Installment 10b. Raising, etc.Installment 10b. Raising, etc.

8.2.6-8.48.2.6-8.4

CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax I

Sentences inside Sentences inside sentencessentences

Last time we began looking at Last time we began looking at embedded sentencesembedded sentences..

Embedded sentences can be finite:Embedded sentences can be finite: Shannon claimed [that she could catch a Shannon claimed [that she could catch a

fish].fish]. Or nonfinite:Or nonfinite:

Michael wants [PRO to leave].Michael wants [PRO to leave]. Jin wants [Michael to return the watch].Jin wants [Michael to return the watch]. Sun arranged [for him to return the watch].Sun arranged [for him to return the watch].

Embedded clausesEmbedded clauses Embedded finite clauses are CPs, with a Embedded finite clauses are CPs, with a

complementizer (complementizer (that that or or ØØ).). Shannon claimed [Shannon claimed [CPCP thatthat she could catch a fish]. she could catch a fish]. Shannon claimed [Shannon claimed [CP CP ØØ she could catch a fish]. she could catch a fish].

Embedded nonfinite clauses have Embedded nonfinite clauses have toto as T, and as T, and can be CPs or bare TPs— the distinction is can be CPs or bare TPs— the distinction is determined by case properties of the verb.determined by case properties of the verb. Michael wants [Michael wants [CPCP ØØNULLNULL PROPRONULLNULL to leave] to leave] Jin Jin wantswantsACCACC [ [TPTP MichaelMichaelACCACC to return the watch]. to return the watch]. Sun arranged [Sun arranged [CPCP forforACCACC himhimACCACC to return the watch]. to return the watch].

Nonfinite Nonfinite toto does not assign case, so the does not assign case, so the subject must get case (have its [subject must get case (have its [casecase] feature ] feature checked) in some other way.checked) in some other way.

SeemsSeems Now, we’ll turn to another kind of Now, we’ll turn to another kind of

embedded nonfinite clause.embedded nonfinite clause. Charlie seems [to dislike bees].Charlie seems [to dislike bees].

This looks a little bit like:This looks a little bit like: Charlie tried [to sneak away].Charlie tried [to sneak away].

Which is really:Which is really: Charlie tried [PRO to sneak away].Charlie tried [PRO to sneak away]. CharlieCharlie is the Agent of is the Agent of trytry.. PROPRO (=Charlie) is the Agent of (=Charlie) is the Agent of sneaksneak..

So, what about So, what about Charlie seems to dislike Charlie seems to dislike beesbees? What ? What -roles go to -roles go to CharlieCharlie??

Charlie Charlie seems to receiveseems to receive(just) one (just) one -role-role

Seems can also embed a finite clause, so Seems can also embed a finite clause, so consider the pair:consider the pair: Charlie seems to dislike bees.Charlie seems to dislike bees. It seems that Charlie dislikes bees.It seems that Charlie dislikes bees.

The The itit in the second sentence is the same in the second sentence is the same itit we find in we find in ItIt rainedrained. . ItIt does not get a does not get a --role, because role, because rainrain doesn’t have any doesn’t have any --roles. We only have roles. We only have itit there because there because sentences need subjects (sentences need subjects (EPPEPP: T has a : T has a [[uuD*D*] feature).] feature).

So what So what -roles does -roles does seemseem assign? assign?

SeemSeem seems to assign seems to assign(just) one (just) one -role.-role.

What What seemseem (and (and appearappear) mean when ) mean when paired with an embedded sentence is that paired with an embedded sentence is that the proposition expressed by the the proposition expressed by the embedded sentence appears true.embedded sentence appears true.

There’s only one participant in a There’s only one participant in a seemseeming, ing, the Proposition.the Proposition. It seems [that It seems [that seemseem assigns one assigns one -role].-role].

So, So, seemseem assigns a Proposition assigns a Proposition -role -role (structurally, to its sister, the CP daughter (structurally, to its sister, the CP daughter of Vof V), and nothing else (hence, ), and nothing else (hence, itit is is needed to check the EPP feature).needed to check the EPP feature).

Back to CharlieBack to Charlie It seems [that Charlie dislikes bees].It seems [that Charlie dislikes bees]. Charlie seems [to dislike bees].Charlie seems [to dislike bees].

These two sentences mean basically These two sentences mean basically the same thing.the same thing.

Dislike Dislike assigns two assigns two -roles, we might -roles, we might say say Experiencer Experiencer and and ThemeTheme..

It’s the same verb It’s the same verb dislikedislike in both in both sentences. So, we presume that the sentences. So, we presume that the bottom of both trees will look the bottom of both trees will look the same…same…

Disliking beesDisliking bees Starting with Starting with It seems that Charlie dislikes beesIt seems that Charlie dislikes bees, ,

we would build a we would build a vvP that looks like this:P that looks like this: V (V (dislikedislike) assigns a Theme ) assigns a Theme -role to the DP -role to the DP beesbees.. vvExperiencerExperiencer assigns an Experiencer assigns an Experiencer -role to the DP -role to the DP

CharlieCharlie..

Vdislike

VP

v

v

vP

vExperiencer <V> DP

NPbees

DØindef

DP

NPCharlie

DØproper

Disliking beesDisliking bees And then we add T and C to get And then we add T and C to get

that Charlie dislikes beesthat Charlie dislikes bees…… The [The [casecase] feature of ] feature of CharlieCharlie is valued is valued

and checked by the [and checked by the [nomnom] feature of T.] feature of T. The [The [uuInfl:Infl:] feature of ] feature of vv is valued and is valued and

checked by T: [checked by T: [uuInflInfl:pres3sg].:pres3sg]. The [The [uuclause-type:clause-type:] feature of T is ] feature of T is

valued and checked by the [clause-valued and checked by the [clause-type:Decl] feature of C.type:Decl] feature of C.

Vdislike

VP

DPbees

v

v

vP

<DP>

T

T[pres]

TP

DPCharlie

v<V>

CP

Cthat

Disliking beesDisliking bees And then we add And then we add

the main clause the main clause ((seemseem, , vv, T, , T, itit, C), C)

vP

T

T[pres]

TP

DPCharlie

CP

Cthat

Vseem

VP

vP

v

v<V>

T

T[pres]

TP

DPIt

CP

CØ

Vdislike

VP

DPbees

v

v

vP

<DP>

v<V>

Disliking beesDisliking bees

vP

T

T[pres]

TP

DPCharlie

CP

Cthat

Vseem

VP

vP

v

v<V>

T

T[pres]

TP

DPIt

CP

CØ

Vdislike

VP

DPbees

v

v

vP

<DP>

v<V>

Now, consider Now, consider Charlie Charlie seems to dislike beesseems to dislike bees..

First, does First, does CharlieCharlie get get a a -role from -role from seemseem??

Well, no. Well, no. Seem Seem only only assigns the one assigns the one -role.-role.

So, unlike in So, unlike in Charlie Charlie tried tried [[PRO to elude the PRO to elude the beesbees]], we have as , we have as many DPs as we have many DPs as we have -roles.-roles.

Disliking beesDisliking bees

vP

T

T[pres]

TP

DPCharlie

CP

Cthat

Vseem

VP

vP

v

v<V>

T

T[pres]

TP

DPIt

CP

CØ

Vdislike

VP

DPbees

v

v

vP

<DP>

v<V>

Charlie seems to dislike Charlie seems to dislike beesbees..

So, what So, what -role -role doesdoes Charlie Charlie get?get?

Still seems to be the Still seems to be the Experiencer of Experiencer of dislikedislike..

So, suppose that So, suppose that CharlieCharlie starts out in the same starts out in the same place, Specplace, SpecvvP. P.

But now, after building But now, after building vvP, we add a nonfinite P, we add a nonfinite T…T…

Disliking beesDisliking bees So, we have So, we have Charlie to dislike Charlie to dislike

beesbees…… The [The [uuInfl:Infl:] feature of ] feature of vv is valued is valued

and checked by T: [and checked by T: [uuInflInfl:none].:none]. Nonfinite T has no [Nonfinite T has no [uuclause-clause-

type:type:] feature.] feature. The [The [casecase] feature of ] feature of CharlieCharlie is is still still

uncheckedunchecked, since nonfinite , since nonfinite toto has has no case feature.no case feature.

Vdislike

VP

DPbees

v

v

vP

<DP>

T

Tto

TP

DPCharlie

v<V>

Disliking beesDisliking bees Can we add a C to this?Can we add a C to this? Let’s assume Let’s assume notnot, by the , by the

following reasoning:following reasoning: The only C that is compatible with The only C that is compatible with

a nonfinite T is Øa nonfinite T is ØNULLNULL, that assigns , that assigns null case to PRO. null case to PRO. CharlieCharlie is not is not PRO, so it can’t get null case. So, PRO, so it can’t get null case. So, this is just a TP, not a CP.this is just a TP, not a CP.

Vdislike

VP

DPbees

v

v

vP

<DP>

T

Tto

TP

DPCharlie

v<V>

Disliking beesDisliking bees So, we add So, we add

seemseem, taking , taking our TP (our TP (Charlie Charlie to dislike beesto dislike bees) ) as its as its Proposition Proposition complement.complement.

Vdislike

VP

DPbees

v

v

vP

<DP>

T

Tto

TP

DPCharlie

v<V>

Vseem

VP

vP

v

v<V>

Disliking beesDisliking bees We add T…We add T… CharlieCharlie has [ has [casecase] to check.] to check.

Checked ([Checked ([nomnom]) by T]) by T TT has [ has [nomnom], [], [uuD*D*], and [], and [uu::] ]

features to check.features to check. [[nomnom] checked valuing case on ] checked valuing case on

CharlieCharlie. [. [uu::3sg] matches 3sg] matches [[:3sg] feature on :3sg] feature on CharlieCharlie. [. [uuD*] D*] remains.remains.

seem seem ((vv) has [) has [uuInfl:Infl:] to check] to check [[uuInfl:Infl:pres3sg], valued by pres3sg], valued by

[tense:pres] and [[tense:pres] and [uu::3sg] on T.3sg] on T.

VP<V> bees

v

V+vdislike

vP

<DP>

T

Tto

TP

DPCharlie

Vseem

VP

vP

v

v<V>

T

T[pres]

Disliking beesDisliking bees Finally, we move Finally, we move

CharlieCharlie up to check up to check the EPP ([the EPP ([uuD*D*]) ]) feature of T.feature of T.

(Subject (-to-(Subject (-to-subject)) Raisingsubject)) Raising

VP<V> bees

v

V+vdislike

vP

<DP>

T

Tto

TP

<DP>

Vseem

VP

vP

v

v<V>

T

T[pres]

TP

DPCharlie

IdiomsIdioms

Recall our idea about idioms: Recall our idea about idioms: For something For something to have an idiomatic interpretation (an to have an idiomatic interpretation (an interpretation not literally derivable from its interpretation not literally derivable from its component words), the pieces need to be component words), the pieces need to be very close together when initially Merged.very close together when initially Merged. Ortega took a dive.Ortega took a dive.

Now, we have idiomatic interpretations Now, we have idiomatic interpretations here:here: It seems that the jig is up.It seems that the jig is up. It seems that the cat is out of the bag.It seems that the cat is out of the bag. It seems that the cat has your tongue.It seems that the cat has your tongue.

IdiomsIdioms If pieces of the idiom move away after the If pieces of the idiom move away after the

original Merge, we can still get the idiomatic original Merge, we can still get the idiomatic interpretation:interpretation: [The cat][The cat]ii seems seems ttii to have your tongue. to have your tongue. [The cat][The cat]ii seems seems ttii to be out of the bag. to be out of the bag. [The jig][The jig]ii seems seems ttii to be up. to be up.

The important thing is that they be originally The important thing is that they be originally Merged together (the Merged together (the -role needs to be -role needs to be assigned by the predicate to the noun). assigned by the predicate to the noun). Compare:Compare: [The cat] tried to have your tongue.[The cat] tried to have your tongue. [The cat] arranged to be out of the bag.[The cat] arranged to be out of the bag.

(What’s different? Why no idiomatic meaning?)(What’s different? Why no idiomatic meaning?)

Other raising verbsOther raising verbs

So far, we’ve only talked about So far, we’ve only talked about seemseem, but , but there are a couple of other raising verbs as there are a couple of other raising verbs as well.well. [The cat][The cat]ii is likelyis likely [ [TPTP ttii to be out of the bag]. to be out of the bag]. [The cat][The cat]ii appearsappears [ [TPTP ttii to have his tongue]. to have his tongue]. [The jig][The jig]ii provedproved [ [TPTP ttii to be up]. to be up]. [The cat][The cat]ii beganbegan [ [TPTP ttii to get his tongue]. to get his tongue].

What these verbs (in this use, anyway) have What these verbs (in this use, anyway) have in common is that they have no external in common is that they have no external --role and an internal Proposition role and an internal Proposition -role.-role.

There seems…There seems… We also find We also find seemseem with with therethere..

ThereThere. The other expletive subject.. The other expletive subject.

Vincent Vincent seemsseems to be lost. to be lost. ItIt seemsseems that Vincent is lost. that Vincent is lost. ThereThere seemsseems to be a dog in the woods. to be a dog in the woods.

ItIt is an expletive subject that checks both is an expletive subject that checks both the EPP and case features of T. There the EPP and case features of T. There checks only the EPP feature of T (checks only the EPP feature of T (a doga dog checks T’s case feature).checks T’s case feature).

*There seems a man to *There seems a man to bebe

in the garden.in the garden. There seems to be a man in the garden.There seems to be a man in the garden.

ThereThere appears in SpecTP, satisfying the EPP appears in SpecTP, satisfying the EPP feature.feature.

There are two TPs here, and each TP has/had an There are two TPs here, and each TP has/had an EPP feature.EPP feature. [[TP TP There seems [There seems [TP TP to be a man in…]]to be a man in…]]

So, So, therethere must have first Merged into the lower must have first Merged into the lower SpecTP and then moved to the upper SpecTP.SpecTP and then moved to the upper SpecTP. [[TP TP There seems [There seems [TP TP <there> to be a man in…]]<there> to be a man in…]]

*There seems a man to *There seems a man to bebe

in the gardenin the garden [[TP TP There seems [There seems [TP TP <there> to be a man in…]]<there> to be a man in…]] This makes sense, both EPP features aer This makes sense, both EPP features aer

satisfied, satisfied, a mana man gets case from (the higher, gets case from (the higher, finite) T.finite) T.

But think back to when we were building the But think back to when we were building the structure and had reached this point:structure and had reached this point:

[[TT to be a man in the garden] to be a man in the garden] We now have to satisfy the [We now have to satisfy the [uuD*D*] feature of T. ] feature of T.

We have We have therethere lying around in our numeration. lying around in our numeration. But if we didn’t, we could have just moved But if we didn’t, we could have just moved a a manman to SpecTP to satisfy the EPP. to SpecTP to satisfy the EPP.

[[TPTP a man to be <a man> in the garden] a man to be <a man> in the garden]

*There seems a man to *There seems a man to bebe

in the gardenin the garden [[TPTP a man to be <a man> in the garden] a man to be <a man> in the garden] After doing this, we can continue to add on After doing this, we can continue to add on seemseem, , vv, T, , T,

and then insert and then insert therethere into the higher SpecTP, yielding: into the higher SpecTP, yielding: [[TPTP there seems [ there seems [TPTP a man to be <a man> in…]] a man to be <a man> in…]]

But this is ungrammatical. So what goes wrong?But this is ungrammatical. So what goes wrong? The difference between The difference between There seems a man to be in There seems a man to be in

the gardenthe garden and and There seems to be a man in the There seems to be a man in the gardengarden is at the point where we’ve got is at the point where we’ve got [[TT to be a man to be a man in the garden]in the garden]. . Here there’s a choice: Here there’s a choice: Move Move a mana man or or Merge Merge therethere..

The usual approach here is to say The usual approach here is to say Merge is Merge is preferred to Movepreferred to Move, so if you have the choice, you , so if you have the choice, you always Merge (it’s “easier”).always Merge (it’s “easier”).

Object controlObject control One last type of nonfinite complement, those One last type of nonfinite complement, those

that appear with verbs like that appear with verbs like persuadepersuade.. Sayid persuaded Kate to stay.Sayid persuaded Kate to stay.

Once again, we think through the Once again, we think through the “participants” to get a handle on whether we “participants” to get a handle on whether we have enough DPs for the have enough DPs for the -roles.-roles. StayStay has only has only oneone participant, participant, KateKate.. PersuadePersuade has has threethree—the one doing the persuading —the one doing the persuading

((SayidSayid), the one being persuaded (), the one being persuaded (KateKate), and the ), and the proposition in question (proposition in question ( [[TP TP Kate to stay]Kate to stay]).).

So we So we don’tdon’t have enough DPs for the job— have enough DPs for the job— KateKate appears to be playing two roles (one from appears to be playing two roles (one from staystay, one , one from from persuadepersuade). This is a job for PRO.). This is a job for PRO.

Object controlObject control Sayid persuaded Kate to stay.Sayid persuaded Kate to stay.

Sayid persuaded Kate [Sayid persuaded Kate [CPCP ØØNULLNULL PRO PRONULLNULL to stay] to stay]

Again we have PRO, as we do inAgain we have PRO, as we do in Kate tried [Kate tried [CPCP ØØNULLNULL PRO PRONULLNULL to see] to see]

But in But in Sayid persuaded Kate to staySayid persuaded Kate to stay, what , what “controls” PRO?“controls” PRO?

ClassesClasses

So, we have the following classes:So, we have the following classes: ECM verbs, e.g., ECM verbs, e.g., believebelieve

I believe [I believe [TPTP him to have told the truth]. him to have told the truth].

Subject control verbs, e.g., Subject control verbs, e.g., attemptattempt IIkk attempted [ attempted [CPCP ØØNULLNULL PRO PROkk to drive to work]. to drive to work].

Object control verbs, e.g., Object control verbs, e.g., convinceconvince I convinced herI convinced herkk [ [CPCP ØØNULLNULL PRO PROkk to drive to work]. to drive to work].

Raising verbs, e.g., Raising verbs, e.g., appearappear IIkk appear [ appear [TPTP ttkk to be low on time]. to be low on time].