Coursehero >> Massachusetts >> UMass (Amherst) >> LINGUIST 601

Course Hero has millions of student submitted documents similar to the one below including study guides, homework solutions, papers, exam answer keys and textbook solutions.

to Introduction Transformational Grammar, LINGUIST 601 October 16, 2008 EPP versus Case 1 What does Case do? Determine the morphological shape of argument DPs - morphological case 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: *[N P ] if has no Case and contains a phonetic matrix or is a variable. (Chomsky (1981):175) a. Overt DPs are defective. They need to be case licensed. b. Particular heads do case-licensing in particular con gurations. 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 case-licensing 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 case-licensed. If the DP is not case-licensed, the structure containing it crashes. Classic cases explained by Case Licensing: (3) Distribution of overt subjects in in nitival clauses: case is taken to not be generally available in the [Spec,TP] of a non- nite 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 leave/John believes Mary to be innocent.) d. John believes [Mary to be innocent]. Maryi 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 in nitival 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 signi cant extent the distribution of PRO. (4) Complements of A/N: a. John is fond *(of) olives. b. Kate is the queen *(of) Bethesda. (5) Location of Overt DPs: a. [My computer]i was stolen ti . b. Heatheri appeared ti in Bill s dream. c. *Johni seems that ti is sick. 2 Stage 3: Case is not in the Syntax 2.1 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 feature (but see Legate (2008) who argues for the continued relevance of abstract case for the realization of morphological case). 2.2 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. 2 (7) Distribution of Complementizers a. I would like (for) him to buy the book. b. I believe (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) needs for not for case reasons but for whatever reason (7d) requires that. (8) seem only takes a non- nite TP complement. a. *It seems [for John to be sick]. subcategorization of seem is not satis ed, control in nitivals have to be CPs b. *It seems [PRO to be on edge lately]. subcategorization of seem is not satis ed c. *It seems [John to be sick]. subcategorization of seem is satis ed, but it cannot have a TP associate (Unlike believed/likely, the clausal complement of seem cannot appear in subject position.) (9) likely can take both non- nite CPs and TPs. a. It is likely [for John to win]. has it CP associate b. *It is likely [John to win]. it needs CP associate, has TP associate c. [For John to win] is likely. complement of likely can raise to subject position d. *[John to win] is likely. complement of likely can raise to subject position, but then overt C is needed e. Johni is likely [T P ti to win]. TP can t raise. Hence its subject is available for raising. What blocks *It is likely [PRO to win] (10) unfortunate takes only CPs. a. It is unfortunate [for John to have to leave]. it has CP associate b. *It is unfortunate [John to leave so early]. 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]. it has CP associate, control in nitivals have to be CPs d. [For John to have to leave] is unfortunate. complement of unfortunate can raise to subject position e. *[John to win] is unfortunate. complement of unfortunate can raise to subject position, but then overt C is needed 3 f. [PRO to have to leave so early] is unfortunate. control complement of unfortunate can raise to subject position g. *There is unfortunate to be a party tonight. unfortunate can only take in nitival CP complements. (11) believe takes in nitival TPs and not in nitival CPs: a. Gina believes Ron to be innocent. believe has TP complement. b. *Gina believes for Ron to be innocent. believe has CP complement c. Roni is believed [ti to be innocent]. believed has TP complement. d. *It is believed [(for) Ron to be innocent]. if complement is TP, it has wrong associate. if complement is CP, believed has CP complement e. *It is believed [PRO to be innocent]. PRO needs CP, believed cannot handle a CP. 2.3 The Essential Contrasts (12) it can never have an in nitival associate with an overt subject without a for: a. *It seems [(for) John to win]. b. It is likely [*(for) John to win].1 c. It is unfortunate [*(for) John to have to leave so early]. d. *It is believed [(for) John to win]. (13) possibility of for-less in nitival with overt subject depends upon embedding predicate: a. Jeremy believes [(*for) Mary to be innocent]./*Jeremy believes [PRO to be innocent]. b. Jeremy wants [(*for) Mary to win]./Jeremy wants [PRO to win]. c. *Jeremy tried [(for) Mary to win]/Jeremy tried [PRO to win]. (14) it can have a PRO-subject in nitival associate depending upon the matrix predicate: a. *It seems [PRO to win]. b. *It is likely [PRO to win]. c. It is unfortunate [PRO to have to leave so early]. d. *It is believed [PRO to win]. explanation probably lies in the domain of implicit arguments and control 1 A more natural example perhaps: If no cars are present, it is twice as likely for there to be no cars at the next time instant as it is for there to be one car. 4 2.4 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. Pseudo-Passives (17) [This bed]i has been slept in ti . References Bobaljik, J. (2005) Where s ?: Agreement as a post-syntactic operation, in M. van Koppen, ed., Leiden Papers in Linguistics Vol. X.X, 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 39:1, 55 101. Marantz, A. (1991) Case and Licensing, in G. Westphal, B. Ao, and H.-R. Chae, eds., Proceedings of ESCOL 91, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, Cornell Linguistics Club, 234 253. McFadden, T. (2004) The position of morphological case in the derivation: a study on the syntaxmorphology interface, Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 5

Find millions of documents here - Study Guides, Homework Solutions, Papers, Exam Answer Keys and more. Course Hero has millions of course related materials that will enable you to learn better, faster and get an A in all your courses.
Below is a small sample set of documents: