Class Note for LINGUIST 601 at UMass(4)
Class Note for LINGUIST 601 at UMass(4)
Popular in Course
Popular in Department
This 5 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 14 views.
Reviews for Class Note for LINGUIST 601 at UMass(4)
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 October 16 2008 EPP versus Case 1 What does Case do 0 Determine the morphological shape of argument DPs morphological case 0 Regulate the distribution of overt DPs abstract case Three Stages in the use of Case 1 Stage 1 Lecture on Government and Binding onwards The Extended Case Filter Np a if a has no Case and a contains a phonetic matrix or is a variable Chomsky l981l75 a Overt DPs are defective They need to be case licensed b Particular heads do caselicensing in particular configurations c Case is the motivation for movement If a DP needs case it moves to a location where it can get case If such a movement is illegal or there is no such location the structure is ungrammatical 2 Stage 2 Minimalist Inquiries Chomsky 1998 Chomsky 1999 a Overt DPs are defective They need to be case licensed b Particular heads do caselicensing via Agree c Case is not the motivation for movement though in principle it could be d Movement is motivated by independent EPP features Implicit assumption made in Stages 1 and 2 even though the abstract case feature does not need to have an overt realization if there is overt realization of case it is determined by the abstract case feature Despite their differences Stage 1 and Stage 2 require that DPs need to be caselicensed If the DP is not caselicensed the structure containing it crashes Classic cases explained by Case Licensing 3 Distribution of overt subjects in infinitival clauses case is taken to not be generally avail able in the SpecTP of a nonfinite clause a It is unfortunate John to be sick It is unfortunate for John to be sick b John to be sick is unfortunate For John to be sick is unfortunate c John tried Bill to leave John wants Bill to leaveJohn believes Mary to be innocent d John believes Mary to be innocent Mary is believed ti to be innocent It is believed Mary to be innocent The idea is that PRO the null pronoun that often appears in the subjects of infinitival clauses not being an overt DP does not require case A further assumption that is needed is that PRO cannot be governed Together these assumptions derive to a significant extent the distribution of PRO 4 Complements of AN a John is fond of olives b Kate is the queen of Bethesda 5 Location of Overt DPs a My computer was stolen ti b Heather appeared t in Bill s dream c Johni seems that t is sick 2 Stage 3 Case is not in the Syntax 21 Abstract Case is not enough Abstract Case does not directly determine Morphological Case Marantz 1991 McFadden 2004 Bobaljik 2005 It is not clear that given syntactic structure we need an abstract mediating fea ture but see Legate 2008 who argues for the continued relevance of abstract case for the realiza tion of morphological case 22 Getting rid of DP Licensing via Case Abstract Case does not regulate the licensing or location of Overt DPs McFadden 2004 6 a Issues of location are determined by EPP considerations b Case Licensing reduces to unrelated properties regulating i the distribution of overt and covert complementizers ii conditions on the associate of it it needs a CP associate 7 10 Distribution of Complementizers a lwould like for him to buy the book b lbelieve that he bought the book c For him to buy the book would be preferable d That he bought the book was unexpected idea 7c needsfor not for case reasons but for whatever reason 7d requires that seem only takes a nonfinite TP complement a It seems for John to be sick A subcategorization of seem is not satisfied control infinitivals have to be CPs b It seems PRO to be on edge lately A subcategorization of seem is not satisfied c It seems John to be sick A subcategorization of seem is satisfied but it cannot have a TP associate Unlike believedlikely the clausal complement of seem cannot appear in subject position likely can take both nonfinite CPs and TPs a It is likely for John to win A it has CP associate b It is likely John to win A it needs CP associate has TP associate c For John to win is likely A complement of likely can raise to subject position d John to win is likely A complement of likely can raise to subject position but then overt C is needed e John is likely Tp t to win A TP can t raise Hence its subject is available for raising What blocks quot It is likely PRO to win unfortunate takes only CPs a It is unfortunate for John to have to leave A it has CP associate b It is unfortunate John to leave so early A it needs CP associate has TP associate Question what rules out a null C0 CP structure as in It is unfortunate that John left so early c It is unfortunate PRO to leave so early A it has CP associate control infinitivals have to be CPs d For John to have to leave is unfortunate A complement of unfortunate can raise to subject position e John to win is unfortunate A complement of unfortunate can raise to subject position but then overt C is needed f g 11 a PRO to have to leave so early is unfortunate A control complement of unfortunate can raise to subject position There is unfortunate to be a party tonight A unfortunate can only take infinitival CP complements believe takes infinitival TPs and not infinitival CPs Gina believes Ron to be innocent A believe has TP complement Gina believes for Ron to be innocent A believe has CP complement Roni is believed ti to be innocent A believed has TP complement It is believed for Ron to be innocent A if complement is TP it has wrong associate A if complement is CP believed has CP complement It is believed PRO to be innocent A PRO needs CP believed cannot handle a CP 23 The Essential Contrasts 12 a b C P 13 it can never have an infinitival associate with an overt subject without a for It seems for John to win It is likely for John to win1 It is unfortunate for John to have to leave so early It is believed for John to win possibility offorless infinitival with overt subject depends upon embedding predicate a Jeremy believes quotfor Mary to be innocentquotJeremy believes PRO to be innocent b C 14 a b Jeremy wants quotfor Mary to winJeremy wants PRO to win Jeremy tried for Mary to winJeremy tried PRO to win it can have a PROsubject infinitival associate depending upon the matrix predicate It seems PRO to win It is likely PRO to win c It is unfortunate PRO to have to leave so early d It is believed PRO to win A explanation probably lies in the domain of implicit arguments and control 1A more natural example perhaps If no curs are present it is twice as likely for there to be no curs ut the next time instant us it is for there to be one cur 24 Challenges for Case Theory Mysterious Licensors 15 a John remembered for Frank buying the beer b For Frank buying the beer was unexpected c For Frank being too sick to move John had to buy the beer Default Case 16 Me and John are going to the store PseudoPassives 17 This bed has been slept in ti References Bobaljik J 2005 Where s 15 Agreement as a postsyntactic operation in M van Koppen ed Leiden Papers in Linguistics Vol XX Leiden University Leiden Chomsky N 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding Foris Dordrecht Chomsky N 1998 Minimalist Inquiries The Framework MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15 MITWPL Cambridge MA Chomsky N 1999 Derivation by Phase MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18 MITWPL Cambridge MA Legate J A 2008 Morphological and Abstract Case Linguistic Inquiry 391 557101 Marantz A 1991 Case and Licensing in G Westphal B A0 and HR Chae eds Proceedings ofESCOL 91 Cornell University Ithaca NY Cornell Linguistics Club 2347253 McFadden T 2004 The position of morphological case in the derivation a study on the syntax morphology interface Doctoral dissertation University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia PA
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'