Week 9a. A-movementWeek 9a. A-movement(and a bit more head-(and a bit more head-

movement)movement)

CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax I

NegationNegation We’ve used negation as a test to see if the We’ve used negation as a test to see if the

verb/auxiliary appears before it or after it as verb/auxiliary appears before it or after it as an indication of whether the verb has raised an indication of whether the verb has raised or not. We’ve also used adverbs (like or not. We’ve also used adverbs (like oftenoften) ) this way.this way.

Negation acts different from adverbs. For Negation acts different from adverbs. For example, negation keeps the tense affix from example, negation keeps the tense affix from being pronounced with a verb (in English), being pronounced with a verb (in English), but adverbs don’t:but adverbs don’t: Bill Bill diddid notnot buy cheese. buy cheese. Bill Bill nevernever buys cheese. buys cheese. Bill Bill quicklyquickly bought cheese. bought cheese.

Yet, both come between I and V in the Yet, both come between I and V in the underlying structure.underlying structure.

NegPNegP

A common view of negation is that it A common view of negation is that it has its own projection, a NegP, headed has its own projection, a NegP, headed by a negative morpheme. For example, by a negative morpheme. For example, something like this.something like this.

Interestingly, negation sometimes Interestingly, negation sometimes comes “in two parts”, with two comes “in two parts”, with two morphemes implicated in negation. morphemes implicated in negation. NegP has in principle two positions NegP has in principle two positions available for negative morphemes, its available for negative morphemes, its specifier and its head.specifier and its head.

Standard French Standard French ne…pasne…pas is an example is an example of this which we’ll look at now.of this which we’ll look at now.

Neg

NegP

Neg

French negationFrench negation In standard French, the negation of a In standard French, the negation of a

sentence generally involves a morpheme sentence generally involves a morpheme nene placed before the tensed verb and a placed before the tensed verb and a morpheme morpheme paspas placed after it, as in: placed after it, as in: Jean Jean nene mange mange paspas des pommes. des pommes.

Jean Jean NENE eats eats NOTNOT of.the apples of.the apples‘Jean doesn’t eat apples.’‘Jean doesn’t eat apples.’

However, English gives us reason to However, English gives us reason to believe (assuming NegP is in the same believe (assuming NegP is in the same place in the tree in both languages) that place in the tree in both languages) that NegP comes between IP and VP:NegP comes between IP and VP: Bill will Bill will notnot eat apples. eat apples.

French negationFrench negation

A common view of how French A common view of how French negation looks at DS is like negation looks at DS is like this, with this, with nene being a morpheme being a morpheme of category Neg, heading a of category Neg, heading a NegP with NegP with paspas in its specifier.in its specifier.

For the moment, we won’t For the moment, we won’t concern ourselves with the concern ourselves with the categorial status of categorial status of paspas; clearly ; clearly it must be an XP of some kind it must be an XP of some kind itself, maybe also of category itself, maybe also of category Neg, but it never heads the Neg, but it never heads the main NegP in a sentence. I’ll main NegP in a sentence. I’ll write it just as write it just as paspas in the in the specifier.specifier.

V

VP

PP

I

I

IP

DP

[PRES]

Neg

Neg

NegP

pas

ne

French negationFrench negation

Note that we take Note that we take nene to be to be a a prefixprefix (not a (not a suffixsuffix), ), which means when we which means when we create the complex head, create the complex head, the verb adjoins on the the verb adjoins on the right.right.

Now, the verb still needs Now, the verb still needs to move to I, but it is to move to I, but it is attached to the Neg now… attached to the Neg now… so the Neg moves to I.so the Neg moves to I.

Complex heads move Complex heads move as a as a unitunit. You can’t “dis-attach” . You can’t “dis-attach” a head from a complex a head from a complex head.head.

ti

VP

PP

I

I

IP

DP

[PRES]

Neg

NegP

pas

neNeg

Neg

Vi

French negationFrench negation

This final movement This final movement ends up with the verb ends up with the verb close enough to the close enough to the tense suffix to satisfy the tense suffix to satisfy the requirement that tense requirement that tense have a verbal host, while have a verbal host, while at the same time “taking at the same time “taking nene along” to get us the along” to get us the right word order.right word order. Jean ne mange pas…Jean ne mange pas…

ti

VP

PP

I

I

IP

DP

[PRES]Neg

NegP

pas

neNeg

Negj

Vi

I

tj

French negationFrench negation So, we see that assuming that So, we see that assuming that nene is the is the

head of NegP in French (with head of NegP in French (with paspas in the in the specifier), and assuming that the verb specifier), and assuming that the verb “stops off” to attach to Neg before moving “stops off” to attach to Neg before moving (now as a part of the complex Neg head) (now as a part of the complex Neg head) up to I, we get the right word order.up to I, we get the right word order.

Note that, since Note that, since **Jean mange pas ne des Jean mange pas ne des pommespommes is ungrammatical, we also know is ungrammatical, we also know that the verb that the verb hashas to stop off at Neg on the to stop off at Neg on the way up.way up.

Head Movement Head Movement ConstraintConstraint

This is an example which motivated the This is an example which motivated the hypothesis that head movement is hypothesis that head movement is constrained by the constrained by the Head Movement Head Movement ConstraintConstraint (or (or HMCHMC) which says that when ) which says that when a head moves to another head, it cannot a head moves to another head, it cannot “skip” over a head inbetween. So, the “skip” over a head inbetween. So, the reason the verb stops at Neg is because reason the verb stops at Neg is because Neg is between where V began and I.Neg is between where V began and I.

Head Movement ConstraintHead Movement ConstraintA head cannot move A head cannot move overover another head. another head.

Clarifying the HMCClarifying the HMC Heads can only move to heads.Heads can only move to heads. The HMC says that a head The HMC says that a head

cannot move past another cannot move past another eligibleeligible head to reach its head to reach its destination.destination.

Specifiers don’t count as eligible Specifiers don’t count as eligible (though they contain a head, to (though they contain a head, to be sure).be sure).

The bottom line is:The bottom line is:Head movement adjoins a head Head movement adjoins a head X to the head of the phrase YP X to the head of the phrase YP that has XP as its complement.that has XP as its complement.

Y

YP

Xi

Y

Y X

XP

ti

Colloquial French?Colloquial French? It turns out that the negation morpheme It turns out that the negation morpheme nene

that we suppose is the head of the NegP that we suppose is the head of the NegP projection is actually generally optional (or projection is actually generally optional (or even preferentially omitted in colloquial even preferentially omitted in colloquial French)—yet French)—yet paspas doesn’t act any doesn’t act any differently (i.e. it doesn’t get “picked up” differently (i.e. it doesn’t get “picked up” by the verb on the way up to I instead of by the verb on the way up to I instead of nene).).

What this suggests is that colloquial What this suggests is that colloquial French has a French has a nullnull morpheme which is the morpheme which is the head of NegP—that head of NegP—that paspas is still in is still in SpecNegP, but the head is SpecNegP, but the head is ØØ instead of instead of nene..

English negationEnglish negation

A common view of English negation is A common view of English negation is actually an extension of this: Many actually an extension of this: Many researchers consider researchers consider notnot to be in the to be in the specifier of NegP, with a null head.specifier of NegP, with a null head.

[[IPIP John I [ John I [NegPNegP not Ø not ØNEGNEG [ [VPVP is eating lunch]]] is eating lunch]]]

[[IPIP John I [ John I [NegPNegP not Ø not ØNEGNEG+is+isii [ [VPVP ttii eating lunch]]] eating lunch]]]

[[IPIP John [is John [isii+Ø+ØNEGNEG]]jj [ [NegPNegP not not ttjj [ [VPVP ttii eating lunch]]] eating lunch]]]

English negationEnglish negation

[[IPIP John [is John [isii+Ø+ØNEGNEG]]jj [ [NegPNegP not not ttjj [ [VPVP ttii eating eating lunch]]]lunch]]]

However, sometimes English negation does However, sometimes English negation does appear to be the appear to be the head head of NegP—when it’s of NegP—when it’s “contracted” as “contracted” as -n’t-n’t.. IsIsn’tn’t Bill hungry? Bill hungry? Cf. Is Bill not hungry?Cf. Is Bill not hungry?

Notice that when the verb moved to I and then Notice that when the verb moved to I and then to C, it seems to have carried negation along.to C, it seems to have carried negation along.

The Italian DPThe Italian DP

In Italian, in many cases, there is simply In Italian, in many cases, there is simply an option (stylistically governed) as to an option (stylistically governed) as to whether you say whether you say The GianniThe Gianni or just or just GianniGianni::

GianniGianni mi ha telefonato. mi ha telefonato.GianniGianni me has telephoned me has telephoned‘Gianni called me up.’‘Gianni called me up.’

Il GianniIl Gianni mi ha telefonato. mi ha telefonato.the Giannithe Gianni me has telephoned me has telephoned‘Gianni called me up.’‘Gianni called me up.’

The Italian DPThe Italian DP

However, there is a difference with However, there is a difference with respect to the order of adjectives and respect to the order of adjectives and the noun depending on which one you the noun depending on which one you use.use. L’ antica RomaL’ antica Roma

the ancient Romethe ancient Rome‘Ancient Rome’‘Ancient Rome’

*Antica Roma*Antica Roma ancient Rome ancient Rome

Roma anticaRoma anticaRome ancientRome ancient

E’venuto il vecchio Cameresi.came the older Cameresi

*E’venuto vecchio Cameresi. came older CameresiE’venuto Cameresi vecchio.came Cameresi older

The Italian DPThe Italian DP But this makes perfect sense, if But this makes perfect sense, if

what is happening in the cases what is happening in the cases where there is no determiner is where there is no determiner is that the N is moving up to D that the N is moving up to D (just like V moves up to I in the (just like V moves up to I in the main clause), and when there main clause), and when there isis a determiner, the N stays put.a determiner, the N stays put. L’ antica RomaL’ antica Roma

the ancient Romethe ancient Rome

Roma anticaRoma antica *Antica *Antica RomaRomaRome ancientRome ancient ancient Romeancient Rome

ti

NP

…

D+Ni

DP

AdjP

NP

Back to VSOBack to VSO Now, let’s return to the question of VSO order Now, let’s return to the question of VSO order

in languages like Irish (remember that?). in languages like Irish (remember that?). Recall that we started off with the observation Recall that we started off with the observation that there isn’t any way to “generate VSO that there isn’t any way to “generate VSO order” at DS using X-bar rules because V and order” at DS using X-bar rules because V and O are sisters at DS.O are sisters at DS.

However, now that we have verb movement at However, now that we have verb movement at our disposal, we could certainly derive VSO our disposal, we could certainly derive VSO like this:like this:

DS:DS: SubjectSubject VerbVerb ObjectObject SS:SS: VerbVerbii SubjectSubject ttii ObjectObject

IrishIrish In support of verb movement, consider:In support of verb movement, consider:

PhógPhóg Máire an lucharachán. Máire an lucharachán.kissedkissed Mary the leprechaun Mary the leprechaun‘Mary kissed the leprechaun.’‘Mary kissed the leprechaun.’

TáTá Máire ag- Máire ag-pógáilpógáil an lucharachán. an lucharachán.IsIs Mary ing- Mary ing-kisskiss the leprechaun the leprechaun‘Mary is kissing the leprechaun.’‘Mary is kissing the leprechaun.’

We find that if an We find that if an auxiliaryauxiliary occupies the verb occupies the verb slot at the beginning of the sentence, the main slot at the beginning of the sentence, the main verb appears between the subject and verb—it verb appears between the subject and verb—it remains, unmoved.remains, unmoved.

This suggests that deriving VSO from SVO is This suggests that deriving VSO from SVO is on the right track.on the right track.

VSO order in IrishVSO order in Irish

Where is the verb moving to, though?Where is the verb moving to, though? The verb ends up to the left of the The verb ends up to the left of the

subject, which in English we took to subject, which in English we took to be movement to C:be movement to C: Will BillWill Bill buy cheese? buy cheese?

A natural thing to suppose is that the A natural thing to suppose is that the verb moves to I and then to C in Irish verb moves to I and then to C in Irish to get VSO order.to get VSO order.

VSO order in IrishVSO order in Irish

Except, consider these:Except, consider these: AnAn bhfaca tú an madra? bhfaca tú an madra?

QQ See you the dog See you the dog‘Did you see the dog?’‘Did you see the dog?’

Duirt mé Duirt mé gurgur phóg Máire an lucharachán. phóg Máire an lucharachán.Said I Said I thatthat kissed Mary the leprechaun kissed Mary the leprechaun‘I said that Mary kissed the leprechaun.’‘I said that Mary kissed the leprechaun.’

If the verb moves to C, where are If the verb moves to C, where are anan and and gurgur??

VSO order in IrishVSO order in Irish

In English (and German and other In English (and German and other languages) if there is something languages) if there is something inin C, the C, the verb doesn’t move there (it doesn’t need verb doesn’t move there (it doesn’t need to):to): IsIs Bill hungry? Bill hungry? ShouldShould Bill Bill bebe hungry? hungry? I wonder I wonder ifif Bill Bill isis hungry. hungry.

But in Irish, we see an But in Irish, we see an overtovert complementizer followed by VSO.complementizer followed by VSO.

A VP-internal subject in A VP-internal subject in Irish?Irish?

One possibility that this One possibility that this suggests is that the verb is only suggests is that the verb is only moving to T, but the subject is moving to T, but the subject is actually actually lowerlower than T—and we than T—and we have a place in our tree which have a place in our tree which hasn’t been used yet, the hasn’t been used yet, the specifier of VP.specifier of VP. But what about English? We But what about English? We

expect that DS looks pretty much expect that DS looks pretty much the same across languages, so the same across languages, so why does the subject seem to start why does the subject seem to start in different places in Irish and in different places in Irish and English? We’ll return to this English? We’ll return to this within a class or two.within a class or two. ti

V

VP

…

C

CP

Vi+I

IP

DP

Wrapup of head-Wrapup of head-movementmovement

So, what we’ve seen is basically that So, what we’ve seen is basically that there is an operation of there is an operation of head movementhead movement which can take the head of an XP and which can take the head of an XP and attach it (attach it (head-adjoinhead-adjoin) it to a higher ) it to a higher head.head.

This kind of movement cannot skip over This kind of movement cannot skip over intervening heads in the structure intervening heads in the structure ((HMCHMC).).

We’ve seen V-to-I movement, I-to-C We’ve seen V-to-I movement, I-to-C movement, and N-to-D movement as movement, and N-to-D movement as examples of this.examples of this.

It is likely…It is likely…

Now, let’s think about Now, let’s think about the sentence the sentence It is likely It is likely that Mary leftthat Mary left..

LikelyLikely has one has one -role to -role to assign (Proposition) assign (Proposition) which it assigns to its which it assigns to its complement, the complement, the embedded CP.embedded CP.

LeaveLeave also has one also has one --role to assign, which it role to assign, which it assigns to assigns to MaryMary..

Alikely

AP

CP

Cthat

IP

Mary left

Vbe

VPI[pres]

IP

IDPit

It is likely…It is likely…

And, of course, since And, of course, since be be is an is an auxiliary verb, it will move up to auxiliary verb, it will move up to I.I.

Notice that both Notice that both -roles are -roles are assigned to things that are in assigned to things that are in the same clause as the the same clause as the predicate that assigns the predicate that assigns the --role.role.

This is a general property of This is a general property of --role assignment:role assignment:A A -role must be assigned -role must be assigned locallylocally (within the same clause). (within the same clause).

Alikely

AP

CP

Cthat

IP

Mary left

Vti

VPVi+Iis

IP

IDPit

It is likely…It is likely… Great. But now, consider:Great. But now, consider:

Mary is likely [to leave].Mary is likely [to leave]. We already know a lot about this sentence; We already know a lot about this sentence;

we know that we know that likelylikely has one has one -role to -role to assign, which it assigns to the embedded assign, which it assigns to the embedded clause, we know that clause, we know that leaveleave has one has one -role -role to assign, which it assigns to to assign, which it assigns to MaryMary..

There are two apparent problems here:There are two apparent problems here: The embedded clause seems to have no subject The embedded clause seems to have no subject

(*EPP)(*EPP) The The -role assigned to -role assigned to MaryMary seems to be seems to be

assigned outside of its clause.assigned outside of its clause.

It is likely…It is likely…

Mary is likely [to leave]Mary is likely [to leave]

Concerning Concerning -roles, it’s clear from -roles, it’s clear from the meaning that the meaning that leaveleave really really doesdoes assign its assign its -role to -role to MaryMary and not and not likely likely (Mary is leaving—she’s isn’t in (Mary is leaving—she’s isn’t in any way any way likelylikely).).

This is definitely not This is definitely not locallocal——MaryMary is is not in the same clause as not in the same clause as leaveleave..

It is likely…It is likely…

Mary is likely Mary is likely [to leave][to leave]

And with respect to the EPP, we see And with respect to the EPP, we see that although the main clause IP has that although the main clause IP has something in its specifier (something in its specifier (MaryMary), the ), the embedded clause seems to have embedded clause seems to have nothing.nothing.

How can we reconcile this?How can we reconcile this?

It is likely…It is likely… Mary is likely [to leave]Mary is likely [to leave]

For For -role assignment to be local, -role assignment to be local, MaryMary has has to be in the same clause. to be in the same clause. -role assignment -role assignment takes place at the point of Merge, after takes place at the point of Merge, after which movement rules (like head-movement) which movement rules (like head-movement) apply.apply.

We can solve both problems at once by We can solve both problems at once by supposing that supposing that MaryMary movesmoves from the from the embedded subject position to the main embedded subject position to the main clause subject position. clause subject position. Initially:Initially: — is likely [Mary to leave]— is likely [Mary to leave] Becomes:Becomes: MaryMaryii is likely [ is likely [ tti i to leave] to leave]

It is likely…It is likely…

That is, we start out That is, we start out ((MergeMerge, , MergeMerge) with ) with Mary Mary in the in the embedded clause, in embedded clause, in the specifier of IP, the specifier of IP, receiving its receiving its -role -role locally.locally.

Ito leave

MaryVP

IDP

IP

It is likely…It is likely…

That is, we start out That is, we start out ((MergeMerge, , MergeMerge) with ) with Mary Mary in the in the embedded clause, in embedded clause, in the specifier of IP, the specifier of IP, receiving its receiving its -role -role locally.locally.

Then, we continue up Then, we continue up ((MergeMerge, , MergeMerge, , MergeMerge, , MoveMove), giving ), giving the embedded IP its the embedded IP its -role locally.-role locally.

Alikely

AP

IP

Ito leave

Vti

VP

Mary

is

IP

VP

IDP

Vi+I

It is likely…It is likely…

And in the last step, And in the last step, we we MoveMove the DP the DP MaryMary up from the lower up from the lower SpecIP to the higher SpecIP to the higher SpecIP.SpecIP.

This is essentially like This is essentially like MergeMerge except that we except that we are Merging together are Merging together an object with (a copy an object with (a copy of) something from of) something from inside the object.inside the object.

Alikely

AP

IP

Ito leave

Vti

VP

tj

is

IP

IDPjMary

VP

IDP

Vi+I

It is likely…It is likely…

This satisfies the EPP in This satisfies the EPP in bothboth clauses. The main clauses. The main clause has clause has MaryMary in SpecIP. in SpecIP. The embedded clause has The embedded clause has the the trace trace in SpecIP.in SpecIP.

This type of movement is called This type of movement is called A-movement (“argument”)A-movement (“argument”).. Also “DP-movement” or “NP-Also “DP-movement” or “NP-

movement”movement” This specific instance of A-This specific instance of A-

movement, where we move a movement, where we move a subject from an embedded subject from an embedded clause to a higher clause is clause to a higher clause is generally called generally called subject raisingsubject raising..

Alikely

AP

IP

Ito leave

Vti

VP

tj

is

IP

IDPjMary

VP

IDP

Vi+I

PassivePassive

Now, let’s think about the Now, let’s think about the passivepassive. The . The passive morphology seems to directly passive morphology seems to directly affect the theta grid of a verb.affect the theta grid of a verb. Bill ate the sandwich.Bill ate the sandwich. The sandwich was eatThe sandwich was eatenen..

Eat Eat has two has two -roles to assign. By putting -roles to assign. By putting it in the passive, we seem to have it in the passive, we seem to have transitive (two transitive (two -role) verb into an -role) verb into an intransitive (one intransitive (one -role) verb.-role) verb.

PassivePassive

Bill ate the sandwich.Bill ate the sandwich. Here, Here, BillBill is the Agent (gets the is the Agent (gets the -role -role

with Agent) and with Agent) and the sandwich the sandwich is the is the Theme (gets the Theme (gets the -role with Theme).-role with Theme). The sandwich was eaten (by Bill).The sandwich was eaten (by Bill).

In the passive, the In the passive, the roles roles are the same are the same but now the Theme is the subject and but now the Theme is the subject and the Agent is in an optional the Agent is in an optional byby-phrase -phrase (a PP).(a PP).

PassivePassive

Since optional thematic relations do not get Since optional thematic relations do not get included in the included in the -grid, what we conclude -grid, what we conclude about the passive is that it changes the about the passive is that it changes the -grid -grid of the verb by removing the external of the verb by removing the external -role.-role.

eat Agent Theme

i j

eat+en Agent Theme

i j

PassivePassive

Now, what does the structure of a passive Now, what does the structure of a passive sentence look like?sentence look like?

There are two possibilities we could There are two possibilities we could entertain.entertain. The Theme in the passive becomes an The Theme in the passive becomes an externalexternal

-role-role (as opposed to in the active, where the (as opposed to in the active, where the Theme gets an internal Theme gets an internal -role).-role).

The Theme in both cases gets an internal The Theme in both cases gets an internal --role, but in the passive, it role, but in the passive, it moves moves to the subject to the subject position.position.

Let’s pursue the second option first…Let’s pursue the second option first…

ActiveActive

Let’s start with the structure Let’s start with the structure for the active sentence, for the active sentence, Bill Bill ate the sandwichate the sandwich..

Here, the (internal) Theme Here, the (internal) Theme -role is assigned to the -role is assigned to the object DP and the (external) object DP and the (external) Agent Agent -role is assigned to -role is assigned to the subject DP.the subject DP.

Now, suppose that for the Now, suppose that for the passive we simply eliminate passive we simply eliminate the external the external -role…-role…

DP

thesandwich

Veat

VPI[past]

I

IP

DP

Bill

PassivePassive

(The passive also requires (The passive also requires the addition of the auxiliary the addition of the auxiliary verb verb bebe, but this is not , but this is not relevant to the point at hand)relevant to the point at hand)

We have changed the main We have changed the main verb to the passive form, verb to the passive form, thereby removing the thereby removing the external external -role, leaving us -role, leaving us with this underlying with this underlying structure forstructure for The sandwich was eaten.The sandwich was eaten.

Now, what needs to happen?Now, what needs to happen?

DP

thesandwich

Veaten

VP

I[past]

IP

Vbe

VP

PassivePassive

The sandwich was eaten.The sandwich was eaten. Now, what needs to happen?Now, what needs to happen?

SpecIP must be filled (EPP).SpecIP must be filled (EPP). The word order needs to be The word order needs to be

altered fromaltered from was eaten the was eaten the sandwichsandwich toto the sandwich was the sandwich was eateneaten..

It should be clear where this is It should be clear where this is going—here, we posit another going—here, we posit another instance of A-movement, like instance of A-movement, like with raising. In the passive, with raising. In the passive, the object moves to SpecIP the object moves to SpecIP satisfying the EPP.satisfying the EPP.

DP

thesandwich

Veaten

VP

I[past]

IP

Vbe

VP

PassivePassive

The sandwich was eaten.The sandwich was eaten. So, to review, the idea is So, to review, the idea is

that the active and the that the active and the passive have very similar passive have very similar underlying representations, underlying representations, except that the passive has except that the passive has had its external had its external -role -role removed and thus no removed and thus no subject is generated in subject is generated in SpecIP (as required by the SpecIP (as required by the -Criterion). Then the -Criterion). Then the object moves into SpecIP, object moves into SpecIP, satisfying the EPP.satisfying the EPP.

DPj

thesandwich

Veaten

VP

Vi+Iwas

I

Vti

VP

IP

DPtj

PassivePassive

As for the optionally expressed Agent As for the optionally expressed Agent in the in the byby-phrase, we take this to be -phrase, we take this to be like any optionally expressed like any optionally expressed adjoined phrase, a PP adjoined to VP.adjoined phrase, a PP adjoined to VP.

As expected, the As expected, the byby-phrase can be re--phrase can be re-ordered with respect to other ordered with respect to other adjuncts.adjuncts. The sandwich was eaten…The sandwich was eaten… ……by Billby Bill under the tree at noon. under the tree at noon. ……under the tree under the tree by Billby Bill at noon. at noon. ……at noon under the tree at noon under the tree by Billby Bill..

DPj

thesandwich

Veaten

VP

Vi+Iwas

I

Vti

VP

IP

DPtj

VP PPby

Bill

PassivePassive

Let’s return for a moment to the two Let’s return for a moment to the two possibilities we could have entertained…possibilities we could have entertained… The Theme in the passive becomes an The Theme in the passive becomes an externalexternal

-role-role (as opposed to in the active, where the (as opposed to in the active, where the Theme gets an internal Theme gets an internal -role).-role).

The Theme in both cases gets an internal The Theme in both cases gets an internal -role, -role, but in the passive, it but in the passive, it moves moves to the subject to the subject position.position.

We have worked out what the second We have worked out what the second option looks like, let’s take a second to see option looks like, let’s take a second to see why the first option wouldn’t have worked.why the first option wouldn’t have worked.

Not the passiveNot the passive The first option hypothesizes that the The first option hypothesizes that the

passive form of the verb removes the passive form of the verb removes the external external -role -role and promotes the and promotes the internal internal -role to an external -role to an external -role-role::

Under this view, then, the Theme is Under this view, then, the Theme is not not movedmoved into SpecIP but rather just into SpecIP but rather just starts out there.starts out there.

eat Agent Theme

i j

eat+en Agent Theme

i j

Not the passiveNot the passive

Consider this active sentence.Consider this active sentence. Wilma considers [Fred to be foolish].Wilma considers [Fred to be foolish].

And suppose we want to make a And suppose we want to make a passive. We eliminate the external passive. We eliminate the external --role from role from considersconsiders (meaning the role (meaning the role assigned to assigned to Wilma Wilma above). Then we above). Then we make the internal make the internal -role (assigned to -role (assigned to the embedded proposition) external. the embedded proposition) external. What should the result be?What should the result be?

Not the passiveNot the passive

The predicted result is:The predicted result is: *[Fred to be foolish] was considered.*[Fred to be foolish] was considered.

……which is not what we want. which is not what we want. Rather, what we want is:Rather, what we want is: Fred was considered [to be foolish].Fred was considered [to be foolish].

But notice, But notice, FredFred was never assigned was never assigned a a -role by -role by consideredconsidered ( (FredFred’s ’s -role -role comes from comes from foolishfoolish) so we couldn’t ) so we couldn’t have changed the have changed the -role -role FredFred got to got to be external.be external.

PassivePassive

FredFredii is considered [ is considered [ ttii to be foolish] to be foolish]

However, the account of the passive However, the account of the passive that we developed before, where the that we developed before, where the object object movesmoves into SpecIP has no into SpecIP has no trouble explaining this. This is trouble explaining this. This is basically a case of subject raising, basically a case of subject raising, the EPP needs to be satisfied and is the EPP needs to be satisfied and is satisfied by moving satisfied by moving Fred Fred into the into the main clause’s SpecIP.main clause’s SpecIP.

Nagging questionsNagging questions

Things have been working out well so far, Things have been working out well so far, but there are a couple of things that are but there are a couple of things that are still unexplained…still unexplained… If in the passive, movement of the object into If in the passive, movement of the object into

subject position is done in order to satisfy the subject position is done in order to satisfy the EPP, why couldn’t we instead insert EPP, why couldn’t we instead insert itit in in SpecTP like we do in SpecTP like we do in it rainsit rains or or it is likely it is likely thatthat……??

Similarly, for raising, what is wrong with Similarly, for raising, what is wrong with *It is *It is likely John to leavelikely John to leave??

The answer to this will be The answer to this will be CaseCase—which —which we will turn to next.we will turn to next.

CaseCase

Case is tied to Case is tied to syntactic positionsyntactic position; a ; a subject (that is, the DP in SpecIP) gets subject (that is, the DP in SpecIP) gets one Case (nominative), the object (sister one Case (nominative), the object (sister of a transitive V) gets a different Case of a transitive V) gets a different Case (accusative).(accusative).

We formalize this idea that all nouns We formalize this idea that all nouns have abstract Case by making it a have abstract Case by making it a requirement—all nouns in a requirement—all nouns in a grammatical sentence must grammatical sentence must show show their their syntactic position. syntactic position.

Case vs. Case vs. -roles-roles

It is important to notice that It is important to notice that Case is Case is not not correlated with correlated with -roles-roles.. I met him (at the airport).I met him (at the airport). He was met by me (at the airport).He was met by me (at the airport).

In both sentences, the Theme is the In both sentences, the Theme is the same—same—himhim. But in the first sentence, . But in the first sentence, himhim is marked with accusative Case, is marked with accusative Case, and in the second sentence and in the second sentence hehe is is marked with nominative Case.marked with nominative Case.

Case vs. Case vs. -roles-roles

It is important to notice that It is important to notice that Case is Case is not not correlated with correlated with -roles-roles.. I met him (at the airport).I met him (at the airport). He was met by me (at the airport).He was met by me (at the airport).

Case has to do with where the DP Case has to do with where the DP ends upends up, and , and -roles have to do with -roles have to do with where the DP where the DP starts outstarts out..

The “Case Filter”The “Case Filter” Case FilterCase Filter

All DPs must have CaseAll DPs must have Case

(That is, all DPs have a Case feature, (That is, all DPs have a Case feature, which must subsequently be checked)which must subsequently be checked)

Case is available Case is available (roughly)(roughly) To the specifier of a finite I To the specifier of a finite I (nominative)(nominative) To the sister of a V or a P To the sister of a V or a P (accusative, (accusative,

oblique)oblique)

Conditions for Case Conditions for Case checkingchecking

The thing which makes the analysis run is The thing which makes the analysis run is the supposition that only under certain the supposition that only under certain situations can I or V check Case. In situations can I or V check Case. In particular:particular:

For I, only For I, only finitefinite I checks Nom I checks Nom— a nonfinite — a nonfinite I (I (toto) does not check (nominative) Case.) does not check (nominative) Case.

For V, only transitive verbs check ObjFor V, only transitive verbs check Obj— — intransitive verbs and passive verbs do not intransitive verbs and passive verbs do not check Case.check Case.

Back to Back to raising…raising…

Let’s go back to Let’s go back to Mary Mary is likely to leaveis likely to leave. . Recall that this is the Recall that this is the underlying structure.underlying structure.

In the embedded In the embedded clause, clause, Mary Mary is in is in SpecIP, but nonfinite SpecIP, but nonfinite I cannot assign Case.I cannot assign Case.

Unless the DP Unless the DP Mary Mary moves, its Case moves, its Case feature will not be feature will not be checked.checked.

Alikely

AP

IP

Ito leave

Vti

VPis

IP

DPMary

VP

I

Vi+I

Nonfinite Icannot check

Nom

Back to Back to raising…raising…

When the DP When the DP MaryMary moves up to the moves up to the main clause SpecIP, main clause SpecIP, its Nom Case feature its Nom Case feature can be checked.can be checked.

So, So, this movement this movement does does twotwo things things: It : It satisfies the EPP and satisfies the EPP and it checks the Case of it checks the Case of the subject.the subject.

Alikely

AP

IP

Ito leave

Vti

VP

tj

is

IP

IDPjMary

VP

IDP

Vi+I

Finite Ican check

Nom

Back to Back to raising…raising…

Notice that this Notice that this explains why…explains why… *It is likely Mary to *It is likely Mary to

leaveleave ……is ungrammatical, is ungrammatical,

though: though: Even Even though the though the sentence satisfies sentence satisfies the EPP, it violates the EPP, it violates the Case Filter the Case Filter ((MaryMary doesn’t get doesn’t get its Case feature its Case feature checked).checked).

Alikely

AP

IP

Ito leave

Vti

VPis

DPMary

VP

I

Vi+I

Nonfinite Icannot check

Nom

IP

IDPit

*Mary has an

unchecked Casefeature

Back to Back to raising…raising…

When the embedded When the embedded clause is finite…clause is finite… It is likely that she left.It is likely that she left.

……everything is fine everything is fine because because sheshe gets gets (nominative) Case (nominative) Case from the embedded from the embedded finite I.finite I.

Alikely

AP

CP

Cthat

Vti

VPVi+Iis

IP

IDPit

IP

I[past] leave

DP

VP

Ishe

Finite Ichecks nom.

Case

She checksCase with I

Back to passives…Back to passives…

We had a similar question about We had a similar question about what was wrong with:what was wrong with: *It was eaten the sandwich*It was eaten the sandwich

……where it appears that even though where it appears that even though the EPP could be satisfied by the EPP could be satisfied by inserting the expletive inserting the expletive itit, the , the sentence is still ungrammatical.sentence is still ungrammatical.

Back to passives…Back to passives…

What we can say here is that the What we can say here is that the addition of the passive morpheme addition of the passive morpheme -en -en to a transitive verb to a transitive verb not onlynot only removes removes its external its external -role, but -role, but alsoalso revokes its revokes its ability to check Case.ability to check Case.

Burzio’s GeneralizationBurzio’s GeneralizationA verb which does not assign an A verb which does not assign an external external -role cannot check -role cannot check accusative Case.accusative Case.

Active Active again…again…

Let’s review the underlying Let’s review the underlying structure for the active structure for the active sentence, sentence, Bill ate the sandwichBill ate the sandwich..

Here, Here, eateat assigns two assigns two -roles, -roles, the internal the internal -role (Theme) to -role (Theme) to the DP the DP the sandwichthe sandwich, and the , and the external external -role (Agent) to the DP -role (Agent) to the DP BillBill..

Since it assigns an external Since it assigns an external --role, role, eat eat is also a Case-checker.is also a Case-checker.

DP

thesandwich

Veat

VPI[past]

I

IP

DP

Bill

Active Active again…again…

After movement, After movement, BillBill checks (nominative) Case checks (nominative) Case with the finite I, and with the finite I, and the the sandwichsandwich checks checks (accusative) Case with the (accusative) Case with the V.V.

DP

thesandwich

Veat

VPI[past]

I

IP

DP

BillV checksacc. Case

Bill checksCase with I

Finite Ichecks nom.

Case

The sandwichchecks Case

with V

Passive Passive again…again…

The sandwich was eaten.The sandwich was eaten. Now, let’s look at the passive Now, let’s look at the passive

sentence.sentence.

The external The external -role was -role was removed from removed from eateneaten and thus V and thus V can no longer check Case can no longer check Case (Burzio’s Generalization).(Burzio’s Generalization).

Unless the DP Unless the DP the sandwichthe sandwich moves to a place where it can moves to a place where it can get Case, it will end up with a get Case, it will end up with a Case feature unchecked. Case feature unchecked.

DP

thesandwich

Veaten

VP

I[past]

IP

Vbe

VP

Passive Passive again…again…

By moving the DP By moving the DP the the sandwichsandwich to SpecTP we to SpecTP we satisfy satisfy bothboth the Case the Case checking requirements checking requirements andand the EPP.the EPP.

Simply satisfying the EPP by Simply satisfying the EPP by using using itit in SpecIP wouldn’t in SpecIP wouldn’t solve the problem of checking solve the problem of checking Case on Case on the sandwichthe sandwich; hence ; hence the ungrammaticality of the ungrammaticality of *It *It was eaten the sandwich.was eaten the sandwich.

DPj

thesandwich

Veaten

VP

Vi+Iwas

I

Vti

VP

IP

DPtj

Finite Ichecks nom.

CaseThe sandwichchecks Case

with I