Class Note for LINGUIST 601 at UMass(3)
Class Note for LINGUIST 601 at UMass(3)
Popular in Course
Popular in Department
This 13 page Class Notes was uploaded by an elite notetaker on Friday February 6, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to a course at University of Massachusetts taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 15 views.
Reviews for Class Note for LINGUIST 601 at UMass(3)
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 02/06/15
Introduction to Transformational Grammar LINGUIST 601 November 12 2004 In nitival Complementation 2 ECM and Raising 1 Exceptional Case Marking Two distinct structures are possible for the string in l 1 NP v NP to VP a ECM NP v NP to VP I believe him to be innocent b Control NP V NP PRO to VP I persuaded David PRO to dance Implications of the the proposed structures 2 a ECMimexm NPtO Vpembeddedl l Vmal is a two place predicate He expected me to take syntax 1 He expected that I would take syntax 2 NF does not get a 87role from VWWMW gt NP can be expletive if VPWMMM permits gt NP can be a nonireferential phrase licensed by VPWMMM 3 NF gets case from outside the embedded in nitival clause gt the case relationship crosses a TP boundary 13 Contmli Vmim NP PR0 to Vpembeddedl l Vmal is a three place predicate He persuaded me to take syntax 1 He persuaded me that I should take syntax 2 NF gets a 87role from Vmawm gt NP cannot be an expletive gt NP cannot be a nonireferential phrase licensed by VPWMMM 3 NF gets case from VWWMW gt the case relationship does not cross a TP boundary 11 ECM vs Control wrt Expletives and Idiom Chunks 111 Expletives We know that expletives1 cannot appear in object positions 3 expletives a There is a man in the garden b A man is thereawt in the garden not expletive 112 Idiom Chunks nonreferential NPs Certain phrasal constituents receive a special idiomatic interpretation when they appear together with certain other lexical items These combinations are called idiom chunks and for the idiomatic reading to be available the phrasal constituent cannot be an argument of another predicate 4 idiom chunks a the cat out of the bag i Mm out of the bag ii l persuaded the cat to be out ofthe bag b take advantage i Lane took advantage of Andrew Advantage was taken of Andrew ii l persuaded advantage to be taken of Andrew 113 Applying the Diagnostic Now what is relevant here is that expletives and idiom chunks can appear as objects of certain embedding predicates but not others ECM predicates allow for expletives and idiom chunks while control predicates do not 5 expletive there a ECM I want there to be 50 chairs in room by noon tomorrow The police allowed there to be looting in the Muslim quarter of the city He expects there to be someone waiting for him at the airport terminal b Control 1 persuaded there to be 50 chairs in room by noon tomorrow The police ordered there to be looting in the Muslim quarter of the city He advised there to be someone waiting for him at the airport terminal 1This is especially clear with expletive there The facts with clausal expletive it are murkier due to the existence of cases like He can 39t stand it that they were mean to David See Postal and Pullum 1988 for critical discussion 6 idiom chunks a ECM I don t want advantage to be taken of David He believes the cat to be out of the bag They expected the fur to y They expected the chickens to come home to roost They expected the shit to hit the fan b Control 1 persuaded advantage to be taken of David He allowed the cat to be out of the bag with idiomatic reading They persuaded the fur to y They persuaded the chickens to come home to roost They persuaded the shit to hit the fan Something to keep in mind is thatjust because a predicate is an ECM predicate it does not fol low that it will allow for an expletiveidiom chunk NP The relevant NP is licensed within the embedded in nitival and it is the embedded in nitival VP that determines what kinds ofNPs are possible The matrix predicate simply plays no role 7 ECM predicate a Expletive The police allowed there to be looting in the Muslim quarter of the city The police allowed there to have a man eat an apple The police allowed there to sink a ship b ldiom Chunk I don t want advantage to be taken of David 1 don t want advantage to be read by David 1 don t want advantage to be seen by David Another way of thinking about it is that the possibility of expletivesidiom chunks with ECM predicates depends upon the potential wellformedness of the embedded in nitival The ungrami matical cases in 7 all involve embedded in nitival clauses that are not wellformed 12 Embedded Passivization Passivization of the embedded in nitival substantially changes the meaning in the case of control in nitives but not in the case of ECM in nitives 8 Control a He persuaded the doctor PRO to examine David b He persuaded David PRO to be examined by the doctor 9 ECM a He wants the doctor to examine David b He wants David to be examined by the doctor 13 Two Kinds of ECM We noted that in ECM in nitives the subject of the in nitival gets case from a head that is outside the embedded in nitival There are two possible heads that could supply case 10 a the embedding predicate i I expect there to be unhappiness about this ii He believes him to be uncaring b the in nitival Complementizer for i For there to be a party tonight would be excellent ii He intended for his parents to be present 131 The location of for The fact that there is possible in lObi indicates that the structure is as indicated and not for example ll For there to be a party tonight would be excellent Such a structure might actually be present for He intended for his parents to be present but it is not the only structure possible l 2 Two structures for He intended for his parents to be present a He intended for his parents to be present b He intended for his parents to be present lZa has for his parents forming a constituent 7 thus we expect that it might be possible to move it around and indeed we nd that we can in fact move it aound l 3 a It was for his parents that he intended to be present b For his parents he intended to be present The possibility of l 3 indicates that 12a is a possible structure However the sentences in l 3 have only one of the interpretations available to 12 the interpretation where the parents are the bene ciary of his intended action of being present 7 he will be the one who is present not his parents ie he controls the PRO subject in the in nitival clause in 12a A similar point is made by pseudoclefting 14 a What he intended was for his parents to be present gt forces the structure in 12b b What he intended for his parents was to be present gt forces the structure in 12a 0 for can function as an in nitival Complementizer which assigns accusative case 132 The possibility of ECM o ECM by for is always available as long as the local syntactic context permits a forCP ie for in Standard English always allows for ECM it being an independent question whether a forCP is permitted or not 0 ECM by versz whether a verb can function as an ECM predicate seems to be somewhat id iosyncratic For a predicate to be an ECM predicate it must take a small enough in nitival complement and it must assign accusative case 15 a regret that7CPok for7CP ECM NPok i I regret that he is no longer here ii I regret for him to no longer be here iii I regret him to no longer be here iv I regret this outcome b hope that7CPok for7CPok ECM NP i I hope that it doesn t snow this week ii I hope for him to get well soon iii 1 hope him to get well soon iv 1 hope for a favorable outcome c believe that7CPok for7CP ECMok NPok i I believe that she is innocent ii I believe for her to be innocent iii I believe her to be innocent iv I believe her account 1 want prefer that7CPok for7CPok ECMok NPok i lwant that he leave ii lwant for him to leave iii lwant him to leave iv 1 want his immediate departure Often the licensing of accusative case can be diagnosed by the possibility of an NP in place of the in nitival complement But as regret shows the possibility of an NP object does not guarantee ECM ie ECM predicates allow for accusative NP objects but the reverse does not follow Also there is no 171 correlation between the possibility of for7CPs and ECM in nitivals cf hope vs believe 14 ECM vs Control 0 de se interpretations 16 a Control only de se David wants PRO to win the election b ECM both de se and de re David wants himself to win the election 2There are no adjectival ECM predicate 7 this would follow from the general inability of adjectives to assign case There are also no ditransitive ECM predicatesie ECM counterparts ofpezsuade I don t know why this is so o Adjacency effects Control clauses can be separated from their predicates by intervening adverbs While ECM clauses cannot l 7 a b These adjacency facts are part of a more general pattern Which requires adjacency in English between an accusative licensing complex head vAg and the NP that gets accusative The source of this adjacency requirement remains an open question made more interesting by the Control David tried yesterday PRO to book a ticket for Holland ECM David expected yesterday him to be late fact that it seems to be a language speci c restriction not applying for example in French 18 I saw him yesterdayl saW yesterday him No comparable restrictions seem to apply to CPs 2 Raising In principle two distinct structures are possible for the string in 19 19 a 21 NP V to VP Raising NP V th to VP Hei seems ti to like David Control NP V PRO to VP Hei tried PROi to like David Raising vs Control Implications of the the proposed structures 20 3 Raismgi sz mem tNP t0 Vpembeddedl l Vmaww is a one place predicate Hei seems ti to like David 1 It seems that he likes David 2 NF does not get a 87role from Vmawm gt NP can be expletive if VP8mbedm permits gt NP can be a nonireferential phrase licensed by VPWWMM 3 NF gets case from outside the embedded in nitival clause gt the case relationship crosses a TP boundary 13 Control NPi mem PROi t0 mebmml l VWW is a two place predicate He wants to take syntax 1 He desires that he take syntax 2 NF gets a 87role from Vmawm gt NP cannot be an expletive gt NP cannot be a nonireferential phrase licensed by VPembewed 3 NF gets case from VWW gt the case relationship does not cross a TP boundary 21 Expletives and Idiom Chunks There seems to be a man in the garden a b There is likely to be a farmer harvesting pumpkins somewhere right now P The cat appears to be out of the bag 1 The chickens happen to be coming home to roost Expletivesldiom Chunk subjects are only possible if the embedded VP permits them 22 a There seems to be raining b There is likely to be a farmer harvest pumpkins somewhere right now c quotThe cats appear to like David with idiomatic reading fl The chicken happens to have hit the fan with idiomatic reading Raising predicates can be stacked on top of each other suggesting that raising can take one far 23 a Joey appears to have turned out to have left b Roland happens to apppear to seem to be sick But this is not something that distinguishes raising from control since control predicates can also be stacked 24 a Joey wants PRO to try PRO to get the McGill position b lwant PRO to persuade Joey PRO to apply for the McGill position 22 The class of Raising Predicates An incomplete list of raising predicates 25 a appear seem b happen turn out c be likely be unlikely be certain To this list we can add modals and auxiliaries even though the movement over these doesn t have to involve crossing a TP boundary Only predicates that do not assign a 87role to their speci er can be raising predicates ie raising predicates are all unaccusatives For this reason raising predicates involves raising and not ECM Note that unaccusative syntax is a necessary but not suf cient condition for a predicate to be a raising verb The unaccusative must be able to combine with an in nitival complement in the rst place and the in nitival complement must be small enough 26 Unaccusatives that do not allow Raising3 a be truefalse that7Conk for7CPzquot Raisingquot It is truefalse that David is leaving It is truefalse for David to be leaving Davidi is truefalse ti to be leaving b stinksbe possiblenecessary that7Conk for7Conk Raising lt stinksis possiblenecessary that John will win It stinksis possiblenecessary for ohn to win Johni stinksis possiblenecessary Lg to win 0 A prediction ECM predicates and Raising predicates seem to share many properties differing primarily in the case297domain o ECM 87role to subject case to subject of in nitival complement 0 Raising no 87role to subject no case to subject of in nitival complement Given Burzio s Generalization these two properties are related We would expect that ifwe were to passvize an ECM predicate we would have a Raising predicate on our hands and this seems to be the case 27 a expect Johni is expected ti to arrive at 5pm Therei is expected ti to be a party tonight b believe 30 missilesi are believed ti to be missing Therei are believed ti to be around 30 missiles missing 3 Formal Treatment Parameters of Variation 0 size of in nitival complement CP vs TP 0 the source nature of case matrix T matrix VAG C0 3I used to put probable in this group but it seems that some people sports fans in particular can say things like However he is probable to play against the Sabres on Wednesday reports the Philadelphia Inquirer Further at least one descriptive grammar online advice common inveighs against the practice of combining probable with an in nitive suggesting that suf ciently many people say this in the rst place 31 Control 28 V op C0 TP PRO T to w 0 Does PRO need case Can PRO ever have case 0 How is the distribution of PRO regulated 311 PRO cannot bear case An important intuition PRO cannot appear in positions where an overt NP can for the most part Since overt NPs require case this distribution would follow if PRO could not tolerate case This intuition seems surprisingly correct 29 a No PRO in object of active He triedwants David to annoy PROi b PRO can be merged VPeinternally as in a passive He triedwants PROi to be annoyed at David 30 a try He tried PRODavid to leave b believe He believes DavidPRO to be innocent 31 for For all the fugitives to be apprehended by the dementors would be great b C0 PRO to be apprehended by the dementors would be great c For PRO to be apprehended by the dementors would be great4 312 Why a CP 1 In many languages see Landau 2003488 overt complementizers are possible in control cone texts 2 The presence of the CP layer is taken to protect the PRO from potential case assigners 7 case relationships do not cross CP boundaries irrespective of whether they are established via Agree or Move 3 Postulating a null CP layer also helps us with potential exceptions to the case generalization 4As recently as 1584 for to in nitives were still possible in English appearing for example as a verse in the populat folk song Greensleeves Greensleeves was all my joy Greensleeves was my delight Greensleeves was my heart of gold And who but my Lady Greensleeves I have been ready at your hand to grant whatever you would crave I have both wagered life and land Yourlove and good will for to have They continue to be possible in Irish English though the location of for in Irish English is probably not the same as in Standard English See Henry 1992 and Henry 1995 for details 32 also prefer a He wantsexpects David to be a good person in his next life b He wantsexpects PRO to be a good person in his next life The idea is that expectwant can take both CP and IP complements 33 also prefer a He wantsexpects IpDavid to be a good person in his next life b He wantsexpects Cp C0 TpPRO to be a good person in his next life Earlier stages of the theory referred to wan expect as S ideleting predicates re ecting the belief that the control predicate was basic and that the ECM predicate was derived from it through a process that deleted the CP layer 313 How to block PRO from getting case 0 Strategy 1 PRO has no case feature Case assigners in general have case features that need to be deleted 0 The CP layer idea allows for PRO to appear in all the places where it should It also blocks other NPs or NPitrace from appearing in these positions 0 If PRO is inserted in a position where case is available it will fail to check the case feature of the case assigning head leading to ungrammaticality 0 Strategy 2 Null Case 7 PRO and only PRO has a special kind of case called Null Case which is assigned by the null C0 that appears with control in nitives o The C0 in the CP layer allows for PRO to appear in all the places where it should It also blocks other NPs or NPitrace from appearing in these positions Pronouns inserted here will get Null Case and will be realized as PRO o If a pronoun is inserted in a position where some other case is available it will come out with a noninull case ie it will not be pronounced as PRO One nice thing about the null case proposal is that the fact that case relationships cannot be estab7 lished across a CP boundary now falls out from the de nition of Agree 34 X Casel C null YPCasel 32 ECM and Raising The proposals for ECM and Raising now follow straightforwardly We have already ruled out the possibility of a CP complement We are left with the following structures which involve TP complementation 35 a ECMvAG V Tp NP to He believes Tp David to be innocent NP gets case from matrix VAC and raises to embedded SpecT0 for EPP reasons 10 b Raising Npg T0 VUNACC V 7 th t0 David seems Tp ti to be innocent NP raises to embedded SpecT for EPP reasons gets case from matrix T0 and raises to matrix T0 for EPP reasons Violations like Superraising and SuperiECM now follow from the de nition of Agree 36 a Superraising John seems that it appears to be happy Johni seems Cpthat Tpit appears Tp ti to be happy b SuperiECM He believes that it seems David to be happy John believes Cpthat Tp it seems Tp David to be happy We can also handle cases like the following if we assume that in English nite T must assign nominative and that case can only be assigned to an NP that doesn t already have case 37 Davidi seemed that ti left 4 Interactions between Passvization and Control ECM and Rais mg 41 Passivization and Control 411 Subject Control Predicates Most subject control predicates cannot be passivized This is known as Visser s Generalization 38 a It was preferred PRO to go b It was wanted PRO to go c It was tried PRO to go The ungrammaticality of 38 cannot be attributed to the inability of implicit arguments to con trol 7 we know that implicit arguments can control PRO The ship was sunk PRO to collect the insurance Visser s Generalization is brought out particularly nicely by the predicate promise Promise can function as a subject control predicate but also as a ditransitive verb 39 a He promised David PRO to stay b He promised David a new beginning 11 Interestingly the in nitival complement taking promise cannot be passivized while the ditransie tive promise can be 40 a David was promised PRO to stay b David was promised a new beginning But Visser s Generalization is not an exceptionless generalization decide constitutes an exception to it 41 It was decided PRO to leave 412 Object Control Predicates Object control predicates seem to passivize quite happily 42 a He was ordered PRO to leave b He was persuaded PRO to leave c He was permitted PRO to leave and so for instruct allow encourage The possibility of passivization is not surprising because these predicates satisfy general condi tions on passivization and the control relationship is not disrupted by passivization 42 Passivization and ECM Several ECM predicates can be passivized 43 a He believes David to be innocent b David is believed t to be innocent The embedded clause may also be passivized leading to an interesting range of interactions 44 He believes David to have eaten the apple a b He believes the apple to have been eaten t by David P David is believed t have eaten the apple 1 The apple is believed t to have been eaten by David Not all ECM predicates passivize 45 a David was wanted t to leave He wanted David to leave b David would have been preferred t to be less possessive of him I would have preferred David to be less possessive ofhim The failure of passivization and other interpretive properties of wan prefer have been used to argue that the in nitival complement of wantprefer might be a CP headed by a null for inspired by the idea that wan prefer can take for7CP complements But then we need to say something more to explain the ungrammaticality of the following 12 46 a It was wanted for David to leave b It would have been preferred for David to be less possessive of him The source of the ungrammaticality of 46 is mysterious but is probably related to the fact that 47 doesn t seem that great either 47 a It was wanted for David to leave b It would have been preferred for David to be less possessive of him Finally at least one ECM predicate that also takes for7CP complements can be passivized 48 a Makotoi was expected ti to win b I can t expect him to accept everything c I can t expect for him to accept everything The picture all of this suggests is as follows 49 hope overt f0r7CPs covert f0r7CPs TPs a b want prefer overt f0r7CPs covert f0r7CPs quotTPs P expect overt f0r7CPs covert f0r7CPs TPs fl believe overt f0r7CPs covert f0r7CPs TPs 43 Passivization and Raising Raising predicates are all unaccusatives It is therefore unsurprising that they do not passivize 50 David is seemedappeared to be happy They can embed passive complements though 51 The articlei seems ti to have been written ti by David References Henry A 1992 ln nitives in a foreto dialect Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 102 2797301 Henry A 1995 Belfast English and Standard English Dialect Variation and Parameter Setting Oxford University Press Oxford Landau l 2003 Movement out of control Linguistic Inquiry 343 4717498 Postal P M and G K Pullum 1988 Expletive Noun Phrases in Subcategorized Positions Linguistic Inquiry 194 6357670 13
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'