Phrase structure

VP

Adv V NP PP*

oft smokes a cig in th park

VP

ADV VP

VP PP

V NP

often sm a cig in the p

Test 1: Pro-VP S

NP VP1

Adv VP2

VP3 PP

VP4 PP

V NP

Sue often smokes a cig in th p at dusk

and Mary does too

but Mary rarely does…

Test 2: coordination S

NP VP1

Adv VP2

VP3 PP

VP4 PP

V NP

Sue often smokes a cig in th p at dusk

and rarely drinks a beer in bed after dinner

VP2 and VP2 VP3 and VP3 VP4 and VP4

A left-right asymmetry

[VP Adv VP] [VP VP PP] [VP V NP]John often drinks wine in the kitchen after dinner with friends…* John often rarely sometimes… drinks beer* John often drinks wine juice after dinner

[VP Adv V’] [V’ V’ PP] [V’ V NP]Non rec. Rec. Non rec.

Findings

The VP comes in binary branching layerswith both recursive and non recursive strata VP = V’’

Adv V’

V’ [in the park]PP

often V NPsmokes [a cigarette]

The new format for PS

VP ADV V’ [VP ADV V’] non rec

[VPoften [V’smokes a cigarette]]

V’ V’ PP’ [V’ V’ PP] rec

[V’ [V’ smokes a cigarette] in the park]

[V’ [V’ [V’smokes a cigarette] in the park] at dusk]

V’ V NP [V’ V NP] non rec

[V’ [Vsmokes] [NPa cigarette] ]

Specifiers: VP[Adv V’] Adjuncts: [V’ V’ PP] Arguments: [V’ V NP]

Specifiers: the left edge

i. often smokes a cigarette

Arguments: non recursive and closer to the head

a. ii. I ate pizza iii.* I ate lunch pizza

iv. I ate pizza in the park

v. ? I ate in the park pizza

Adjuncts: recursive and freer in order

I ate pizza for lunch in the park

I ate pizza in the park for lunch

A closer look at the NP

NP

Det N PP PP

a few students of physics from Rome

I met a few students of physics from Rome

I met several ones

I met several ones from Palermo

I met several ones of literature from Palermo

The coordination test confirms

NP

Det NP

NP PP

N PP

Every [ student of physics from Rome or student of Math from Palermo] gets a discount

Every [teacher of physics or student of physics] from Rome gets a discount

Recursive vs. non recursive strata

• * Every some a student

• Every student of physics from Rome with blue eyes….

• * Every student of physics of Latin

[NP Det N’] [N’ N’ PP] [N’ N PP]

Non rec. Rec. Non rec.

Isomorphism across categories

VP

Adv V’

V’ [in the park]PP

often V NP

smokes [a cigarette]

NP

Det N’

N’ [from Rome]PP

every N PP

student [of physics]

What we expect

The argument/adjunct distinction within the NP should work in the same way as within the VPa. i. A student of physics from Rome

ii. ? A student from Rome of physicsb. i. * A student of physics of mechanics

ii. A student from Rome with blue eyesc. A student with blue eyes from Rome

AP

QP A’

A’ [on occasions]PP

very A PP

proud [of her son]

PP

QP P’

P’[in some ways]PP

so P PP

out [of touch]

More isomorphism across categories

Uniformity across categories

• Phrases tend to be built through a binary operation (‘merge’)

• Argument vs. adjuncts

• Categories are made up of lexical information (N, V, P, A) and a ‘projection’ level (bar-level)

The axioms of X’-theory

XP

Spec X’

X’ ADJ

X Compl

Phrases are layered like Russian dolls

Each layer has a center (the head)

There is a left edge (Spec)

Complements are most closely related to the head

Adjuncts are periphereal and recursive

MERGE + a uniform labelling device

Pushing X’- theory further

C’ (CP)

C S

that [IPSue will marry Joe]

Bill believes [CP that [IP Sue will marry Joe]]

Bill wants [CP for [IP Sue to marry Joe]]

Bill wonders [CP whether [IP Sue will marry Joe]]

The clause

• What is the ‘main element’ of a clause?

• that John leaves

• * that John to leave

• for John to leave

• for John leaves

The clause is a projection of Aux

Clauses as ‘Tense Phrases’

TP

NP T’

T

John Past VP

kiss Mary

simple past = ed present perfect = has

Structural characterization of grammatical relations like subject of or object of

TP

NP T’

T

John Past VP

kiss MarySubject: the Spec of T Object: the complement of V

Old ways/new ways

[S NP VP]

[NP Det Adj N PP*]

[VP Adv Aux V NP CP PP*]

[CP [C TP] ] [TP [T VP]] [VP [V NP]]

[PP [P NP]] [NP [Det N’]] [AP [A PP]]

Putting it all together

CP(= C’’)

C TP (= T’’)

NP (= N’’) T’

T VP (= V’’)

V’ PP (=P’’)

that the boss will smoke a cig at dusk

Dependencies at a distance and the case for movement

a. Head movementi. Every student has left alreadyii. Has [every student __left already]b. Argument movementi. I believe [the boy to have run away ]ii. The boy is believed [__ to have run away]c. Non Argument movementi. Has John considered buying a car?ii. Has John considered buying what?iii. What has John considered buying__?

The organization of grammar

LEXICON

[MERGE]

BASE STRUCTURE

[MOVE]

SPELL OUT STRUCTURE

An interesting non argumental displacement:

WH-Movement

a. Have you met who?b. Who have you met?

CPSpec C’

have IP NP I’

you [__ [VPmet who]]

Potential unboundedness

who should he meet __ in Rome?who do you think [that he should meet __ inRome]?who do you think [ that it is appropriate [that he should meet __ in Rome]]? who do you think [ that Joan believes [that it is appropriate [that he should meet __ in Rome]]]?

Argument 1: Semantic selection

I ate a new Italian dish *I ate a new Italian virtueI ate with a fork I ate with great joyI wonder [which new dish you think [John ate __with such joy]]* I wonder [which new virtue you think [John ate __with such joy]]I wonder [ you think [ John ate which new dish with such joy]

Argument 1: Semantic selection

I ate a new Italian dish *I ate a new Italian virtueI ate with a fork I ate with great joyI wonder [which new dish you think [John ate __with such joy]]* I wonder [which new virtue you think [John ate __with such joy]]I wonder [ you think [ John ate which new dish with such joy]

Argument 2: Agreement

He likes Bill They like Bill

* He like Bill * They likes Bill

Agreement is a local phenomenon

[TP NPF T’F]

which students do you think __ like Bill?

* which students do you think __ likes Bill?

Argument 3: Case

I saw him he left

*I saw he * him left

who(m) did you meet? who met you?

* whom met you?

who do you think [_ should meet M in Rome]?

whom do you think [M should meet _ in Rome]?

* whom do you think[ _ should meet M in Rome]?

Argument 4: Syntactic selection

I relied on Bill for adviceI turned to Bill for advice* I relied to Bill for advice* I turned on Bill for advice

On whom do you think that Bill relies_ for advice?

* To whom do you think that Bill relies _ for advice?

The logic of movement

[ … XP …. Gap… ]the properties of XP are the properties typically associated with the gap positionI wonder [who Mary likes]

CP CPwho IP who IP

Mary VP Mary VP V V NPlikes likes who

The organization of grammar again

LEXICON

[MERGE]

BASE STRUCTURE

[MOVE]

SPELL OUT STRUCTURE

MERGE = X’-theory

MOVE = dislocation of constituents

Differences and similarities between phonology and syntax

• s [+voice] / [+voice] +__#

dog+s# dogz fjor+e# fjur+i# ‘flowers’

• NP NP PP PP P NP

Both rule systems turn physical properties into formal labels

= They need to break down a continuum into discrete categories

But genuine recursion is found only in syntax