Handout
Transcript
Handout
CAS LX 523 Syntax II Spring 2006 Paul Hagstrom Jan 30, 2006 Week 2: Order in pronunciation Wh-movement is successive-cyclic: We’ll talk about why, but what about whether? McCloskey (2000). Quantifier Float and Wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31:1:57–84 The basic phenomenon (in West Ulster English) (1) a. b. c. What all did you get t for Christmas? Who all did you meet t when you were in Derry? Where all did they go t for their holidays? (2) a. b. c. What did you get all for Christmas? Who did you meet all when you were in Derry? Where did they go all for their holidays? WUE (3) a. b. I don’t remember what all I said. I don’t remember what I said all. WUE McCloskey suggests that this is like the more familiar quantifier float (4) a. b. c. d. e. f. All the children must have gone to bed. The children all must have gone to bed. The children must all have gone to bed. The children must have all gone to bed. * The children must have gone all to bed. * The children must have gone to bed all. Under long wh-movement, it appears that all can be left behind at any point where a whword has been. (5) a. b. c. d. What all do you think (that) he’ll say (that) we should buy t ? What do you think all (that) he’ll say (that) we should buy t ? What do you think (that) he’ll say all (that) we should buy t ? What do you think (that) he’ll say (that) we should buy all ? WUE It’s really about CP, you can’t just strand all anywhere: (6) a. b. c. d. e. What all did he tell him (that) he wanted t ? What did he tell him all (that) he wanted t ? * What did he tell all him (that) he wanted t ? ? What did he tell his friends/Mickey all (that) he wanted t ? * What did he tell all his friends/Mickey (that) he wanted t ? WUE Cf. Standard English exactly… (7) a. b. c. d. (8) a. b. c. d. e. What exactly do you think (that) he’ll say (that) we should buy t ? What do you think exactly (that) he’ll say (that) we should buy t ? What do you think (that) he’ll say exactly (that) we should buy t ? What do you think (that) he’ll say (that) we should buy exactly ? What exactly did he tell him (that) he wanted t ? What did he tell him exactly (that) he wanted t ? * What did he tell exactly him (that) he wanted t ? ? What did he tell his friends/Mickey exactly (that) he wanted t ? * What did he tell exactly his friends/Mickey (that) he wanted t ? SE SE Henry, Alison (1995). Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. Oxford University Press. (9) a. b. c. d. Who did John hope [ would he see __ ]? What did Mary claim [ did they steal __ ]? I wonder what did John think would he get __? Who did J say [did Mary claim [had John feared [would Bill attack __ ]]]? McCloskey, James (2002). Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. In Samuel Epstein & Daniel Seeley (eds.), Derivation and explanation. Blackwell. 184–226. (10) Creidim gu-r inis sé bréag. I-believe go-PAST tell he lie ‘I believe that he told a lie.’ The normal complementizer in Irish is go. (11) an fhilíocht a chum sí _ L the poetry a composed she ‘the poetry she composed’ In wh-constructions we get aL instead. When wh-movement goes by a complementizer, it also comes out as aL. (aL is the particle a plus “lenition” of the following consonant) (12) XPj [CP aL … [CP aL … [CP aL … tj … ] ] ] (13) an t-ainm a hinnseadh dúinn a bhí _ ar an áit the name aL was-told to-us aL was on the place ‘the name that we were told was on the place’ (14) the name [ Opi C [TP we were told [CP ti! C [TP ti was on the place]]]] " 1" 1 z--------------mz----m “Partial” wh-movement—German (McDaniel 1989, NLLT) (15) (16) a. Mit wem glaubst du dass Maria gespochen hat? with whom believe you that Maria spoken has ‘Who do you think Maria has spoken to?’ b. Was glaubst du mit wem Maria gespochen hat? what think you with whom Mary spoken has a. [Mit wem]i glaubst [IP du [CP ti dass [IP Hans meint [CP ti dass [IP Jakob ti gesprochen hat]]]]]? with whom believe you that Hans thinks that Jakob talked has ‘With whom do you believe that Hans thinks that Jakob talked?’ b. Wasi glaubst [IP du [CP [mit wem]i [IP Hans meint [CP ti dass [IP Jakob ti gesprochen hat]]]]]? c. Wasi glaubst [IP du [CP wasi [IP Hans meint [CP [mit wem]i [IP Jakob ti gesprochen hat]]]]]? These are real single questions (not What does Hans think? With whom is Jakob talking?) (17) Ich weiss nicht [CP wasi [ Hans glaubt [ mit wemi [ Jakob jetzt ti spricht]]]] I know not WHAT Hans thinks with whom Jakob is now talking You can’t skip—if the wh-word hasn’t moved, there has to be a was in each clause above. …was…was… mit wem…t…t… (16) d. Wasi glaubst [IP du [CP dass [IP Hans meint [CP [mit wem]i [IP Jakob ti gesprochen hat]]]]]? Hungarian (Horvath NLLT 1997) (18) Mit godolsz, hogy kit látott János what-ACC think-2SG that who-ACC saw-3SG John-NOM ‘Who do you think that John saw?’ ‘What do you think, who did John see?’ Bengali (Bayer 1996) (19) tumi ki bhebe-cho [ ke baRi kore-che] ? you what think-PTS2 who house make-PTS3 ‘Who did you think has built a house?’ Binding theory and Reconstruction into intermediate positions Principle A: Anaphors must be locally bound (within its TP). (20) [TP John knows that [TP Mary is looking at [a picture of herself]]]. (21) * [TP Mary knows that [TP John is looking at [a picture of herself]]]. (22) * That boy thinks [TP Mary expects [TP John to buy [a picture of herself]]]. Wh-movement can bring herself close enough to Mary: (23) [TP Mary knows [which picture of herself]j [TP John is looking at tj ]]. Wh-movement through intermediate positions can bring herself close enough to Mary: (24) [Which picture of herself]j did [TP Mary say [CP tj! [TP John is looking at tj ] ] ]? (25) [Which picture of herself]j does [TP that boy think [TP Mary expects [TP John to buy tj]]]? It’s the intermediate position, not just making it a question: (26) * [Which boy]j [TP tj thinks [TP Mary expects [TP John to buy [a picture of herself]]]]? Fox, Danny (1999). Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30(2):157–196. Bound pronouns must be c-commanded by their quantifier (at least at LF): (27) a. b. Every boy1 told his1 parents that he1 did his1 homework. *His1 parents told the teacher that every boy1 is a genius. This can force reconstruction, as can Principle A, and if they conflict: *. (28) [Which picture of herself that he1 took] does every boy1 think [*] Mary likes [!] ? (29) *[Which picture of herself that he1 took] does Mary think [*] every boy1 likes [*]? A there construction can force reconstruction (wh-trace is like a name, there constructions require an indefinite interpretation). (30) a. b. John was at the party. Some students were at the party. (They told me) (A linguistics homework was left behind) (31) a. b. *There was John at the party. There were some students at the party. (*They told me) (A linguistics homework was left behind) So, you must reconstruct in a there construction, like so: (32) (33) How many people does Diana think are at the party? a. there are n people, Diana thinks they are there. [how many people] Diana thinks t are at the party. b. Diana thinks there are n people there. Diana thinks [how many people] are at the party. How many people does Diana think there are at the party? a. *there are n people, Diana thinks they are there. *[how many people] Diana thinks there are t at the party. b. Diana thinks there are n people there. So, we can set up a conflict: Use there to force reconstruction, and use binding theory to prohibit reconstruction, the result should be ungrammatical. Principle C: R-expressions (names) must be free (cannot be c-commanded by a coindexed DP) (34) *She1 told my teachers that Mary1 is a genius. (35) (36) (37) [How many people from Diana’s1 neighborhood] does she1 think are at the party? *[How many people from Diana’s1 neighborhood] does she1 think there are at the party? [How many people from her1 neighborhood] does Diana1 think there are at the party? So, let’s make a wh-phrase that has • A bound pronoun (meaning it has to be c-commanded by its quantifier) • A name (meaning that it cannot be c-commanded by a coreferential pronoun). We can use this to force reconstruction to a very small area of the tree: If the quantifier is in subject position, the bound pronoun must be lower. If the coreferential pronoun is an object in the VP, the name must be higher. If it is possible to do this, there must be a position (where the wh-phrase stopped) that is below the subject, but above the rest of the VP. (38) Which of the books that he1 asked Ms. Brown2 for] did every student1 [__] get from her2 [ * ]? (39) Which (of the) paper(s) that he1 wrote for Ms. Brown2] did every student1 [___] get her2 [ * ] to grade ? (40) Which (of the) paper(s) that he1 gave Ms. Brown2] did every student1 [___] ask her2 to read [ * ] carefully? There seems to be an intermediate landing side below the subject (vP): Bahasa Indonesia (Saddy 1991) (41) Bill tahu Tom men-cintai siapa Bill knows Tom tr-loves who ‘Who does Bill know Tom loves?’ ‘Bill knows who Tom loves’ (42) Bill tahu siapa yang Tom cintai Bill knows who yang Tom loves ‘Who does Bill know Tom loves?’ ‘Bill knows who Tom loves’ (43) Siapa yang Bill tahu Tom cintai who yang Bill knows Tom loves ‘Who does Bill know Tom loves?’ (44) Bill men-gira Tom men-harap Fred men-cintai siapa Bill tr-thinks Tom tr-expects Fred tr-loves who ‘Who did Bill think Tom expects Fred loves?’ (45) Siapa yang Bill kira Tom harap Fred cintai who yang Bill think Tom expects Fred loves ‘Who did Bill think Tom expects Fred loves?’ (46) Siapa yang men-cintai Sally who yang tr-loves Sally ‘Who loves Sally?’ (47) Siapa yang Bill beri Tom harap men-cintai Fred who yang Bill thinks Top expects tr-loves Fred ‘Who does Bill think Tom expects loves Fred?’ This verbal agreement might also count as evidence (like Irish) for successive-cyclic movement, but perhaps this is morphological evidence of the vP-stop. Conclusion: Wh-phrases move successive cyclically, and seem to stop off not only at every CP but also every vP. Cinque, Guglielmo (1999). Adverbs and Functional Heads. Oxford. Observation: More often than not, adverbs seem to come in a strict order. This order seems to hold not only in Italian, but crosslinguistically. Hypothesis: There is a universal ordering of adverbs, which corresponds to a universal hierarchy of functional projections. Of course: This will require looking closely at cases which seem to deviate from this order in order to see what it takes to “explain them away.” Adverbs seem to have an order… solitamenta ‘usually’, non...mica ‘not’, già ‘already’, più ‘any longer’ généralement, ‘usually’, ne...pas ‘not’, déjà ‘already’, plus ‘any longer’ (48) (49) a. Alle due, Gianni non ha solitamenta mica mangiato, ancora. ‘At two, G. has usually not eaten yet.’ b. * Alle due, Gianni non ha mica solitamente mangiato, ancora. a. A deux heures, Gianni n’a généralement pas mangé, encore. b. * A deux heures, Gianni n’a pas généralement mangé, encore. solitamenta > mica (Italian) (50) a. b. (51) a. b. a. b. French généralement > pas (French) Non hanno mica già chiamato, che io sappia. ‘They have not already telephoned, that I know.’’ Italian * Non hanno già mica chiamato, che io sappia. Si tu n’a pas déjà mangé, tu peux le prendre. ‘If you have not already eaten, you can take it.’ French * Si tu n’a déjà pas mangé, tu peux le prendre. mica > gia (Italian) (52) Italian pas > déjà (French) All’epoca non possedeva già più nulla. ‘At the time (s)he did not possess already any longer anything.’ * All’epoca non possedeva più già nulla. Italian (53) a. A l’époque, il ne possédait déjà plus rien. ‘At the time, he did not possess already any longer anything.’ b. A l’époque, il ne possédait plus déjà rien. già > più (Italian) solitamenta > mica > gia > più (Italian) French déjà > plus (French) généralement > pas > déjà > plus (French) Continuing in the same manner, we can come up with more complete hierarchy: francamente > forunatamente > evidentemente > probabilmente > Italian sinceremente purtroppo chiaramente presumilbilmente ora > forse > intelligentemente allora per caso goffamente solitamenta > mica > già > più > sempre > completamente > tutto > bene di solita neanche poi ancora mai parzialmente niente male abitualmente neppure non franchement > heureusement > évidemment > probablement > French maintenant > peutêtre > intelligentement généralement > pas > déjà > plus > toujours > complètement > tout > bien habituellement encore encore jamais partiellement rien mal Similar tests can be made, and reveal a significant amount of crosslinguistic universality: Norwegian: ærlig talt > heldivgis > tydeligvis > sannsynligvis > nå > kanskje > ‘honestly’ ‘fortunately’ ‘evidently’ ‘probably’ ‘now’ ‘perhaps’ valigvis > allerede > ikke lenger > alltid > helt > ‘usually’ ‘already’ ‘no longer’ ‘always’ ‘completely’ klokelig > ‘wisely’ godt ‘well’ Serbo-Croatian: iskreno > nažalost > očigledno > možda > neizostavno > intelligentno > ‘frankly’ ‘unfortunately’ ‘evidently’ ‘perhaps’ ‘necessarily’ ‘intelligently’ obi c no > često > već > više > uvijek > upravo > gotovo > ‘usually’ ‘often’ ‘already’ ‘no longer’ ‘always’ ‘just’ ‘almost’ potpuno > dobro > brzo > opet ‘completely’ ‘well’ ‘quickly’ ‘again’ Hebrew: be’emet > le-mazal-o ha-ra > kanir’e > ’ulay > be-xoxma > be-derex klal > ‘truly’ ‘unluckily’ ‘probably’ ‘perhaps’ ‘intelligently’ ‘usually’ kvar / kvar lo > tamid > biduk / kim’at > legamrey > heitev ‘already’/‘no longer’ ‘always’ ‘just’/‘almost’ ‘completely’ ‘well’ Chinese: laoshi-shuo > buxing > xianran > xianzai / yexu > mingzhide > yiban > ‘honestly’ ‘unfortunately’ ‘evidently’ ‘now’/‘perhaps’ ‘wisely’ ‘usually’ changchang > yijing > bu-zai > zongshi > yizhi / ganggang > ‘often’ ‘already’ ‘no longer’ ‘always’ ‘continuously’/‘just’ wanquan > hao ‘completely’ ‘well’ Albanian: sinquerisht > mjerisht > tani > ndoshta > zakonisht > as / ende > ‘sincerely’ ‘unfortunately’ ‘now’ ‘perhaps’ ‘usually’ ‘not yet’/‘still’ gjithnjë > tërësisht > mirë ‘always’ ‘completely’ ‘well’ English: frankly > fortunately > allegedly > probably > once/then > perhaps > wisely > usually > already > no longer > always > completely > well Optionality? There are cases that appear to have adverbs generated in different positions. (54) a. b. c. Bill has answered their questions cleverly. Bill cleverly has answered their questions. Bill has cleverly answered their questions. The answers are clever. Bill is clever. Ambiguous. There seem to be several positions where cleverly (stupidly) can be generated—which is made more plausible by the fact that they can all be filled at once (and they mean different things). (55) Bill has cleverly been cleverly answering their questions cleverly. Bill has cleverly been stupidly answering their questions cleverly. (Bill is clever, the answering was stupid, but the answers were clever). So, one adverb can appear in several places, but with different interpretations. Ideally, there is a one-to-one correlation between clausal position and interpretation, so we think of this situations as three different adverbs that sound the same. Same holds for slowly—the difference in interpretation is subtle, but probably real. (56) a. b. He has been slowly testing some bulbs. He has been testing some bulbs slowly. The whole testing was slow. Each testing was slow. Adverbs in specifiers (57) Da allora, non hanno rimesso di solito mica più sempre completamente tutto bene in ordine. ‘Since then, they haven’t usually not any longer always put everything well in order.’ (58) Da allora, non hanno di solito rimesso mica più sempre completamente tutto bene in ordine. Da allora, non hanno di solito mica rimesso più sempre completamente tutto bene in ordine. Da allora, non hanno di solito mica più rimesso sempre completamente tutto bene in ordine. Da allora, non hanno di solito mica più sempre rimesso completamente tutto bene in ordine. Da allora, non hanno di solito mica più sempre completamente rimesso tutto bene in ordine. (59) (60) (61) (62) That pretty strongly suggests that there is a head between those adverbs (head-movement of the verb to one of those heads). (63) ... X1P 3 di solito X1! 3 X1 X2P 3 mica X2! 3 X2 X3P 3 più X3! 3 X3 X4P 3 sempre X4! 3 X4 ... (64) (65) (66) (67) Mi ero francamenta purtroppo evidentemente formato una pessima opinione di voi Francamenta mi ero purtroppo evidentemente formato una pessima opinione di voi Francamenta purtroppo mi ero evidentemente formato una pessima opinione di voi Francamenta purtroppo evidentemente mi ero formato una pessima opinione di voi ‘Frankly I unfortunately had clearly formed a very bad opinion of you.’ (68) (69) (70) Allora aveva forse saggiamente deciso di non presentarsi. Allora forse aveva saggiamente deciso di non presentarsi. Allora forse saggiamente aveva deciso di non presentarsi. ‘Then he had perhaps wisely decided not to go.’ We can also see some universals in the order of morphemes in agglutinating languages: (71) ku pwun-i cap-hi-si-ess-ess-keyss-sup-ti-kka? that person-NOM catch-PASS-HON-ANT-PAST-EPISTEM-HON-EVID-Q ‘Did you feel that he had been caught?’ Korean By the Mirror Principle, things closer to the verb are lower in the tree... So, Speech Act (kka) > Evidential (ti) > Conjecture (keyss) > Past (ess) > Anterior (ess) > Voice (hi) > VP. Consider frankly > allegedly > probably > once > no longer Frankly kind of modifies the speech act Allegedly kind of modifies an evidential claim Probably kind of modifies a conjecture Once kind of specifies a past marker No longer kind of specifies a perfect marking The order of the adverbs correlates with the order of their associated heads… (72) ... Koritalian, glossed in English Sp-ActP 3 frankly Sp-Act! 3 Sp-Act EvidP kka 3 allegedly Evid! 3 Evid ConjecP ti 3 probably Conjec! 3 Conjec PastP keyss 3 once Past! 3 Past PerfectP ess 3 no longer Perfect! 3 Perfect ... ess Cinque’s final matchup frankly fortunately allegedly probably once then perhaps necessarily possibly usually again often intentionally quickly already no longer still always just soon briefly characteristically(?) almost completely tutto well fast/early again often completely Moodspeech act Moodevaluative Moodevidential Modalepistemic Tense (past) Tense (future) Moodirrealis Modalnecessity Modalpossibility Aspecthabitual Aspectrepetitive(I) Aspectfrequentative(I) Modalvolitional Aspectcelerative Tense(anterior) Aspectterminative Aspectcontinuative Aspectperfect(?) Aspectretrospective Aspectproximative Aspectdurative Aspectgeneric/progressive Aspectprospective AspectSingularCompletive(I) AspectPluralCompletive Voice Aspectcelerative(II) Aspectrepetitive(II) Aspectfrequentative(II) AspectSgCompletive(II)