Week 10a. VP-internal subjects and ECM

1
CAS LX 522Syntax I

• Week 10a. VP-internal subjectsand ECM

2
Revisiting VSO order in Irish,yet again

• Recall these examples from Irish
• An bhfaca tú an madra?Q See you the dogDid you
  see the dog?
• Duirt mé gur phóg Máire an lucharachán.Said I
  that kissed Mary the leprechaunI said that Mary
  kissed the leprechaun.
• VSO order was supposed to be derived by verb
  movement, but since an and gur are in C, it must
  not be movement to C but rather to I.

3
A VP-internal subject?

• We ended up with a representation like this one,
  where the subject was in SpecVP rather than in
  SpecIP.
• That is, the subject appears to be VP-internal in
  Irish.
• If this is right, there are a couple of things
  that must be true in Irish under our current
  approach.

CP
IP
C
VP
IVi
V?
DP
ti

4
A VP-internal subject?

• First, since all DPs need Case, it must be
  possible for the subject to get Case in SpecVP in
  Irish.
• Second, since SpecIP is empty, it must be that
  the EPP is not active in Irish.
• We need to conclude that these are dimensions
  along which languages can vary.

CP
IP
C
VP
IVi
V?
DP
ti

5
A VP-internal subject?

• How does the subject get Case down there in
  SpecVP?
• For a DP to check Case features, it needs to be
  close to the Case assigner (the head that has
  the feature to check the DPs Case feature)
• in the specifier of that head
• (e.g., SpecIP)
• or in the complement
• (e.g., complement of V).
• Both of these are positions that are close to the
  Case-assigner.

CP
IP
C
VP
IVi
V?
DP
ti

6
A VP-internal subject?

• X can check features with SpecXP.
• (e.g., I and SpecIP)
• X can check features with its complement
• (e.g., V and its complement object)
• If the subject in Irish is going to get its Case
  feature checked, it must also be the case that
• X can check features of the specifier of its
  complement
• (e.g., SpecVP, as shown on the right).

CP
IP
C
VP
IVi
V?
DP
ti

7
Government

• So if Case features can only be checked nearby,
  then these three positions count as close enough
  for Case-feature checking. Relative to a head X,
  the objects that can check Case-features with X
  are
• Sister
• Specifier
• Specifier of sister

XP
X?
DP
YP
X
Y?
DP
Y

8
Government
The radius ofgovernment

• These three environments
• Sister
• Specifier
• Specifier of sister
• are together sometimes called the positions
  which are governed by the head X.

XP
X?
DP
YP
X
Y?
DP
Y

9
Government
The radius ofgovernment

• As for what features are checked, let us make
  these assumptions
• The specifier-features of X are checked against
  DP1 in its specifier.
• The complement-features of X are checked against
  YP in its complement, or, failing that, against
  DP2 in the specifier of YP.

XP
X?
DP1
YP
X
Y?
DP2
Y

10
A VP-internal subject?

• Back to the question of the VP-internal subject.
• Since the guiding intuition of our approach has
  been that languages are fundamentally alike, it
  is a bit jarring to think that English and Irish
  could differ in such a deep way as this.

CP
IP
C
VP
IVi
V?
DP
ti

11
A VP-internal subject?

• However, there is some evidence to support the
  idea that in English the subject originates in
  SpecVP too, contrary to what weve been
  assumingand moves to SpecIP.
• One of the least complex arguments for this
  concerns the floating quantifier all.
• All the students will leave.
• The students will all leave.
• The students will leave all.
• Where can all be found?

CP
IP
C
VP
IVi
V?
DP
ti

12
Floating quantifiers
IP

• All the students will leave.
• The students will all leave.
• The students will leave all.
• Lets suppose that all the studentsis a unit at
  underlying structure,which we can write as a
  QP(Quantifier Phrase) headed by all.
• Then, at this point, one of two things can
  happeneither the QP moves to SpecIP or the DP
  does.

VP
I
will
V
QP
leave
DP
Q
all
the students
13
Floating quantifiers

• All the students will leave.
• The students will all leave.
• The students will leave all.
• If the QP moves, we get the first sentence above.

IP
QPi
I?
DP
Q
VP
I
all
thestudents
will
ti
V
leave
14
Floating quantifiers

• All the students will leave.
• The students will all leave.
• The students will leave all.
• If the QP moves, we get the first sentence above.
• If just the DP moves, we get the second sentence
  above.
• Yet neither option could produce the third
  sentence

IP
DPi
I?
the students
VP
I
will
QP
V
leave
ti
Q
all
15
Floating quantifiers

• All the students will leave.
• The students will all leave.
• The students will leave all.
• This gives us a reasonably natural way to explain
  where all can be, but it is not available unless
  we believe that the subject originates somewhere
  below the position of will.

IP
DPi
I?
the students
VP
I
will
QP
V
leave
ti
Q
all
16
Expletive there
IP

• Now, lets think about the sentence There was a
  student reading a book.
• Here, pretty much the only place a student could
  be is in SpecVP.
• There here is an expletive element, like it. It
  doesnt get a q-role, it doesnt add anything to
  the meaning. It satisfies the EPP.

DP
I?
there
ViI
VP
was
V
VP
ti
DP
V?
a student
V
DP
reading
a book
17
Expletive there
IP

• If we hadnt picked there and put it on the
  workbench at the outset, the subject would need
  to raise to satisfy the EPP (and check Case),
  yielding A student was reading a book.

DPj
I?
A student
ViI
VP
was
V
VP
ti
DP
V?
tj
V
DP
reading
a book
18
Expletive there
IP

• Speaking of Case, hold on a second. How did a
  student get Case checked in There was a student
  reading a book?
• This is a tricky question. It turns out that
  there must be some kind of mysterious
  relationship between there and a student. (The
  subject DP a student is called the associate of
  the expletive there)

DP
I?
there
ViI
VP
was
V
VP
ti
DP
V?
a student
V
DP
reading
a book
19
Expletive there
IP

• Notice that if the subject DP is plural, we get
  plural agreement on the auxiliary There were
  students eating a pizza.
• Somehow the Plural feature of students is able
  to check the Plural feature of I.
• The special expletive-associate relationship
  between there and students serves as kind of a
  feature conduit such that the features of
  student are passed up to there to be checked.

DP
I?
there
ViI
VP
were
V
VP
ti
DP
V?
students
V
DP
eating
a pizza
20
Expletive there
IP

• The sentence behaves as if students actually had
  moved up to SpecIP and checked its features
  there.
• This is actually a part of modern theory thats a
  little bit fuzzy. We may return to another way to
  look at this in a few weeks, but a feature
  conduit is probably the best way to think of
  this now.

DP
I?
there
ViI
VP
were
V
VP
ti
DP
V?
students
V
DP
eating
a pizza
21
Expletive there
IP

• So, to answer the question that got us here
  Students is a DP and as such has a Case feature
  that needs to be checked. The Case feature, like
  the Plural feature, can be checked across the
  expletive-associate feature conduit. So Students
  checks its Case feature with I.
• So, is students nominative?

DP
I?
there
ViI
VP
were
V
VP
ti
DP
V?
students
V
DP
eating
a pizza
22
Expletive there
IP

• It turns out that it is difficult to tell,
  because only indefinite DPs are allowed in
  there-constructions, only pronouns show Case, and
  pronouns are never indefinite.
• If you try hard, you can find evidence that
  suggests that it isnt nominative, but rather
  objective
• What do you remember of the scene in your dream?
• Well, there was either him or me eating a pizza
  in the cornerthat, I remember.
• Lets ignore this for now, and just assume that
  students can check its Case feature with I.

DP
I?
there
ViI
VP
were
V
VP
ti
DP
V?
students
V
DP
eating
a pizza
23
Expletive there
IP
DP
I?
it
ViI
VP

• One last thought about there
• If students is checking its Case feature with I,
  that means that there isnt.
• That is, there doesnt seem to have a Case
  feature of its own to check. Its there solely to
  satisfy the EPP.
• This gives us way to differentiate expletive
  there from expletive it.
• Neither it nor there get a q-role, both it and
  there satisfy the EPPbut there doesnt have a
  Case feature, while it does.

was
V
VP
snowing
ti
IP
DP
I?
there
ViI
VP
were
V
VP
ti
DP
V?
students
V
DP
eating
a pizza
24
The VP-Internal SubjectHypothesis

• It seems that we are being led to a view under
  which the subject always starts in SpecVP.
• VP-Internal Subject HypothesisThe subject
  originates in the specifier of VP at DS.

IP
VP
I
V?
DP
V

25
q-role assignment

• If we suppose that the subject originates in
  SpecVP, then we can also strengthen our view of
  where q-roles can be assigned.
• Earlier, wed supposed that q-roles can only be
  assigned within the same clause.
• Now, we can in fact go further
• A predicate can only assign its q-roles within
  the maximal projection of that predicate.
• A V can only assign its q-roles within the VP.

26
q-role assignment

• A predicate can only assign its q-roles within
  the maximal projection of that predicate.
• A V can only assign its q-roles within the VP.
• A side note Adopting this requires a (very)
  slight tweak in what we consider to be an
  external q-role. We can no longer consider it to
  be a q-role assigned external to the VP, since
  there are no longer any such q-roles. Instead, we
  say that the external q-role is the q-role
  assigned to SpecVP.

27
q-role assignment

• If q-roles are assigned that locally, then we can
  think of q-role as happening essentially as part
  of Merge, effectively just like feature checking.
• If V has two q-roles to assign, it assigns/checks
  one (the internal q-role) on the first Merge, and
  the second one (the external q-role) in the
  second.

VP
V
DP
eat
a pizza
internal q-role
external q-role
VP
V?
DP
I
V
DP
a pizza
eat
28
Small clauses

• Armed with the VP-internal subject hypothesis, we
  are also now in a position to understand another
  type of sentence which we have not thus far
  considered.
• I find Bill intolerable.
• I consider Bill incompetent.
• I want Bill off this ship. (Immediately!)

29
Small clauses

• I find Bill intolerable.
• I consider Bill incompetent.
• I want Bill off this ship. (Immediately!)
• These have a pretty similar meaning as sentences
  with to be inserted after Bill, but yet theres
  no to and no be theres no evidence of a IP or a
  VP in Bill intolerable.

30
Small clauses

• A common way to look at these sentences is as
  containing small clausesa little proposition
  headed not by a verb but by another kind of
  predicate, like an adjective.
• Just like the subject of a regular clause, the
  subject of a small clause is in its specifier.
• But unlike in a regular clause, it stays there,
  so we can see it in the specifier of the
  predicate.

IP
DPj
I?
I
VP
I
pres
V?
DP
tj
AP
V
find
A
DP
intolerable
Bill
31
Small clauses

• Whoops! Hold on there, slick.
• How did we get Bill in the specifier of
  intolerable?
• It cant be doneor, rather, the tree shown there
  on the right cant be formed. In that tree, Bill
  isnt really in the specifier of AP, its a
  complement, but on the wrong side.

IP
DPj
I?
I
VP
I
pres
V?
DP
tj
AP
V
find
A
DP
intolerable
Bill
32
Small clauses

• What we need to assume is that Bill moves from
  its original position in the complement of
  intolerable into SpecAP.
• Intolerable has a single participant, a single
  q-role to assign, so it goes to Bill on the first
  Merge.
• So why would Bill move?

IP
DPj
I?
I
VP
I
pres
V?
DP
tj
AP
V
find
A?
DPi
Bill
DP
A
intolerable
ti
33
Small clauses

• Even in a small clause, all DPs need to check
  Case.
• In this sentence I checks nominative Case from
  the finite main clause I. Where does Bill get
  Case?

IP
DPj
I?
I
VP
I
pres
V?
DP
tj
AP
V
find
A?
DPi
Bill
DP
A
intolerable
ti
34
Small clauses

• Even in a small clause, all DPs need to check
  Case.
• In this sentence I checks nominative Case from
  the finite main clause I. Where does Bill get
  Case?
• Answer from the transitive verb find, allowed
  because Bill is in the its radius of government.

IP
DPj
I?
I
VP
I
pres
V?
DP
tj
AP
V
find
A?
DPi
Bill
DP
A
intolerable
ti
35
Small clauses

• How do we know that?
• Bill finds me intolerable.
• Notice that the case of the pronoun which is the
  subject of the small clause is objectiveit is
  the type of Case assigned by a transitive verb
  (and not the type of Case assigned by finite I).
• Bill finds I intolerable.

IP
DPj
I?
Bill
VP
I
pres
V?
DP
tj
AP
V
find
A?
DPi
me
DP
A
intolerable
ti
36
ECM

• This kind of situation, where Case is checked in
  the specifier of the complement, often goes by
  the name ECM (Exceptional Case Marking).
• There are other common instances of ECM as well,
  all situations where the subject does not check
  nominative Case with a finite I.
• finite not to. Has tense and agreement
  features, checks Nom.

IP
DPj
I?
Bill
VP
I
pres
V?
DP
tj
AP
V
find
A?
DPi
me
DP
A
intolerable
ti
37
ECM
IP
DPj
I?
Bill

• For exampleBill finds me to be intolerable.

VP
I
pres
V?
DP
tj
IP
V
find
I?
DPi
me
I
VP
to
AP
V
be
DP
A
ti
intolerable
38
ECM
IP
DPj
I?
Bill
VP
I

• For exampleBill finds me to be
  intolerable.Bill wants for me to eat cake.

pres
V?
DP
tj
CP
V
want
IP
C
for
I?
DPi
me
I
VP
to
V?
DP
ti
DP
V
cake
eat
39
?

• ? ?
• ?
• ? ?
• ? ?
• ?
• ?