Movement

Peter W. Culicover The Ohio State University

Simpler Syntax

Simpler Syntax on movement and structure

•  Simpler Syntax lacks movement •  Argument alternations in Simpler Syntax •  A´chains in Simpler Syntax •  Structure in Simpler Syntax

2

Simpler Syntax

Simpler Syntax on movement and structure

•  Simpler Syntax lacks movement •  Argument alternations in Simpler Syntax •  A´chains in Simpler Syntax •  Structure in Simpler Syntax

3

Simpler Syntax

Simpler Syntax lacks movement •  Simpler Syntax rejects syntactic uniformity as

unnecessary (and sometimes wrong). •  Syntactic uniformity motivates movement. •  Thus, Simpler Syntax does not assume movement for

methodological reasons. •  In the absence of arguments requiring movement,

argument alternations (such as active/passive) and A′ (filler gap) constructions are accounted for by direct interpretation (correspondence rules).

•  As in all non-transformational theories. 4

Simpler Syntax

Simpler Syntax lacks movement •  If there is no movement, there is no head

movement. •  If there is no head movement, there can be no VP-

shells (with their attendant empirical difficulties). •  In turn there can be no syntax-based derivational

morphology (with its attendant empirical difficulties; cf. Hale-Keyser), and no Pollock-style functional heads.

5

Simpler Syntax

Simpler Syntax lacks movement •  The absence of head movement and invisible heads makes it

impossible to implement strictly binary branching and agreement through movement (Kayne, Larson). So:

give [NP Mary] [NP the money must be multiple branching, rather than derived from a complex

binary branching structure with invisible heads, e.g.

6

Simpler Syntax

Simpler Syntax lacks movement No head movement ⇒ No strictly binary branching ⇒ No agreement through movement and feature

checking

7

Simpler Syntax

Simpler Syntax lacks movement No movement ⇒ Many fewer constraints ⇒ No need for derivational economy as in the Minimalist Program

(but there is a need for a theory of complexity – see Culicover, Peter W. (in press). Grammar and Complexity. Oxford University Press, Oxford)

8

Simpler Syntax

Explanation without movement •  The architecture of SYNTAX-CS

correspondences in Simpler Syntax permits: – Argument alternations (A movement in MGG) – Filler-gap dependencies (A´ movement in MGG)

9

Simpler Syntax

Correspondences and grammatical functions

Simpler Syntax assumes that a grammar consists of

•  structural principles governing phrase structure, morphology and agreement;

•  conceptual structure; •  phonological structure; •  correspondences rules that state correspondences between the three

representations (syntax, phonology, conceptual structure); •  primitive grammatical functions (GFs) such as Subject and Object that

mediate correspondences between parts of conceptual structure and syntactic constituents;

•  a lexicon that catalogues the unpredictable interfaces between phonological, syntactic, and semantic structures for particular words and phrases;

•  functional principles that govern the alignment of syntactic structure with prosody and information structure.

10

Simpler Syntax

Correspondences and grammatical functions

•  The focus is on describing and explaining the correspondences between syntactic structure and conceptual structure, linked through the grammatical functions (GFs).

•  The GFs are primitives of the theory (as in Relational Grammar, HPSG, and LFG).

11

Simpler Syntax

Correspondences and grammatical functions

•  A correspondence has basically the following form. (Phonetic form and information structure left out for simplicity.)

12

Simpler Syntax

13

Simpler Syntax

•  CS interpretations are not always one-to-one correspondences with syntactic forms – here are two particularly nice examples.

14

Simpler Syntax

15

Simpler Syntax

16

Simpler Syntax

Basic correspondence rules (English)

Subject:

17

Simpler Syntax

Basic correspondence rules (English)

Object:

18

Simpler Syntax

Simpler Syntax on movement and structure

•  Simpler Syntax lacks movement •  Argument alternations in Simpler Syntax •  A´chains in Simpler Syntax •  Structure in Simpler Syntax

19

Simpler Syntax

Argument alternations in Simpler Syntax

•  Some thematic roles link to GFs either by default

•  or as a consequence of lexical specification. enter

20

Simpler Syntax

Argument alternations in Simpler Syntax

•  Others link to adjuncts (e.g. oblique arguments such as PPs), perhaps with some lexical specification (e.g. for NP in the case of look for).

21

Simpler Syntax

Argument alternations in Simpler Syntax

22

Simpler Syntax

Argument alternations in Simpler Syntax

•  The GFs link to particular syntactic configurations, while the corresponding value of the associated CS argument supplies the form, as represented in the lexical entry.

•  More complex possibilities exist, but this simple one will be sufficient for our present purposes.

23

Simpler Syntax

Alternative argument correspondences

•  Passive •  Applicative •  Anti-passive •  Movement is not the answer (-- the question is,

how do we account for argument alternations?)

24

Simpler Syntax

Passive •  Here is a typical active/passive pair in English.

a. Kim kissed Sandy. b. Sandy was kissed (by Kim).

•  The passive construction is characterized by the fact that the NP that would normally correspond to the Object of the verb in the canonical correspondence becomes the Subject, while the NP that would become the Subject of the verb in the canonical correspondence becomes an oblique argument, if it is expressed.

•  The NPs Kim and Sandy have the same thematic roles in the two sentences; only the syntax is different.

25

Simpler Syntax

26

Simpler Syntax

27

Simpler Syntax

28

Simpler Syntax

29

Simpler Syntax

get passive •  It is possible to state the get passive in the

form of a movement •  but there is no reason to do that, given that the

various verbs take different complement structures.

30

Simpler Syntax

get passive •  In addition, the get passive is not synonymous with

the active. (1) Otto was deliberately arrested ~ X deliberately

arrested Otto. (2) Otto got deliberately arrested ≠ X deliberately

arrested Otto. [If anyone acted with purpose, it was Otto, not X.]

•  deliberately forces an Agent interpretation on the subject of get.

31

Simpler Syntax

get passive

32

Simpler Syntax

Conclusion •  A movement analysis of the passive does not

capture all of the argument realization possibilities.

•  The argument realization possibilities are captured in terms of the mapping from CS to syntax.

•  The active/passive alternation is only one of several possibilities.

33

Simpler Syntax

Applicative •  The movement analysis of the passive and the

correspondence rule may appear to be almost notational variants.

•  But there are other constructions that involve alternative correspondence rules that do not lend themselves to a movement analysis.

•  One is the applicative.

34

Simpler Syntax

Applicative

35

Simpler Syntax

Applicative

36

Simpler Syntax

37

Simpler Syntax

A movement analysis?

38

Simpler Syntax

Conclusion •  A movement analysis of the applicative could

be made to work (but it is not pretty). •  Again, the argument realization possibilities

can be captured directly in terms of the mapping from CS to syntax.

39

Simpler Syntax

English dative alternation

40

Simpler Syntax

Dative is not applicative

41

•  No overt morphological mark •  Not a systematic alternation (unlike the applicative),

but a lexical one:

Simpler Syntax

Antipassive

42

Simpler Syntax

Antipassive

43

Simpler Syntax

Antipassive and passive

44

Simpler Syntax

Conclusion •  There appears to be no natural way to derive

the anti-passive by movement, yet it has a natural analysis in terms of correspondences.

45

Simpler Syntax

Movement is not the answer •  Movement does not appear to be the right way to

account for applicatives and antipassives. •  In fact it is not entirely adequate for passives, either. •  Challenges to the derivational approach to passive

come from languages in which the motivation for a movement analysis is weak or non-existent.

•  If it turns out that we have to analyze such passives as direct correspondences with CS, then such an approach is also more plausible for the English passive.

46

Simpler Syntax

47

Non-movement passives

Simpler Syntax

48

Simpler Syntax

Non-movement passives Spanish a. Mis amigos comieron la torta.

my friend-PL eat-past-3PL the cake ‘My friends ate the cake’.

b. Se comió la torta (*por mis amigos). SE eat-past-3SG the cake by my friends

‘The cake was eaten.’

49

Simpler Syntax

Non-movement passives Italian

a. In Italia tutti mangiano spaghetti. in Italy everyone eat-PRES-3PL spaghetti-PL

‘In Italy everyone eats spaghetti.’ b . In Italia si mangia spaghetti

(*per tutti). in Italy SI eat-PRES-3SG spaghetti-PL (by everyone) ‘In Italy spaghetti is eaten (*by everyone).’

50

Simpler Syntax

Non-movement passives •  Note that in (b) the singular verb does not

agree with the plural spaghetti, showing that spaghetti is the object and not the subject.

•  The important point is that these constructions are other ways of suppressing the highest CS argument without syntactic movement and without passive morphology.

51

Simpler Syntax

Non-movement passives: se says ‘suppress the Subject’

52

Simpler Syntax

German impersonal passive German

a. Es wurde getanzt. it be(come).past.3.sg dance-past.part. ‘There was dancing.’ b. Es wurde viel gelacht. it be(come).past.3.sg much laugh-past.part. ‘There was a lot of laughing.’

53

Simpler Syntax

54

Simpler Syntax

German impersonal passive •  This construction follows directly if we

assume –  no movement in the passive – Object is not mapped to syntax (in this case there

is no CS argument mapped to Object) –  obligatory filled Subject of TENSE-d S in German

(Dutch, etc.) •  if there is no XP in this position, then it is filled by

dummy es. 55

Simpler Syntax

Simpler Syntax on movement and structure

•  Simpler Syntax lacks movement •  Argument alternations in Simpler Syntax •  A´chains in Simpler Syntax •  Structure in Simpler Syntax

56

Simpler Syntax

A´ Chains in Simpler Syntax

•  What is a chain? •  Correspondences and chains •  Non-gap chains •  Constraints

57

Simpler Syntax

derivational perspective A′ (Ā or “A bar”) movement produces an A′ chain — A′ dependency. •  The constituent in A′ position is the head of the

chain while the gap is the tail. •  Such constructions are also referred to as filler-gap

constructions.

58

Simpler Syntax

A´-chain (in MGG) A´-chain: Two constituents X and Y form an

A´-chain when •  X and Y are coindexed and •  X c-commands Y and •  Y is a gap.

59

Simpler Syntax

Correspondence for wh-questions (getting chains without indexing

(i) the wh-phrase appears in clause-initial position, (ii) there is a gap in the position that defines the grammatical function of the phrase containing wh-, and (iii) the sentence has an interrogative interpretation.

Interrogative operator in CS: Q for the yes-no question – Q(P) Qα for the wh-question about some argument variable α contained in P – Qα(λxP(…,x,…))(α)

60

Simpler Syntax

Yes-no question •  did Sandy buy the pizza •  will then have the CS-representation in (b),

a. Sandy bought the pizza. CS: BUY(AGENT:SANDY,THEME:PIZZA)

b. Did Sandy buy the pizza? CS: Q(BUY(AGENT:SANDY,THEME:PIZZA))

61

Simpler Syntax

Wh-question •  and what did Sandy buy •  will have the representation in (b).

a. Sandy bought the cake CS: BUY(AGENT:SANDY:THEME:CAKE)

b. What did Sandy buy? CS: Qα[λx.BUY(AGENT:SANDY:THEME:x)](α) ⇒ Qα[λx.BUY(AGENT:SANDY:THEME:α)]

62

Simpler Syntax

Correspondence rules Wh-question

63

Simpler Syntax

64

Qα[λx.BUY(AGENT:SANDY,THEME:x)](α) ⇒Qα[λx.BUY(AGENT:SANDY,THEME:α)]

Simpler Syntax

buy: BUY(AGENT:X, THEME:Y)

LINKING: Agent ↔ Subject Theme ↔ Object

•  The subject and object correspondence rules link Sandy and [e] to Subject and Object respectively, in this example.

•  These are linked to AGENT and THEME, respectively, by the general linking rule and the lexical entry for buy.

•  Finally, the wh-phrase in initial position is linked to the Q operator by the correspondence rule WH-QUESTION.

65

Simpler Syntax

Whose book did you read?

66

⇒ Qα[READ(AGENT:YOU,THEME:BOOK[POSS:αperson])]

Simpler Syntax

•  The phrase structure rules of English are responsible for the syntactic structure,

•  while the rules of CS are responsible for where Qα, α, λx and BUY go with respect to one another.

•  The gap corresponds to x.

67

Simpler Syntax

•  The correspondence for the wh-question where the wh-phrase is in an A′ position requires a wh-phrase in clause-initial position, the operator Qα in CS, and a lambda expression applied to (an expression containing a) variable α in CS, by λ-reduction.

68

Simpler Syntax

CS-chain CS-chain: Two constituents X and Y form a CS-

chain when (a)  X c-commands Y and (b) X and Y are both linked to the same element

or coindexed set of elements of a CS-representation.

69

Simpler Syntax

70

Simpler Syntax

CS-chain •  When the wh-phrase is the subject of a main

clause, it appears in clause-initial position in English.

•  There is no direct evidence that the wh-subject is in an A′ position that is linked to a gap in subject position.

•  The WH-QUESTION correspondence rule and the SUBJECT correspondence rule both apply to the wh-phrase.

71

Simpler Syntax

72

Simpler Syntax

Relative clauses

73

Simpler Syntax

Topicalization Johni, I like ti.

74

Simpler Syntax

Topicalization is not movement •  Topic precedes wh To Sandyj, whati are you planning on giving ti tj? •  Topic follows that

a. Terry claims [that Sandyi, I like ti ]. b. *Terry claims [Sandyi, that I like ti ].

75

Simpler Syntax

Iterated CP?

76

Simpler Syntax

77

Simpler Syntax

Iterated CP? •  This is a particularly clear example of how

MGG uses empty heads, features to trigger movement, and various stipulations that rule out overgeneration to get just the observed orders.

78

Simpler Syntax

•  The Simpler Syntax solution is to explicitly specify the constructional possibilities --

where XP[TOP] is an XP linked to a topic in IS. 79

Simpler Syntax

Other CS-chains involving gaps •  infinitival questions (what to do [e]) •  infinitival relatives (the man to see [e]; the

man for you to see [e]; the man to save us) •  parasitic gaps (a book that I criticized [e]

before reading [e]) •  etc.

80

Simpler Syntax

Hanging topic left dislocation a. That cari, I really love to drive iti at high speeds. b. I really love to drive iti at high speeds, that cari.

81

Simpler Syntax

No gap, no constraints a. That cari, I met a guy [who wanted to sell iti to me for $3000]. b. *That cari, I met a guy [who wanted to sell ti to me for $3000]. c. That cari, I just received a report [(that) iti was in a major crash]. d. *That cari, I just received a report [(that) ti was in a major crash].

82

Simpler Syntax

Hanging topic •  The hanging topic must appear in a specified

position in the structure. •  It must be associated with a particular discourse

function, e.g., TOPIC, that is parallel to the function/argument structure.

•  A θ-role is assigned to the pronoun, which is in the argument position.

•  The hanging topic specifies the reference of what bears this θ-role.

•  Hence the hanging topic itself is not assigned a θ-role.

83

Simpler Syntax

84

Simpler Syntax

CS variable •  A CS variable corresponds to

–  syntactic gap

85

Simpler Syntax

CS variable •  A CS variable corresponds to

–  proform

86

Simpler Syntax

CS variable •  A CS variable corresponds to

–  nothing (in the case of control)

87

Simpler Syntax

Dislocation without typical chain a. (As for) that cari, I really think that the windshield needs to be replaced. b. (As for) Johni, there are very few people that really like that guyi.

•  There is no proform or gap, but there is a CS-chain.

88

Simpler Syntax

89

Simpler Syntax

90

Simpler Syntax

Conclusions •  It is possible to represent the filler-gap chain without

movement. •  Movement is only one way to create a gap. (See

Koster 1978, HPSG, LFG, etc.) •  There are chains that don’t involve gaps. •  There are filler-gap chains that don’t have fillers in

A´ position (zero-relatives, comparatives, tough). •  Movement doesn’t help us with these. •  ⟹ No A´ movement.

91

Simpler Syntax

Simpler Syntax on movement and structure

•  Simpler Syntax lacks movement •  Argument alternations in Simpler Syntax •  A´chains in Simpler Syntax •  Structure in Simpler Syntax

92

Simpler Syntax

Structure •  In MGG, configuration is fundamental

– GFs defined in terms of configuration – All relations between constituents defined in terms

of configuration (e.g. c-command, Spec-head agreement, etc.)

– Linear order defined in terms of configuration and movement (antisymmetry [Kayne 1994])

93

Simpler Syntax

Structure •  Simpler Syntax asks

– Can we simplify configuration by making GFs primitive?

–  and by allowing explicit statements in the grammar about linear order (rather than having linear order follow from configuration)

– Answer: yes, yes, (yes!)

94

Simpler Syntax

Structure •  Well, then

– must GFs be primitive? – must there be statements in the grammar about

linear order? – Answer: yes, yes

95

Simpler Syntax

GFs •  With primitive GFs, we can state argument

alternations independently of structure. E.g., the general passive correspondence is

96

Simpler Syntax

GFs •  The way that the Subject and passive form of

V are realized, and the linearization, is independently defined for the language (like a device driver).

97

Simpler Syntax

GFs •  With GFs we can account for anaphor binding

without coreference •  Mary behaved herself/*John. •  John perjured himself/*Mary. •  The lexical entries for these Vs can stipulate

that their Subject and Object GFs are coindexed, therefore the Object must be a reflexive.

98

Simpler Syntax

GFs •  With GFs we can explain ‘raising’ without

movement or ‘exceptional case marking’.

99

Simpler Syntax

‘Raising to object’

100

Simpler Syntax

‘Raising to object’

101

Simpler Syntax

‘Raising to subject’

102

Simpler Syntax

Simpler syntax •  This allows us to maintain a very simple

formulation of English VP structure

•  VP→ V (NP) ( )

•  All of the details are taken care of by lexical entries for raising and control.

103

Simpler Syntax

Linear order •  If we have linear order, how complex do

statements about structure need to be? •  Not very complex.

104

Simpler Syntax

Linear order •  First position •  Second position •  Last position •  Precedes/follows •  Adjacent

105

Simpler Syntax

Simpler Syntax Hypothesis (SSH) •  The most explanatory syntactic theory is one

that assumes the minimum structure necessary to mediate between phonology and meaning.

106

Simpler Syntax

What is ‘minimum’ structure? •  [A B C D] is

•  •  unless evidence can be found for

107

Simpler Syntax

What is ‘minimum’ structure? •  There are no invisible elements except those

that have to be postulated to explain the grammatical properties of sentences and their meanings.

108

Simpler Syntax

What is ‘evidence’ of structure? •  ‘Evidence of structure’ would be behavior of

CD (but not BC) that shows that it is a unit distinct from B. E.g., –  dislocation, e.g,

•  topicalization •  scrambling

109

Simpler Syntax

What is ‘evidence of structure’? –  agreement, e.g.

•  C & D share a morphological feature •  (maybe this feature is dependent on B)

– CD can fulfill a range of grammatical functions (such as subject & object)

110

Simpler Syntax

What is ‘evidence of structure’ •  On this view, the structure of the English

sentence is is essentially

111

Simpler Syntax

•  with a few additional details for adverbs, variable order (scrambling?) in VP, membership in ‘...’.

•  and special constructions (e.g. inversion) that require different structures.

112

Simpler Syntax

What is ‘evidence’? •  There is in fact little if any direct evidence for

more abstract and complex structure from movement and other constituent tests, morphological agreement, etc.

113