case domains -from gb to split-infl hypothesis in minimalism

Be patient Be patient

AA

N

NPNow let’s cut down This tree

*Zakaria Baghor*Zakaria Baghor*Abdelhamid *Abdelhamid BousaadiBousaadi*Mohamed *Mohamed ChaniChani

Cadi Ayyad University, Faculty of Letters and Human Sciences

Prof. Abdellah ELHALOUI

Supervised By:

Master of Linguistics and Advanced English Studies

llllllllll Missions Missions

*What is*What is

GB?ACC?NOM?DS, SS, LF, and PF?AgrS?AgrO?

Make me

Proud!

Abdelhamid

The GB T-Model of the The GB T-Model of the Grammar Grammar

SS PF

LF

DS

Move

Move

Where is Case assigned?

Interface

Levels

LF and PF are

She likes her

NOM ACC

!??

IP NOM I’

0

vPt[ likes her ] ] ] Sh

eACC [ [ I

I saw the lady [ Sarah thought

to be a president ]

I saw the lady [ that it was thought

to be a president]

OP

tthat

OP

ii

ti

IP VP

IP i VP i

ACC ????ACC ????

Let’s get rid of H-complement!

Minimalism

N.Chomsky (1995)

‘conditions on representations….those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on …. hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’

Case

theory

Spell Out PF

LF

N

Select, Merge & MoveSelect, Merge & Move How is case ?

Interface

Levels

LF and PF are

{ Xi , Yj , Zf }

The Minimalist T-Model The Minimalist T-Model

Checked

tj

tj

ti

The Base Structure…

V NPV'

VPAgrO'

AgrO

AgrOPTT'

TP

AgrSAgrS'

AgrSP

Spec

TP

Spec

Spec

Chomsky 1993

Spec

[AgrSP __ [AgrS [TP T [AgrOP __ [AgrO [VP SU [V

OB]]]]]

→ SU and OB move to the SpecAgrP positions

SU OB

V moves up to AgrOAgrO Moves to T T Moves to AgrS

tj

tj

ti

Now let’s plant this tree together…

V OBi

V'

VPSUj

AgrO'AgrO

TT'

TP

AgrSAgrS'

AgrSP

next, V raises to AgrO

and OB raises to the new SpecAgrOP

tj

tj

ti

Now let’s plant this tree together…

V OBi

V'

VPSUj

AgrO'AgrO

AgrOPTT'

TP

AgrSAgrS'

AgrSP

ti

next, T merges with AgrOP and SU raises to the newly-merged SpecTP

next, the tense feature of V raises to T

TP

tj

and T-to-AgrS and SU-to-SpecAgrSP

next, AgrS merges

tj

Merge and Move happen intermittently = they ‘take turns’

tj

tj

ti

Now let’s do it together…

Kissed

Hasnai

V'

VPZakariaj

AgrO'AgrO

TT'

TP

AgrSAgrS'

AgrSP

next, the verb “kiss” raises to AgrO and the OB “Hasna” raises to the new SpecAgrOP

tj

tj

ti

Now let’s do it together…

Kissed Hasnai

V'

VPZakaria

AgrO'AgrO

AgrOPTT'

TP

AgrSAgrS'

AgrSP

ti

next, T merges with AgrOP and the SU “Zakaria” raises to the newly-merged SpecTP

next, T features of V move to T

TP

tj

and T-to-AgrS and SU-to-SpecAgrSP

next, AgrS merges

tj

Thank you

Zakaria

There should be no limit to the number of specifiers a certain category can have since we have already dispensed with DS as a level of representation and assumed that structures are assembled by applications of the operations and

Merge

Move

Whether the movements are overt or covert is just a matter of strong or week features.

The ECM constructions are also accounted for under the VP-Shell hypothesis, and without resorting to G VT

The ECM constructions are also accounted for under the VP-Shell hypothesis, and without resorting to GVT

To winher

expects

John

=> After the subject moves, leaves a trace and the object moves across the trace

=> The subject itself crosses the object when it moves

=>The result is a violation of Rizzi’s relativized Minimality

The structure above is achieved if we extend the Agr-based approach to oblique case checking and assume that an Agr-projection is dominating the PP

In some languages, postpositions exhibit overt agreement; Like Hungarian and Portuguese.

En mőgőtt -em Te – mőgőtt –ed

I behind Poss. 1st Singular You behind. Poss 2nd singular

Mesmo as meninas As meninas mesmas

En mőgőtt -em

I behind Poss. 1st Singular

mőgőtt –em én

behind Poss. I 1st Singular

even the girls the girls even . FEM. PL

Example from the Amazigh language

PROperties:PRO : (+ an) (+pro)

Principle A

Principle B

The question is: how can it satisfy both principles at the same time?

It is rare to be elected in these circumstances

PRO

*It is rare to seem to that the…

i

i

PRO

PRO Theorem: PRO should not be governed.

Within GB, PRO should not be governed (the PRO Theorem) and therefore remain caseless

Therefore PRO cannot be assigned case by the infinitive infl

Within the MP, PRO should have a case in order to satisfy the visibility condition.

PRO should have a NULL CASE by moving from a place where it is not case marked to another one where it will receive the null case

Example (45 a).Example (45 b).

Mohamed

Mary entertained john during his Mary entertained john during his vacationvacation

IP

I’

VP

VP PP

Mary

I

during his vacation

entertained John

IP

I’

IAgrOP

AgrO’

AgrO

VP

PPVP

during his vacationentertained i

i

Mary

4.4.1 A4.4.1 Accusative Case Checking and C-command ccusative Case Checking and C-command Domains Domains


IP

I VP

VP PP

I’

IP

entertained Marry during each others vacation

The men

The men c-commands PP therefore can bind or licence the reciprocal

PP

VP

VPI

I’

IP

DP

D’

mother‘s

DP

D’

menthe entertained Marry

during each other’s vacations

The men does not c-command PP and consequently can not bind the anaphor


IP

I VP

VP PP

I’

IP

The defendants to be guilty

during each other’s trials

The men

PP

VP

VPI

I’

IP

DP

D’

mother‘s

DP

D’

menthe entertained Marry

during each other’s vacations

The DA proved the defendants to be guilty during each other’s trials

proved IP


The DA proved the defendants to be guilty during each other’s trials

case domains -from gb to split-infl hypothesis in minimalism

Education