP v" NP v" Hierarchy of Projection: v > V Pat books to Chris? Pat vP v VP vP v VP
NP v" NP V" NP v" NP V" Pat books Pat books v VP V PP v VP V PP gave gave V NP P NP V NP P NP called Chris to Chris called Chris to Chris
4 !-roles and structure Unaccusatives vs. unergatives
NP, daughter of vP = Agent NP, daughter of VP = Theme Recall that there are two types of single- PP, daughter of V" = Goal vP argument (intransitive) verbs in terms of That seems to work, and it seems a reasonable interpretation of UTAH. NP v" the !-role they assign to their single Pat argument. vP v VP Unaccusatives: Have one, Theme !-role. NP v" NP V" Fall, sink, break, close Pat books v VP V PP gave Unergatives: Have one, Agent !-role. V NP P NP Walk, dance, laugh called Chris to Chris
Unaccusatives vs. unergatives Unaccusatives Unaccusatives: Have one, Theme !-role. Let’s go back and consider VP shells a bit in connection Fall, sink, break, close with unaccusatives. vP Unergatives: Have one, Agent !-role. Walk, dance, laugh The ice melted. The boat sank. v VP The door closed. If we adopt the UTAH, then we are forced to a V NP certain view of the original Merges. melt the ice The ice, the boat, the door are all Themes— the argument If you’re going to be a Theme, you need to be NP daughter starts as NP daughter of VP. of VP. Unaccusatives have a relatively “inert” v, no “causal” If you’re going to be an Agent, you need to be NP daughter meaning. of vP. There are two kinds of v, the causal one that needs an NP (Is it bad to be forced into an analysis?) (Agent), and a non-causal one. What if we pick the causal v (and provide an Agent NP)?
VP shells Preview
vP Bill melted the ice. Why isn’t the unaccusative version Melted the ice, though? vP (English being head-initial, after all) NP v" Straightforward enough. The Bill causal v adds an Agent. v VP v VP We will turn to this question more thoroughly next. But to a first V NP approximation, we say that: V NP Bill was the agent/instigator of a melt the ice Sentences need subjects. melt the ice melting that affected the ice. Subjects come first. Since there is only one NP here, it has to be Why isn’t the unaccusative the subject, and it has to come first. version Melted the ice, though? We suppose that a movement operation (something like what happens to give when it (English being head-initial, after all) moves up to v) carries the subject over to the left of the vP.
5 Preview Bill lied.
Sentences need subjects. vP Just to address the last case, the Subjects come first. unergatives, consider Bill lied. Since there is only one NP here, it has to NP v" That’s got an Agent, so it’s got a NP vP be the subject, and it has to come first. the ice Bill v. We suppose that a movement operation v+V VP (something like what happens to give v VP when it moves up to v) carries the subject lie melt over to the left of the vP. So, it would look like this. V NP
Auxiliary selection Auxiliary selection
Molte ragazze telefonano Molte ragazze telefonano many girls phone many girls phone ‘Many girls are phoning.’ ‘Many girls are phoning.’
Molte ragazze arrivano Molte ragazze arrivano many girls arrive many girls arrive ‘Many girls are arriving.’ ‘Many girls are arriving.’
Molte ragazze hanno telefonato Molte ragazze hanno
Molte ragazze sono arrivate. Molte ragazze sono arrivate
Double objects Pat gave Chris a book
NP, daughter of vP = Agent Just as you can give a book to Chris, NP, daughter of VP = Theme so can you give Chris a book. PP, daughter of V" = Goal See the problem? ? vP But… If we believe the UTAH, NP v" If we try to analyze Pat gave Chris a this can’t be right. Pat book in the same way, we run into v VP
trouble. NP V" Chris V NP go a book (“gave”)
6 Two kinds of giving To have
NP, daughter of vP = Agent The two forms of give are not quite NP, daughter of VP = Theme equivalent, though: PP, daughter of V" = Goal Pat gave a book to Chris. NP, daughter of V" = Possessee vP Pat gave Chris a book. This might solve the problem. *Pat gave a headache to Chris. NP v" Pat gave Chris a headache. vP Pat Try paraphrasing… v VP Pat sent a letter to Chicago. v VP *Pat sent Chicago a letter. NP V" NP V" Pat taught French to the students. Pat Chris Pat taught the students French. V NP V NP have a book has a book (“gave”)
7