LITERARY THEORY ITALIAN 0270
Popular in Course
Popular in Italian
This 35 page Class Notes was uploaded by Mrs. Roberta Christiansen on Friday September 4, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to ITALIAN 0270 at University of California - Los Angeles taught by Staff in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 114 views. For similar materials see /class/177328/italian-0270-university-of-california-los-angeles in Italian at University of California - Los Angeles.
Reviews for LITERARY THEORY
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: 09/04/15
Heavy Pied Piping Hilda Koopman koopmanbiologyuclaedu UCLA May 1997 Pied piping early 1990 0 plays a restricted role in whmovement constructions covert or overt o piedpipe if other strategies fail o no general theory of piedpiping I will show that 0 heavy piedpiping exists 0 it occurs in many more environments in particular thatt and subject extraction 0 piedpiping plays a central role you always piedpipe Overt Pied piping l Overt piedpiping is structure dependent Webelhuht 1992 among others cf Moritz and Valois 1994 for covert piedpiping 2 a whose pictures did you take b whose brother s pictures did you take c pictures of which children did you take 3 XP piedpipes if Spec of XP contain a phrase with the appropriate feature problems with usual constituent structure of PPs problems with relative clauses XP 3 YP 3 3 YP 4 This con guration overlaps with the canonical con guration for extraction out of Spec move to Spec and then move on dependent on external con guration XP is not a barrier XP 3 YP 3 5 when do you extract from Spec when do you piedpipe when are Left branch violations allowed and when are they not 6 No theory of piedpiping For the most part perhaps completely it is properties of the phonological component that require such piedpiping Chomsky 1995 This proposal predicts that when Left branch violations are permitted they should only be permitted by Economy For languages that have left branch extractions the piedpiping alternative always seems to exist 7 a combien de gens tu as vu how many of people you have seen b combien tu as vu de gens how many you have seen of people 8 a wat voor boeken heb je gelezen what for books have you read b wat heb je e voor boeken gelezen what have you for books read 9 Piedpiping might in principle depend as well on factors that constrain movement barriers ECP the Minimal Link Condition Chomsky 1995 p 264 10 Thus piedpiping exist overt piedpiping when Spec contains relevant feature independent of phonology last resort 11 Question when is extraction from Spec possible when is piedpiping I will suggest that extraction out ofSpec should not be analyzed as extraction out of Spec but rather as piedpiping ofa rernnant constituent 12 1990 pied piping is not a restricted phenomena Big constituents can undergo pied piping any constituent can undergo pied piping 0 French intonational questions Sportiche 1992 1995 13 tu va venir demain 14 1P tu va venir dernain Q e a sentence nal rising intonation b negative polarity licensing Head initial yesno questions license negative polarity items 15 a Atilvu qui que ce soit Has heseen anyone intonational yes no questions do not nor do statements b il a vu qui que ce soit He has seen anyone 16 IP piedpiping or head movement to Q gt QP must be activated Q does not care if this is done by head movement or by XP movement Principle ofProjection Activation PPA Koopman 1996 A projection must be activated by lexical material in the course of a derivation PPA all functional projections have a strong feature 17 String vacuous movement gt pied piping could be all over the place and the effects could be hidden 0 Nkemnji 1995 Nweh argues for phrasal piedpiping of the complement of NegP to Spec NegP in Nweh a Grass eld Bantu language spoken in Cameroon lekem a ke te prt akendON b0 Agr Pl Neg eat plantains Neg S T pas rte bOIs ne V moves to bo he is pas lekem a ke te akendO N prt N Agr Pl Neg banana eat Nkemnji convincingly argues for an analysis which treats b0 as the head of NegP with the complement marked by re moving to Spec NegP 20 NegP XP ten b0 6 pas ne The piedpiped complement is extremely heavy containing clausal complements and adjuncts a n kE te ju Ie njlkem 3 kW fla nkap ambo Atem Wjua b0 e lSA Pl t8 hear that Njikern Agr P2 give money to Atem yesterday b0 1 did not hear that Njikern gave money to Atem yesterday Iljlkern 3 kW te fla nkap ambo Atem Wjua b0 e Njikern 3Agr P2 t8 money to Atem yesterday b0 Njikem did not give money to Atern yesterday 0 Kayne 1994 and work inspired by Kayne 22 a picture of John s e 23 piedpiping exist for all kinds of constituents overt piedpiping when Spec or head contains relevant feature piedpiping not necessarily forced by phonology Pied piping in English Subject object asymmetries English thatt effect Perlmutter 1978 24 a Who do you think that e saw Marie b Who do you think that Bill saw e Italian Rjzzi 1982 25 a Chi credi che verra Who believe2 that come will3rd Extraction not possible from subject position but from inverted position 26 a Chi credi che verra e Extraction not possible from matrix subject position External subjects preverbal subjects and inverted subjects of unergative Vs can be bare quanti ers tre PRO Quante quanti PRO how many cannot be used instead extraction must take place from inverted position 27 a Quante ne sono cadute b Quante hanno telefonato 28 You can never extract a subject from the immediate ccommand domain of thatC 29 3 30 Koopman 1983 No do support with subject extraction in English matrix clauses Obligatory dosupport with extraction of non subjects 31 a Who saw Marie Who did see Marie b Who Bill saw Who did Bill see c Why Bill saw Marie Why did Bill see Marie d0 movement to C would yield a th at t effect Do support is blocked with subject extraction for the same reason as that is forced to be silent 32 a whoi cdidj ei ej see Marie b Who do you think ei that ei saw Mary ECP account for thatt effect doesn t work cf also Culicover 1994 Problem why can you extract from the subject position in English but not from the subject position in Italian There is no parameter distinguishing Italian from English you cannot extract from the position immediately ccommanded by C in English either o A piedpiping analysis of subject extraction in English Previous analyses the subject moves whquestions are CPs versus the subject doesn t move subject whquestions are IPths String vacuous movement Chomsky 1986 GPSG no gap who came is IP and becomes CPwh covertly but how do you get whquestion interpretation phonology knows that this is a whquestion no link with thatt effect in embedded clauses All whquestions are structurally identical Subject whphrase is in Spec IP this is a piedpiping con guration and the entire IP piedpipes Object whphrases extract to th Simpli ed 33 Subject extraction Object extraction IP raising no I to C Wh extraction and I to C 3 3 IP 3 Who 3 6 C 3 did 3 Who came you see 9 34 thatt 3 3 think 3 think 3 IP 3 Who 3 6 c 3 that 3 who came thet Mary saw e Who do you think came Who do you think Mary saw Who came do you think Who Mary saw did you think Who did Mary see did you think In order to get subject extraction the IP needs to undergo piedpiping to Spec thatP The wh phrase no longer falls under the generalization in 28 and can be extracted but Spec thatP contains remnant IP lexical material By doubly lled C lter modi ed LCA Koopman 1986 that is forced to be silent 35 Different categories are in Spec th IP or DP 0 Support for derived constituency coordination Williams 1977 36 a I wonder who left and Bill saw t b I wonder what Bill saw and happened to Mary c I wonder what Bill saw and you thought e happened to Mary 37 3 Wonder 3 IP 3 who le C 9 we and IP Bill 3 saw DPS Wonder 3 cannot extract from what this position by 3 28 c 9 IP and IP 3 3 Bill 3 e 3 saw Dpe happened to Mary IP piedpiping for subject extraction also accounts for a theoretical problem concerning the status of whtraces 39 A wh variable must be Case marked Kayne 1984 40 a Qui crois tu t t etre venu Case Case Who believe you be come Who do you believe to have come b Je crois C Jean etre venu I believe John to be come I believe John to have come 41 Piedpiping of IP made possible by the wh feature in Spec IP reduces the French case to the English believe 3 croire 3 IP 6 3 qui etre venu C 3 Wh This suggests that English believe allows IP to raise with John to have left but matrix adverbs can appear after John but French does not It also raises additional questions qui etre venu croistu out for the same reason as Who to have come do you believe John to have come do you believe and Why qui crois qui etre venu 42 An aside on que gt qui Qui is an agreeing C With IP therefore insensitive to features of the Whphrase French cannot impose silence on C no que deletion que in French obligatorily raises higher thaan Whereas English can A more accurate structure no structural variation between languages uniform hierarchical structure Sportiche 19921995 Koopman 1996 Cinque 1996 oneprojectionperfeature syntactic structures are atomized and partitioned Sportiche 1996 Koopman 1993 Cinque 1996 Sportiche 1996 Koopman 1996 Rizzi 1995 DP structure etc Principle of Projection Activation PPA Koopman 1996 A projection must be activated by lexical material in the course of a derivation gt In order to be interpreted as a witquestion the witprojection must be activated by lexical material Disallows silent heads of chains declarative CPs imperative CPs either activated by head movement or by phrasal movement 43 Left eld XPgt WhgtQgtCgt 44 Ik weet niet wie ofdat dat gedaan hee I not know who if that that done has 45 English Q English yesn0 questions intonational questions marginal IP to Q I to Q dominant Therefore I to Q gt IP to Q English root vs non root questions extraction of wh word out of embedded complement 46 Structure of wh questions subject extraction Koopman 1996 abstracting Who came 47 a who came who did come who cannot be extracted from IP who come did I to C impossible because of remnant movement 48 One possibility keeping close to structures we are used to 3 IP to Spec WhP to license Wh projection This step is dependent 1P to Spec QP 3 on piedpiping 0 hcense question IP 6 3 l lPt S CP Who came wh 3 I 0 P90 1 IrIyrmlrnl ofwh e 3 m vement Q 3 e 3 C IP 49 WhatIthink is really going on CP raising to Spec QP to licence Q QP raising to license to Spec W 3 3 3 Wh 3 3 IP Q 6 3 who came C 1P C silent spec is lled with who came Q is silent Spec is lled with who came Wh is silent Spec is lled With who came All heads have lled Spec positions gt by doubly lled C modi ed LCA Koopman 1996 no overt heads are possible dosupport impossible if it could get out because of generalized doubly lled C 50 Who did come Violates 28 3 who 3 W11 3 Q 3 did IP e e come 51 who come did This is out because of head trace in remnant 3 3 Wh 3 Q did 3 e come QP to WhP does not help did Who leave who is too far embedded in QP to trigger piedpiping the Wh projection does not get activated 52 Situation concerning remnant movement of constituents with extracted heads unclear Certain cases of remnant movement must be OK but others are not cf Nkemnji 1996 Koopman 1994 53 Mueller 1996 p 268 Generalization Remnant XPs cannot undergo Ymovement if the antecedent of the unbound trace has also undergone Ymovement where Y movement stands for wh movernent scrambling topicalization head movement etc gt you can mix Whmovement and head movement head movement and any other type of XP movement Unambiguous domination An alphatrace must not be alpha dominated alphatrace is a trace With an antecedent in a position alpha alphadominated dominated by a category in position alpha Object extraction 54 Whphrase raises to scope position Spec WhP 3 Ito Q a t1vates QP what 3 IP to Q1 because W11 3 I to C gt IP to QP 3 Qdid 3 IP 3 6 C you 9 see 9 55 what you saw Activation of QP I to Q gt IP to Spec QP Did you see what At this stage of the derivation witphrase must move to Spec th The IPQP cannot move to the WhP the wh phrase is not in a piedpiping con guration and PPA is violated 56 did you see what QP to th Non root questions IP to QP gt I to Q Why Embedded questions are selected One possibility matrix clauses don t have C this doesn t change anything to the story for matrix clauses developed so far embedded clauses have C CP raises to Spec QP this allows the selecting verb to check economically that it has a complement which is both a question and a tensed CP 57 who do you think came All clause types have the same hierarchical structure 3 3 think 3 think 3 3 IP 3 who 3 6 C 3 that 3 who came thot Mary saw e 3 either that raising or not See Sobin 1984 for arguments that many English speakers also allow this for subject extraction 58 The existence of heavy piedpiping forces reanalyses of traditionally assumed analyses Substantial theoretical consequences Subject object asymmetries a reanalysis of the distribution of verbal forms in English in collaboration with Dominique Sportiche and the FrenchEnglish distinction in terms of piedpiping This undermines much of the initial motivation for Procrastinate Suggests no need for strong weak distinction it is a question of how a particular projection is activated by head movement or by movement to Spec Remaining questions what is the status of 28 thatt when is extraction from Spec possible when is piedpiping what is extraction from Spec Suggestion there is never extraction from Spec instead it is always piedpiping It looks like extraction out of Spec because some constituent has been moved out of the clause and the remnant only consist of the wh phrase ie you make the wh phrase nal by pulling out its complement and then do whmovement Historical antecedent extraposition and extraction On wh movement Internal S constraint Kuno 1973 59 think who thatJohn likes e Think needs to check CP this is what think takes CP raises to LPCP Licensing position for tensed CPs this will account for the distribution of tensed clauses 60 thinkthatJohn likes e who e 61 who e do thinkthat John likes e This would have the advantage that it can build in the bridge V property etc you can split up a large structure if that structure contains a constituent that has a relation to some element outside of it this replaces the earlier notion of thetamarking AugerFD PMT Specs and Calibration Katsushi Arisaka University of California 05 Angeles Department of Physics and Astronomy arisakaphysicsuclaedu 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka Outline gtRequirement and Specifications gtExamples of Measurements gtltalian System to be installed at Photonis gtSome concerns 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka Optical 39 Shutter J Corrector Ring Photonis XP3062 in FD Camera 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka Specification of PMTs for AugerFD gt gt gt gt Sha e and Size from FD TDR Draft exagonal 456mm sidetoaside Uniformity of response over the photocathode Nonuniformity within i15 Beam Spot size is 13 of the diameter Spectral response QE 25 in 330400nm in average The lower limit is x09 Gain 5x104 105 8 stage of dynodes Linearity Within i3 up to 10mA100nsec wide anode current or up to 1mA 1psec wrde at GaIn of 10 Life More than 3500 of integrated Anode charge for half life Sin le PE ust be seen 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka 5 Emission Spectrum of Nitrogen W Nitmgtn FlLiDltSZEn t Spr rnm Li i 337nm 1 raw 2 I 2 E M 5 313nm l 357 III 1 F q E I l II lr1391nm u I i 3 EH I I I I p 39 Tu I HI I E D g I l 3394 I III FEM quot 39 L F I39ll Ii II I a I Id I All II El n II III l39n U n I quotquot I 15quotquot VIEI39d 7 539 Iquot Ent I I I U r I a aquot m 11E ll 35D 43E 45E EDD Waitltngth um 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka 6 PiecebyPiecequot Efficiency of Agggr FD F uurewence Delednr Emciency VS Wavelength y y v y UVlermdat SCJerm dat x 39MIRHORJerm dat error quotPMUerm dat u quot l E 05 quotmica 31 0 g Schmidt Corrector W a75nm Callbdat rm a g h a w E 05 A 3 g 2 UVFilter E 39 L i 7 o 39 04 39E c a 5 77 E 02 7 U y Gun 32 340 400 420 MO see 350 Wave englh mm GAP Note 2002029 J A Matthews 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka Typical QE of HiRes and AugerFD PMT Ph ni XP 2 35 o PMTA 30 25 20 QE 15 10 N2 Laser YAG Laser 355nm UV LED 370nm 5 0 39 250 300 350 400 450 50 550 600 650 Wave Length nm Measured by Photonls 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka 8 9 I L Cathode Uniformity ILL 7 quot7 Av Measured by HiRes Group aszzstg DJ Bird et al 562003 UCLA KatsushiArisaka CathodeAnode Uniformity inR PMT Ph ni XP 2 Tube A 260400 39 A x ms an nun Hm TOP VIEW am an O W 5 m D 0391 a b 9 h u RELATIVE OUTPUT CURRENT L5 RELATIVE OUTPUT CURRENT X M m N a x 8 3DB 28B IBE LEFT 138 POSITION mm a BDB 29B BOTTOM 288 308 quot199 HIGH 68 133 POSITION mm TDP 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka CathodeAnode Uniformity inR PMT Ph ni XP 2 Tube B SA9310 39 A XAXIS an nun Cathodex AXIS llUl VItWJ am m B I Q m G an m A G a m RELATIVE OUTPUT CURRENT I RELAYIVE OUTPUT CURRENT X 70 a N D 150 350 0 TOP B 0 450 453 03 389 153 398 453 98 LEFI POSITION mml HIGH BDTIDM POSITION nml 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka 11 Shower Profile of E1020 Proton observed by a Perfect Telescope 16 Proton E1020 eV I RP535 km degree Elevation Angle 3 l O J Need to defocus the image at the size of the pixel I 4 7 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 318 320 322 324 326 328 330 332 334 336 338 340 342 astroph0203348 Sasaki et al AZ39mutha39 Angle degree 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka 12 Linearity Dev from linearity lt23quot CI 19 4 HHMMHI II II HII Hnml I IIIIITIII IIIIIITI39I IIIIIITI39I IIIII39I39ITI IIIIIITI39I r 10395 104 103 1c 5 10quot 1 Filter transmlssmn from FD TDR Draft 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka Linearity Of Photonis XP3062 Pulu width no n5 I Rwemihn kHz PHOTONIS XP3062 Lnearlty 5am nn moo suppty m II10 v Gain m Es 750 v Gain oEn Weed1 m oats um 39 mm G105 Divia ion 390 le 2n Li H 01 I In we WynPulls macPam Peak owe NA nowPuke ITmDpoPulsc 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka Gain Change vs Anode DC Current u 004 E 003 quot11 002 001 0 001 002 003 UO4 4 PMTs 31 I39IIIIllll CH from FD TDR Draft 10 2 10 1 1 A0000 current 1 139 HA 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka 15 Test System by Italian Group GAP 2001 042 GAP Note disclavmer link The test system for the photomultipliers of the Fluorescence Detector PFACAL SAN LUIs EKEMP GMATTHIAE AND PPRIVITERA Universita di Roma II Tor Vevyata and Sezione INFN Roma Italy MAMBROSIO Sezione INFNI Napoli Italy Abstract We describe the system which was built to test the photomultipliers of the Auger Fluorescence Detector The results obtained on the rst batch of about 1000 photomultipliers of the rst two telescopes are also presented 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka Test System by Italian Group 14m Uniformity mask HV Motor Signa LV Diffuser VME ADC Io Gate Master 3x Gen Neutral density filters LED 7 fi ters Xe lamp UG1 562003 UCLA Kats ushi Arisaka 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka Test Syste 562003 m by Italian Group Hllllll 5 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka GAP 200142 P Facal San Luis et al o RELATIVE CALIBRATION The statistical uctuations of the number of electrons nu collected at the anode of the photomultiplier as measured by the corresponding variance aquot is related to the gain G in the following way 039 naG 1Ug where 113 is the relative variance of the gain itself As a consequence we may write 02 g K G KENF is not constant where the variance of of the integrated charge distriw and its average value Q are expressed in ADC units and K is a normalization c ant the same for all PMTs According to the previous bumW for a given value of the high voltage which de nes the gain This is of course true only if additional uctuations from the electronic noise are negligible An example of the linear dependence of of on Q for a given value of the gain obtained by changing the light input is shown in Fig12 From these an absolute value of the gain which includes an overall quot 39 factor K is obtained for each PMT 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka 20 Another way of measuring the gain relies on the comparison with four photomultipliers calibrated at the facton which were always maintained as at reference in the group of 24 units under test The ratio of the response of each new PMT to the reference ones provides a Teletive v5 ue oi t ie gain The comparison of the two methods is presented in the histogram of Fig13 The ratio GwrmGmmm rinormalized to unity agree within about ii0 150 Mean 10 RMS m Entries 200 Remember E NTIQECE39G RM510 They are assuming that 150 GE and CE are universal constant 1007 50 GAP 2001 42 P Facal San Luis et al quotgrin iliiililil 02 04 06 03 1 12 G absolullGreialive 562003 UCLA 21 What is really going on gt Their G G Gain of ii te ENEef Gquotabsolulequot Gref QE ref CEref relative has nothing to do with G quotrelativequot ref QE CE Gquotabsolulequot o Gquotrelativequot ref gtWhat they measured is the variation of QECEIENF from PMT to PMT 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka 22 Some Concerns gt GE Spec not well defined 25 ox09225 o which is too restrict at 330nm Need to spec by Skb etc gt PMT stability not specified Dark current Dark pulse rate After pulse What is the max HV for 105 operation gt Spec of Single PE is ambiguous gt How can we make sure that Photonis is not chea ng 562003 UCLA Katsushi Arisaka 23
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'