Encounter 9a. Encounter 9a. -roles in -roles in DP,DP,

and an introduction to and an introduction to little little nn..7.3-7.67.3-7.6

CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax I

The DPThe DP Last time, we introduced the idea that Last time, we introduced the idea that the nominal elements of the sentences the nominal elements of the sentences (subjects, objects), are actually DPs, (subjects, objects), are actually DPs, rather than NPs.rather than NPs. Determiners:Determiners:thethe, , aa, , somesome, , everyevery, , ØØmassmass, , ØØproperproper, , ØØpossposs, …, …

Today, we’ll continue our Today, we’ll continue our investigations of the internal investigations of the internal structure of DPs.structure of DPs.

studentsD

DP

theNP

Some null DsSome null Ds ØØgengen: has a [: has a [gengen] feature and in whose ] feature and in whose specifier we find possessors.specifier we find possessors.

ØØindefindef: a nonsingular indefinite : a nonsingular indefinite article, in whose complement we find article, in whose complement we find plurals and mass nouns.plurals and mass nouns. [[ØØindefindef Milk] spilled. [ Milk] spilled. [ØØindefindef People] cried.People] cried. I’ve also been known to write the one I’ve also been known to write the one with mass nouns as with mass nouns as ØØmassmass..

Mass vs. count:Mass vs. count: Some nouns indicate Some nouns indicate countable things (countable things (chairschairs) others indicate ) others indicate stuff (stuff (milkmilk). Singular/plural ). Singular/plural distinctions don’t apply with mass nouns.distinctions don’t apply with mass nouns.

Proper namesProper names As for proper names like As for proper names like PatPat, , we will assume that they have a we will assume that they have a structure something like structure something like studentsstudents.. The Pat we respect came to the The Pat we respect came to the party.party.

O Giorgos ephugeO Giorgos ephugethe George leftthe George left‘George left.’‘George left.’

ØØproperproper (names are not indefinite; (names are not indefinite; this is probably mostly the this is probably mostly the same as same as thethe, but silent)., but silent).

Implementation:Implementation:ØØproperproper has a [ has a [uuproperproper] feature, ] feature, PatPat has a [proper] feature. has a [proper] feature.

DØindef

DP

studentsNP

DØproper

DP

PatNP

Number agreement on DNumber agreement on D To reiterate: To reiterate: there are three kinds of D an there are three kinds of D an indefinite DP can show up with, and it depends indefinite DP can show up with, and it depends on the number and/or the count/mass property of on the number and/or the count/mass property of the noun:the noun: A(n)A(n):: SingularSingular [A scanner] read the [A scanner] read the ballot.ballot.

ØØindefindef::PluralPlural [[ØØindefindef Voters] emerged. Voters] emerged. ØØmassmass:: MassMass They waited for [They waited for [ØØmassmass news]. news].

What is wrong with What is wrong with *[*[DP DP A studentsA students]] and and **[[DPDP studentstudent]]? ? No agreement in number. Like No agreement in number. Like *Students eats lunch*Students eats lunch..

We can encode this in the same way: The indefinite We can encode this in the same way: The indefinite determiner has a [determiner has a [uunum:num:] feature, and the N has ] feature, and the N has -features -features as always (including a num feature).as always (including a num feature).

The [The [uunum:num:] feature is valued and checked by the num feature ] feature is valued and checked by the num feature of the N.of the N.

Number agreementNumber agreement This means This means aa and and ØØindefindef are in fact pronunciations are in fact pronunciations of the same D (Like of the same D (Like meme and and II are). are). AA is the pronunciation when it has a [ is the pronunciation when it has a [uunumnum:sg] feature:sg] feature ØØ is the pronunciation otherwise is the pronunciation otherwise

[[DP DP ØØindefindef students] students] [[DPDP a student] a student]

D[D, unum:sg,uN*, case]

DP

NPstudent

[N, :3sg]

D[D, unum:pl,uN*, case]

DP

NPstudents[N, :3pl]

Deverbal nounsDeverbal nouns The structure inside the DP can be The structure inside the DP can be as complicated as inside a clause, as complicated as inside a clause, as it turns out.as it turns out. Pat broke the vase.Pat broke the vase. Pat’s breaking of the vase startled me.Pat’s breaking of the vase startled me. The bees startled me.The bees startled me.

It seems to be possible to convert It seems to be possible to convert the whole clause the whole clause Pat broke the vasePat broke the vase into a “noun” (a DP).into a “noun” (a DP).

Deverbal nounsDeverbal nouns What’s more, the relationship between What’s more, the relationship between breakbreak, , PatPat, and , and the vasethe vase seems to be the seems to be the same inside the DP as it is in the same inside the DP as it is in the clause.clause. Pat broke the vase.Pat broke the vase. Pat’s breaking of the vase made me angry.Pat’s breaking of the vase made me angry. Pat Pat is an Agent, is an Agent, the vase the vase is a Theme.is a Theme. Pat danced.Pat danced. Pat’s dancing startled me.Pat’s dancing startled me.

Just as the verb Just as the verb breakbreak assigns assigns -roles, -roles, it seems as if the nominalized it seems as if the nominalized breakingbreaking assigns the same assigns the same -roles. The DP is in a -roles. The DP is in a way like a little clause.way like a little clause.

TPs and DPsTPs and DPs One difference between clausal DPs and TPs One difference between clausal DPs and TPs is in the case realized by the arguments.is in the case realized by the arguments.

I called him.I called him. Agent is nom (from T), Theme is acc (from Agent is nom (from T), Theme is acc (from vv))

My calling of him was unplanned.My calling of him was unplanned. Agent is gen, Theme looks like a PP introduced Agent is gen, Theme looks like a PP introduced by by ofof..

So, the case assigners within a DP are So, the case assigners within a DP are different from the case assigners within a different from the case assigners within a clause.clause.

Two kinds of NTwo kinds of N

Not all N’s assign Not all N’s assign -roles. Some do, -roles. Some do, some don’t. Generally, the nouns some don’t. Generally, the nouns related to a verb that assigns related to a verb that assigns -roles -roles will assign will assign -roles. But something like -roles. But something like lunchlunch doesn’t. doesn’t. Pat’s lunch was enormous.Pat’s lunch was enormous. Pat’s eating of lunch was shockingly rapid.Pat’s eating of lunch was shockingly rapid.

So, we can either find a DP with a So, we can either find a DP with a --role with genitive case, or we can find role with genitive case, or we can find a possessor with genitive case, in a possessor with genitive case, in SpecDP.SpecDP.

Ditransitive NDitransitive N Consider the ditransitive verb Consider the ditransitive verb givegive and the and the related noun related noun giftgift. Just as . Just as givegive is is responsible for three responsible for three -roles (Agent, Theme, -roles (Agent, Theme, Goal), so can Goal), so can giftgift be: be: Pat gave an apple to Chris.Pat gave an apple to Chris. Pat’s gift of an apple to Chris was unexpected.Pat’s gift of an apple to Chris was unexpected.

The exact same problem arises with The exact same problem arises with ditransitive nouns as arose with ditransitive nouns as arose with ditransitive verbs.ditransitive verbs.

Binary branching allows for just two Binary branching allows for just two arguments in NP. We need an additional arguments in NP. We need an additional projection for the third. Let’s try doing projection for the third. Let’s try doing this just like we did for verbs…this just like we did for verbs…

Little Little nn Suppose Suppose that DP that DP is like is like TPTP

PP

V

Vgive

VP

DPbooks

v

v

vP

<DP>

DPChris

Pto

PP

N

Ngift

NP

DPof books

n

n

nP

<DP>

DPChris

Pto

T

T

TP

DPPat

D

D

DP

DPPat’s

nom gen

acc of

DP is like TPDP is like TP

If we suppose that DP works like If we suppose that DP works like TP, we can extend our TP, we can extend our theoretical machinery in an theoretical machinery in an exactly analogous way.exactly analogous way.

Hierarchy of ProjectionsHierarchy of ProjectionsD > D > nn > N > N

UTAHUTAHDP daughter of DP daughter of nnP:P: AgentAgentDP daughter of NP:DP daughter of NP: ThemeThemePP daughter of NPP daughter of N:: GoalGoal

Case in the DPCase in the DP In the DP, the “subject” appears with In the DP, the “subject” appears with genitive case.genitive case. Cf. The subject in TP, which has nominative Cf. The subject in TP, which has nominative case, due to a [nom] feature on T.case, due to a [nom] feature on T.

So, we say D can have a [So, we say D can have a [gen*gen*] feature.] feature. This checks the genitive case on the subject This checks the genitive case on the subject of the DP, and forces it to move into SpecDP.of the DP, and forces it to move into SpecDP.

In the DP, the “object” appears with the In the DP, the “object” appears with the preposition preposition ofof.. Cf. The object in TP, which has accusative Cf. The object in TP, which has accusative case, due to an [acc] feature on case, due to an [acc] feature on vv..

So, we say that So, we say that nn has an [ has an [ofof] feature.] feature.

The The ofof case case What’s the deal with this “What’s the deal with this “ofof case” that case” that objects in DPs get? Isn’t objects in DPs get? Isn’t ofof a a preposition? Shouldn’t preposition? Shouldn’t of cheeseof cheese in in The The gift of cheese to the senator was gift of cheese to the senator was appreciatedappreciated be a PP? be a PP?

This This ofof is completely meaningless, it acts is completely meaningless, it acts like a case marker. So, we’re going to like a case marker. So, we’re going to analyze it as such. analyze it as such. Of cheeseOf cheese is a DP with is a DP with the the ofof case marking. Just like case marking. Just like Pat’sPat’s is a is a DP with the genitive (DP with the genitive (’s’s) case marking.) case marking.

Treating Treating ofof as case allows a complete as case allows a complete parallel between TP and DP; parallel between TP and DP; vv has an [ has an [accacc] ] feature, feature, nn has an [ has an [ofof] feature.] feature.

Passive nounsPassive nouns

Last week, we looked at the Last week, we looked at the passive construction:passive construction: The sandwich was eatenThe sandwich was eaten

Here, the Theme Here, the Theme the sandwichthe sandwich becomes the subject because the becomes the subject because the strong feature of T forces it strong feature of T forces it to move to SpecTP. The to move to SpecTP. The vv does does not project an Agent.not project an Agent.

PassivePassive

In the passive, In the passive, vv does not introduce an does not introduce an Agent, and does not Agent, and does not have an [have an [accacc] ] feature.feature.

T still has a [T still has a [nomnom] ] feature, so it checks feature, so it checks the [the [casecase] feature on ] feature on the sandwichthe sandwich..

T has a [T has a [uuD*D*] ] feature, so the feature, so the sandwich moves to sandwich moves to SpecTP to check it.SpecTP to check it.

VP

Veat

<DP>

vP

v

PassP

Passbe

T

T

TP

DPthesand-wich

nom

Passive nounsPassive nouns Very similar to the passive, Very similar to the passive, if an if an nn doesn’t introduce an doesn’t introduce an Agent, the Theme can move to Agent, the Theme can move to SpecDP and surface as SpecDP and surface as genitivegenitive

Ndestruction

NP

DPof thesidewalk

n

n

nP

<DP>

D

D

DP

DPPat’s

gen

of

Ndestruction

NP

<DP>

nP

n

D

D

DP

gen DPtheside-walk’s

Passive nounsPassive nouns If the DP has a head D like If the DP has a head D like thethe that does not that does not check genitive case, then there can be no Agent check genitive case, then there can be no Agent (nothing could check its case), and the Theme (nothing could check its case), and the Theme stays unmoved (its stays unmoved (its ofof-case checked by -case checked by nn).).

Ndestruction

NP

DPof thesidewalk

nP

n

DP

Dthe

of

Ndestruction

NP

<DP>

nP

n

D

D

DP

gen DPtheside-walk’s

Case and Case and -roles-roles We now predict the observation Adger makes: We now predict the observation Adger makes: Either an Agent or a Theme can show up in Either an Agent or a Theme can show up in the genitive, but only a Theme can show up the genitive, but only a Theme can show up with with ofof-case.-case. Adger’s analysis of the DP is simple.Adger’s analysis of the DP is simple. The DP’s analysis is simple.The DP’s analysis is simple. *The analysis of Adger is simple.*The analysis of Adger is simple.

This is essentially the same as the This is essentially the same as the generalization that, in a clause, either an generalization that, in a clause, either an Agent or a Theme can show up with Agent or a Theme can show up with nominative case, but only a Theme can show nominative case, but only a Theme can show up with accusative case.up with accusative case. I called her.I called her. She tripped.She tripped. *Her tripped. *Tripped her.*Her tripped. *Tripped her.

Back to possessionBack to possession Prior to today, the genitive case was Prior to today, the genitive case was associated with the possessor. So far associated with the possessor. So far today we’ve been looking at deverbal today we’ve been looking at deverbal nouns, where genitive case goes to the nouns, where genitive case goes to the subject.subject.

Our new improved UTAH says, among other Our new improved UTAH says, among other things:things: DP daughter of NP:DP daughter of NP: ThemeTheme DP daughter of DP daughter of nnP:P: AgentAgent

Possessors are neither of these, so Possessors are neither of these, so possessors need to be initially Merged possessors need to be initially Merged into a distinct place in the structure.into a distinct place in the structure.

PossessorsPossessors Adger proposes Adger proposes that that Possessors are Possessors are introduced by introduced by a new head, a new head, Poss.Poss.

HoP:HoP:D > (Poss) > D > (Poss) > nn > N> N

nPhat

Poss

Poss

PossP

<DP>

D

D

DP

DPPat’s

gen

Hungarian possessorsHungarian possessors Consider the following:Consider the following:

Az en kalapomAz en kalapom A te kalapodA te kalapodthe I hatthe I hat the you hatthe you hat‘my hat’‘my hat’ ‘your hat’‘your hat’

A Mari kalapjaA Mari kalapja Marinak a kalapjaMarinak a kalapjathe Mary hatthe Mary hat Mary the hatMary the hat‘Mary’s hat’‘Mary’s hat’ ‘Mary’s hat’‘Mary’s hat’

Assuming that the DP in Hungarian has Assuming that the DP in Hungarian has the basic structure we’ve been the basic structure we’ve been discussing, what is the structure of discussing, what is the structure of this kind of possessive construction?this kind of possessive construction?

How about that (person?) agreement on How about that (person?) agreement on ‘hat’?‘hat’?

AdjectivesAdjectives Adjectives are to nouns as adverbs are Adjectives are to nouns as adverbs are to verbs. So what would the structure to verbs. So what would the structure be for be for Pat’s complete destruction of Pat’s complete destruction of the sidewalkthe sidewalk? Or ? Or the silly ideathe silly idea? Or ? Or The The pencil on the deskpencil on the desk??

In In Pat completely destroyed the Pat completely destroyed the sidewalksidewalk, we adjoin , we adjoin completelycompletely to to vvP. P. The subject moves to SpecTP.The subject moves to SpecTP.

In the same way, we adjoin In the same way, we adjoin completecomplete to to nnP, and P, and PatPat moves to SpecDP. moves to SpecDP.

AdjunctsAdjuncts Suppose Suppose that DP that DP is like is like TPTP

VP

Vdestroy

v

DPthe

driveway

vP

v

vP

<DP>

NP

Ndestruction

n

n

nP

nP

AdjPcomplete

T

T

TP

DPPat

D

D

DP

DPPat’s

AdvPcompletely

DPof thedriveway

<DP>

The Italian DPThe Italian DP

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

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

Il GianniIl Gianni mi ha telefonato.mi ha telefonato.the Giannithe Gianni me has telephonedme 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 Romathe ancient Romethe ancient Rome‘Ancient Rome’‘Ancient Rome’

*Antica Roma*Antica Roma ancient Rome ancient Rome

Roma anticaRoma anticaRome ancientRome ancient

Generalization:Generalization: If there’s a If there’s a determiner, the noun follows the determiner, the noun follows the adjective. If there isn’t the noun adjective. If there isn’t the noun precedes the adjective.precedes the adjective.

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 We can apply the same analysis to We can apply the same analysis to the order nouns and adjectives as the order nouns and adjectives as we did to the order of adverbs and we did to the order of adverbs and verbs.verbs. Recall that in French, verbs precede Recall that in French, verbs precede adverbs, but in English, verbs follow adverbs, but in English, verbs follow adverbs. We conclude that in French, adverbs. We conclude that in French, vv moves to T.moves to T.

In Italian, when the noun precedes In Italian, when the noun precedes the adjective it has moved over it, the adjective it has moved over it, to D. The generalization is that to D. The generalization is that this happens except if D is already this happens except if D is already filled.filled.

L’ antica RomaL’ antica Romathe ancient Romethe ancient Rome

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

<n>

nP

…

N+n+D

DP

AdjP

nP

<v>

vP

…

V+v+T

TP

AdvP

vP

ParametersParameters Languages differ on whether Languages differ on whether nn moves to D, moves to D, yielding some languages where nouns yielding some languages where nouns precede adjectives, and some languages precede adjectives, and some languages where nouns follow adjectives.where nouns follow adjectives.

Likewise, languages differ on whether Likewise, languages differ on whether vv moves to T, moves to T, yielding some languages (e.g., French) where verbs yielding some languages (e.g., French) where verbs precede adverbs, and some languages (e.g., English) precede adverbs, and some languages (e.g., English) where verbs follow adverbs.where verbs follow adverbs.

What governs whether What governs whether nn moves to D is the moves to D is the strength of an uninterpretable feature strength of an uninterpretable feature checked on D or checked on D or nn by the other. One such by the other. One such feature is [feature is [uunum:num:].]. Italian: [Italian: [uunum:*num:*] is strong on null determiners.] is strong on null determiners. English: [English: [uunum:num:] is weak, even on null ] is weak, even on null determiners.determiners.

[[ØØindefindef Happy students] poured forth from the classroom. Happy students] poured forth from the classroom.

More Italian, same More Italian, same pointpoint

[[DPDP Il mio Gianni] ha finalmente Il mio Gianni] ha finalmente telefonato.telefonato. the my G. has finally the my G. has finally calledcalled‘My Gianni has finally called.’‘My Gianni has finally called.’

*[*[DPDP Mio Gianni] ha finalmente telefonato.Mio Gianni] ha finalmente telefonato.

[[DPDP Gianni mio] ha finalmente telefonato. Gianni mio] ha finalmente telefonato.

Some HebrewSome Hebrew harisat ha-oyev ’et ha-’irharisat ha-oyev ’et ha-’irdestruction the-enemy OM the-citydestruction the-enemy OM the-city‘The enemy’s destruction of the city’‘The enemy’s destruction of the city’

tipul ha-Siltonot ba-ba’ayatipul ha-Siltonot ba-ba’ayatreatment the-authorities in-the-problemtreatment the-authorities in-the-problem‘The authorities’ treatment of the problem’‘The authorities’ treatment of the problem’

Construct state.Construct state. What seems to be happening What seems to be happening here? Again, parametric variation.here? Again, parametric variation. [[gengen] feature of D is weak in Hebrew, strong ] feature of D is weak in Hebrew, strong (when there) in English. But [(when there) in English. But [uunum:num:] feature is ] feature is strong in Hebrew.strong in Hebrew.

Rather like VSO languages, where Rather like VSO languages, where vv moves to T moves to T (like in French, unlike in English), but the (like in French, unlike in English), but the subject doesn’t move to SpecTP (the [subject doesn’t move to SpecTP (the [uuDD] feature ] feature of T is weak).of T is weak).