Installment 12a. Commentary, Installment 12a. Commentary, and the beginning of and the beginning of whwh--

movementmovement

(9.1-9.3)(9.1-9.3)

CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax I

While thinking about While thinking about syntaxsyntax

Before finishing his homework,Before finishing his homework,Ike watched TV.Ike watched TV.

FinishFinish: : transitivetransitive ( (AgentAgent, , ThemeTheme)) Agent:Agent: ?? Theme:Theme: his homeworkhis homework

WatchWatch: : transitivetransitive ( (AgentAgent, , ThemeTheme)) Agent:Agent: IkeIke Theme:Theme: TVTV

Ike watched TVIke watched TV is the main clause.is the main clause. Before finishing his homeworkBefore finishing his homework is a modifier.is a modifier.

While thinking about While thinking about syntaxsyntax

Before finishing his homework,Before finishing his homework,Ike watched TV.Ike watched TV.

Intuitively, it is Ike who was (at least at Intuitively, it is Ike who was (at least at risk of) finishing his homework.risk of) finishing his homework. We are not going to have any particular We are not going to have any particular

explanation for exactly explanation for exactly howhow the interpretation the interpretation tied to the subject comes about, but it seems tied to the subject comes about, but it seems to be.to be.

Before he finished his homework,Before he finished his homework,Ike watched TV.Ike watched TV.

While PRO thinking about While PRO thinking about syntaxsyntax

Before PRO finishing his homework, …Before PRO finishing his homework, …

This PRO does seem to be controlled by This PRO does seem to be controlled by the subject somehow (the subject somehow (*While raining, *While raining, Ike dashed to the storeIke dashed to the store).).

The form The form finishingfinishing is not the is not the progressive, it is the present participle, progressive, it is the present participle, a nonfinite form.a nonfinite form.

Before PRO Before PRO finishing…finishing…

T is not finite, so no [tense] feature.T is not finite, so no [tense] feature. It is not the It is not the infinitiveinfinitive either. either. We’ll say this form has the [ing] We’ll say this form has the [ing]

feature.feature.

The [The [uuInfl:Infl:] feature of ] feature of vv is is matched, valued, and checked by matched, valued, and checked by the [ing] feature, resulting in the [ing] feature, resulting in finishingfinishing..

T

T[ing]

TP

DPPRO

CP

Cbefore

Vfinish

VP

DPhis homework

v

v

vP

<DP>

v<V>

[uInfl:ing]

Before PRO Before PRO finishing…finishing…

How does PRO get its case How does PRO get its case feature checked?feature checked?

Some relevant sentences:Some relevant sentences: Before Before hehe finished his finished his

homework, Ike watched TV.homework, Ike watched TV. Before Ike’s finishing Before Ike’s finishing ofof his his

homework, tension was high.homework, tension was high.

T

T[ing]

TP

DPPRO

CP

Cbefore

Vfinish

VP

DPhis homework

v

v

vP

<DP>

v<V>

Before PRO Before PRO finishing…finishing…

Given this, the best Given this, the best hypothesis seems to be hypothesis seems to be that the [ing] T also has a that the [ing] T also has a [[nullnull] feature, checking ] feature, checking case with PRO just like case with PRO just like finite T checks nominative finite T checks nominative case with other subjects.case with other subjects. [[nullnull] = [] = [uucase:nullcase:null]]

T

T[ing]

TP

DPPRO

CP

Cbefore

Vfinish

VP

DPhis homework

v

v

vP

<DP>

v<V>

Before Before PRO PRO

finishingfinishing……

The only thing left is The only thing left is to attach the modifier to attach the modifier into the main clause…into the main clause…

T

T[past]

TP

DPIke

TP

Vwatch

VP

DPTV

v

v

vP

<DP>

v<V>

T

T[ing]

TP

DPPRO

CP

Cbefore

Vfinish

VP

DPhis homework

v

v

vP

<DP>

v<V>

CP

ØC

Before his cooking of the Before his cooking of the t(of)urkey, Ike had never t(of)urkey, Ike had never opened the oven before.opened the oven before.

On gerundsOn gerunds There is yet another form of the verb that There is yet another form of the verb that

shows up with shows up with -ing-ing on the end of it in on the end of it in English: the English: the gerundgerund..

A gerund is basically a verb acting as a A gerund is basically a verb acting as a noun— we’ve been looking at this kind of noun— we’ve been looking at this kind of deverbal noun already. One way to tell deverbal noun already. One way to tell whether you are looking at a gerund (noun) whether you are looking at a gerund (noun) or not (a verb) is to see whether it is or not (a verb) is to see whether it is modified by adjectives or adverbs:modified by adjectives or adverbs: Before his quick(*ly) cooking of the t(of)urkey…Before his quick(*ly) cooking of the t(of)urkey… Before quick-*(ly) finishing his homework…Before quick-*(ly) finishing his homework…

Nonverbal predicatesNonverbal predicates Nonverbal predicatesNonverbal predicates

Main clauses seem to Main clauses seem to needneed a T (and a finite a T (and a finite one at that), and in English at least, it seems one at that), and in English at least, it seems that we further need a that we further need a vv..

However, there are sentences in which the However, there are sentences in which the main predicate really isn’t verbal:main predicate really isn’t verbal: Frankie is a pathologist.Frankie is a pathologist. Boyd is grumpy.Boyd is grumpy.

Here the verb Here the verb bebe seems to be doing not much seems to be doing not much more than “gluing” the subject to the more than “gluing” the subject to the predicate.predicate.

Nonverbal Nonverbal predicatespredicates

This is slightly This is slightly sticky terrain, sticky terrain, but as a first but as a first hypothesis, hypothesis, suppose that suppose that Boyd is grumpyBoyd is grumpy looks like this:looks like this:

That is, we have That is, we have an auxiliary an auxiliary Pred, realized as Pred, realized as bebe, that moves to , that moves to TT its [its [uuInfl:Infl:] ]

feature is strong feature is strong when valued by a when valued by a [tense] feature.[tense] feature.

T

T[pres]

TP

—

CP

CØ

AdjP

DPBoyd

Predbe

Adjgrumpy

PredP

Zoe is likely to stay in Zoe is likely to stay in ChileChile

WhWh-questions-questions WhWh-questions are “information-seeking” -questions are “information-seeking”

questions, involving a questions, involving a whwh-word.-word. WhoWho, , whatwhat, , whenwhen, , wherewhere, , whywhy, , HoWHoW, , whichwhich

What will they bake?What will they bake?

Observe that Observe that whatwhat is basically the object of is basically the object of bakebake. And look how far away it is from . And look how far away it is from bakebake, the thing that assigns it a , the thing that assigns it a -role.-role. Cf also. “echo questions”:Cf also. “echo questions”: I drank WHAT?I drank WHAT?

Also, notice that T has moved to C here too Also, notice that T has moved to C here too (like it does in yes-no questions).(like it does in yes-no questions).

[wh][wh] WhWh-words are a little bit like pronouns, -words are a little bit like pronouns,

standing in for whatever category of thing standing in for whatever category of thing we’d like information about.we’d like information about.

These interrogative expressions are These interrogative expressions are different from non-interrogative pronouns different from non-interrogative pronouns and demonstratives.and demonstratives. *That will they bake.*That will they bake.

WhatWhat, , wherewhere, , whenwhen are differentiated are differentiated from from thatthat, , therethere, , thenthen in being in being interrogative. This is a feature of the interrogative. This is a feature of the whwh--word: word: [wh][wh]..

[wh][wh]

A A whwh-word has the same category as its -word has the same category as its non-non-whwh-counterpart—therefore, -counterpart—therefore, whwh-words -words come in several different categories.come in several different categories. WhatWhat [wh, D][wh, D] WhoWho [wh, D, human][wh, D, human] WhenWhen[wh, Adv, temporal][wh, Adv, temporal] WhereWhere [wh, Adv, locational][wh, Adv, locational] HowHow [wh, Adv, manner][wh, Adv, manner] WhyWhy [wh, Adv, reason][wh, Adv, reason] WhichWhich [wh, D, [wh, D, uuN*]N*]

How are How are whwh-questions -questions formed?formed?

What we have in English What we have in English whwh-questions is like -questions is like a limited form of V2.a limited form of V2.

The analysis of The analysis of whwh-questions is the same:-questions is the same: The T head moves to CThe T head moves to C The The whwh-expression moves to SpecCP-expression moves to SpecCP

Let’s suppose that the reason/mechanism Let’s suppose that the reason/mechanism moving T to C is the same as in yes-no moving T to C is the same as in yes-no questions:questions: We have an interrogative C, with We have an interrogative C, with [clause-type:Q]. When the [[clause-type:Q]. When the [uuclause-type:clause-type:] ] feature of T is valued by [Q], it is strong.feature of T is valued by [Q], it is strong.

What will they bake?What will they bake? To start out, we have a To start out, we have a vvP and TP as usual. The P and TP as usual. The

only unusual thing so far is that we have a only unusual thing so far is that we have a whwh--object object whatwhat..

VP

v

T

v

vVbake

TP

DPthey

Twill

[uclause-type:]

<V> DPwhat[wh]

<DP>

vP

What will they bake?What will they bake? The complementizer The complementizer

C has the C has the information about information about clause-type, and this clause-type, and this is a question. As is a question. As before with yes-no before with yes-no questions, we questions, we assume that this C assume that this C has the feature has the feature [clause-type:Q] (or [clause-type:Q] (or “[Q]” for short).“[Q]” for short).

As with yes-no As with yes-no questions, the questions, the [[uuclause-type:clause-type:] ] feature of T is strong feature of T is strong when valued by Q.when valued by Q.

VP

v

T

v

vVbake

TP

C

DPthey

C[Q]

Twill

[uclause-type:]

<V> DPwhat[wh]

<DP>

vP

What will they bake?What will they bake? As for how As for how whatwhat

winds up at the winds up at the beginning of the beginning of the sentence, we will sentence, we will treat this essentially treat this essentially like we treated like we treated German V2.German V2.

In a In a whwh-question, C -question, C has a [has a [uuwh*wh*] ] feature.feature.

This forces This forces whatwhat to to move into SpecCP move into SpecCP to check the to check the feature.feature.

VP

v

T

v

vVbake

TP

C

DPthey

C[Q,uwh*]

Twill

[uclause-type:]

<V> DPwhat[wh]

<DP>

vP

What will they bake?What will they bake? What What moves to moves to

SpecCP and SpecCP and checks the checks the [[uuwh*] feature wh*] feature of C.of C.

T moves toT moves toC to checkC to checkthe (nowthe (nowstrong) strong) [[uuclausetype:clausetype:Q*Q*] feature.] feature. (Not pictured (Not pictured

here)here)

VP

v

T

v

vVbake

TP

C

DPthey

C[Q,uwh*]

Twill

[uclause-type:]

<V> <DP>

<DP>

vP

CP

DPwhat[wh]

Interrogative QInterrogative Q vs. Declarative Q vs. Declarative Q

Looking at Looking at whwh-questions as compared to yes--questions as compared to yes-no questions, it looks as if there are two no questions, it looks as if there are two kinds of interrogative C:kinds of interrogative C: ““yes-no” C:yes-no” C: [C, clause-type:Q][C, clause-type:Q] whwh-question C:-question C: [C, clause-type:Q, [C, clause-type:Q, uuwh*]wh*]

This is in fact often supposed in the syntax This is in fact often supposed in the syntax literature— and many languages seem to literature— and many languages seem to have a special particle reserved for yes-no have a special particle reserved for yes-no questions (e.g., English questions (e.g., English ifif, Mandarin , Mandarin mama)) Adger notes a problem, however:Adger notes a problem, however:

Nothing in our system so far prevents us from Nothing in our system so far prevents us from using a yes-no C with a using a yes-no C with a whwh-word, predicting:-word, predicting:

Will they bake what?Will they bake what?

OpOp Accordingly, Adger proposes that there’s Accordingly, Adger proposes that there’s

a a whwh-word even in “yes-no questions”.-word even in “yes-no questions”. There are actually other reasons to think this There are actually other reasons to think this

as well, but we’ll get to them later.as well, but we’ll get to them later.

That is That is Will they bake cookies?Will they bake cookies? is actually is actually something pretty close to:something pretty close to:

Whether will they bake cookies?Whether will they bake cookies?

except with a “silent” except with a “silent” whetherwhether, called , called OpOp..

Will they bake pie?Will they bake pie? OpOp appears in appears in

yes-no yes-no questions in questions in the same the same place that place that whwh--words do in words do in whwh-questions -questions (and we (and we assume it has assume it has a [wh] feature a [wh] feature as well).as well).

OpOp is probably is probably like a “silent” like a “silent” whetherwhether ((whwh++eithereither).).

VP

v

T

v

vVbake

TP

C

DPthey

C[Q,uwh*]

Twill

[uclause-type:]

<V> DPpie

<DP>

vP

CP

DPOp

[wh]

Homework 9 additionsHomework 9 additions

Draw a structure for:Draw a structure for:

The students are likely to know what The students are likely to know what they will bake.they will bake.

What has Pat been sending to Chris?What has Pat been sending to Chris?