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)