1. Week 10a. VP-internal subjects and ECM CAS LX 522 Syntax I

2. Revisiting VSO order in Irish, yet again Recall these examples from Irish: Recall these examples from Irish: An bhfaca tú an madra? Q See you the dog ‘Did you see the dog?’ An bhfaca tú an madra? Q See you the dog ‘Did you see the dog?’ Duirt mé gur phóg Máire an lucharachán. Said I that kissed Mary the leprechaun ‘I said that Mary kissed the leprechaun.’ Duirt mé gur phóg Máire an lucharachán. Said I that kissed Mary the leprechaun ‘I 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. 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. 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. 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. If this is right, there are a couple of things that must be true in Irish under our current approach. titi V VP … C CP I+V i IP DP

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. 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. 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. We need to conclude that these are dimensions along which languages can vary. titi V VP … C CP I+V i IP DP

5. A VP-internal subject? How does the subject get Case down there in SpecVP? 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 DP’s Case feature): 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 DP’s Case feature): in the specifier of that head in the specifier of that head (e.g., SpecIP) (e.g., SpecIP) or in the complement or in the complement (e.g., complement of V). (e.g., complement of V). Both of these are positions that are close to the Case-assigner. Both of these are positions that are close to the Case-assigner. titi V VP … C CP I+V i IP DP

6. A VP-internal subject? X can check features with SpecXP. X can check features with SpecXP. (e.g., I and SpecIP) (e.g., I and SpecIP) X can check features with its complement X can check features with its complement (e.g., V and its complement object) (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… 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 X can check features of the specifier of its complement (e.g., SpecVP, as shown on the right). (e.g., SpecVP, as shown on the right). titi V VP … C CP I+V i IP DP

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: 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 Sister Specifier Specifier Specifier of sister Specifier of sister Y Y YP … X X XP DP

8. Government These three environments These three environments Sister Sister Specifier Specifier Specifier of sister Specifier of sister …are together sometimes called the positions which are governed by the head X. …are together sometimes called the positions which are governed by the head X. Y Y YP … X X XP DP The “radius” of government

9. Government As for what features are checked, let us make these assumptions: As for what features are checked, let us make these assumptions: The specifier-features of X are checked against DP 1 in its specifier. The specifier-features of X are checked against DP 1 in its specifier. The complement-features of X are checked against YP in its complement, or, failing that, against DP 2 in the specifier of YP. The complement-features of X are checked against YP in its complement, or, failing that, against DP 2 in the specifier of YP. Y Y YP … X X XP DP 1 The “radius” of government DP 2

10. A VP-internal subject? Back to the question of the 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. 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. titi V VP … C CP I+V i IP DP

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 we’ve been assuming—and moves to SpecIP. However, there is some evidence to support the idea that in English the subject originates in SpecVP too, contrary to what we’ve been assuming—and moves to SpecIP. One of the least complex arguments for this concerns the “floating quantifier” all. One of the least complex arguments for this concerns the “floating quantifier” all. All the students will leave. All the students will leave. The students will all leave. The students will all leave. *The students will leave all. *The students will leave all. Where can all be found? Where can all be found? titi V VP … C CP I+V i IP DP

12. Floating quantifiers All the students will leave. All the students will leave. The students will all leave. The students will all leave. *The students will leave all. *The students will leave all. Let’s suppose that all the students is a unit at underlying structure, which we can write as a “QP” (Quantifier Phrase) headed by all. Let’s suppose that all the students is 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 happen—either the QP moves to SpecIP or the DP does. Then, at this point, one of two things can happen—either the QP moves to SpecIP or the DP does. V VPI IP DP Q QP the students all leave will

13. Floating quantifiers All the students will leave. All the students will leave. The students will all leave. The students will all leave. *The students will leave all. *The students will leave all. If the QP moves, we get the first sentence above. If the QP moves, we get the first sentence above. V VPI I IP DP Q QP i the students all leave will titi

14. Floating quantifiers All the students will leave. All the students will leave. The students will all leave. The students will all leave. *The students will leave all. *The students will leave all. If the QP moves, we get the first sentence above. If the QP moves, we get the first sentence above. If just the DP moves, we get the second sentence above. If just the DP moves, we get the second sentence above. Yet neither option could produce the third sentence… Yet neither option could produce the third sentence… V VPI I IP DP i Q QP the students all leave will titi

15. Floating quantifiers All the students will leave. All the students will leave. The students will all leave. The students will all leave. *The students will leave all. *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. 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. V VPI I IP DP i Q QP the students all leave will titi

16. Expletive there Now, let’s think about the sentence There was a student reading a book. Now, let’s think about the sentence There was a student reading a book. Here, pretty much the only place a student could be is in SpecVP. Here, pretty much the only place a student could be is in SpecVP. There here is an expletive element, like it. It doesn’t get a  -role, it doesn’t add anything to the meaning. It satisfies the EPP. There here is an expletive element, like it. It doesn’t get a  -role, it doesn’t add anything to the meaning. It satisfies the EPP. DP a student VP V V reading DP a book V titi VP V i +I was IP I DP there

17. Expletive there If we hadn’t 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. If we hadn’t 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. DP tjtj VP V V reading DP a book V titi VP V i +I was IP I DP j A student

18. Expletive there Speaking of Case, hold on a second. How did a student get Case checked in There was a student reading a book? 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) 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 a student VP V V reading DP a book V titi VP V i +I was IP I DP there

19. Expletive there Notice that if the subject DP is plural, we get plural agreement on the auxiliary: There were students eating a pizza. 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. 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. 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 students VP V V eating DP a pizza V titi VP V i +I were IP I DP there

20. Expletive there The sentence behaves as if students actually had moved up to SpecIP and checked its features there. 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 that’s 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. This is actually a part of modern theory that’s 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 students VP V V eating DP a pizza V titi VP V i +I were IP I DP there

21. Expletive there 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, 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? So, is students nominative? DP students VP V V eating DP a pizza V titi VP V i +I were IP I DP there

22. Expletive there 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. 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 isn’t nominative, but rather objective: If you try hard, you can find evidence that suggests that it isn’t nominative, but rather objective: What do you remember of the scene in your dream? What do you remember of the scene in your dream? Well, there was either him or me eating a pizza in the corner—that, I remember. Well, there was either him or me eating a pizza in the corner—that, I remember. Let’s ignore this for now, and just assume that students can check its Case feature with I. Let’s ignore this for now, and just assume that students can check its Case feature with I. DP students VP V V eating DP a pizza V titi VP V i +I were IP I DP there

23. Expletive there One last thought about there… One last thought about there… If students is checking its Case feature with I, that means that there isn’t. If students is checking its Case feature with I, that means that there isn’t. That is, there doesn’t seem to have a Case feature of its own to check. It’s there solely to satisfy the EPP. That is, there doesn’t seem to have a Case feature of its own to check. It’s there solely to satisfy the EPP. This gives us way to differentiate expletive there from expletive it. This gives us way to differentiate expletive there from expletive it. Neither it nor there get a  -role, both it and there satisfy the EPP— but there doesn’t have a Case feature, while it does. Neither it nor there get a  -role, both it and there satisfy the EPP— but there doesn’t have a Case feature, while it does. DP students VP V V eating DP a pizza V titi VP V i +I were IP I DP there snowing VP V titi V i +I was IP I DP it

24. The VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis It seems that we are being led to a view under which the subject always starts in SpecVP. It seems that we are being led to a view under which the subject always starts in SpecVP. VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis The subject originates in the specifier of VP at DS. VP-Internal Subject Hypothesis The subject originates in the specifier of VP at DS. V V VP … I IP DP

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

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

27.  -role assignment If  -roles are assigned that locally, then we can think of  -role as happening essentially as part of Merge, effectively just like feature checking. If  -roles are assigned that locally, then we can think of  -role as happening essentially as part of Merge, effectively just like feature checking. If V has two  -roles to assign, it assigns/checks one (the internal  - role) on the first Merge, and the second one (the external  -role) in the second. If V has two  -roles to assign, it assigns/checks one (the internal  - role) on the first Merge, and the second one (the external  -role) in the second. V V VP I DP V VP DP eata pizza DP a pizza eat internal  -role external  -role

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. 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 find Bill intolerable. I consider Bill incompetent. I consider Bill incompetent. I want Bill off this ship. (Immediately!) I want Bill off this ship. (Immediately!)

29. Small clauses I find Bill intolerable. I find Bill intolerable. I consider Bill incompetent. I consider Bill incompetent. I want Bill off this ship. (Immediately!) I want Bill off this ship. (Immediately!) These have a pretty similar meaning as sentences with to be inserted after Bill, but yet there’s no to and no be… there’s no evidence of a IP or a VP in Bill intolerable. These have a pretty similar meaning as sentences with to be inserted after Bill, but yet there’s no to and no be… there’s 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 clauses—a little proposition headed not by a verb but by another kind of predicate, like an adjective. A common way to look at these sentences is as containing small clauses—a 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. 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. But unlike in a regular clause, it stays there, so we can see it in the specifier of the predicate. V V VPI I DP A AP DP intolerableBill tjtj find [pres] IP DP j I

31. Small clauses Whoops! Hold on there, slick. Whoops! Hold on there, slick. How did we get Bill in the specifier of intolerable? How did we get Bill in the specifier of intolerable? It can’t be done—or, rather, the tree shown there on the right can’t be formed. In that tree, Bill isn’t really in the specifier of AP, it’s a complement, but on the wrong side. It can’t be done—or, rather, the tree shown there on the right can’t be formed. In that tree, Bill isn’t really in the specifier of AP, it’s a complement, but on the wrong side. V V VPI I DP A AP DP intolerableBill tjtj find [pres] IP DP j I

32. Small clauses What we need to assume is that Bill moves from its original position in the complement of intolerable into SpecAP. 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  -role to assign, so it goes to Bill on the first Merge. Intolerable has a single “participant”, a single  -role to assign, so it goes to Bill on the first Merge. So why would Bill move? So why would Bill move? V V VPI I DP A AP DP i intolerable Bill tjtj find [pres] DP A titi IP DP j I

33. Small clauses Even in a small clause, all DPs need to check Case. 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? In this sentence I checks nominative Case from the finite main clause I. Where does Bill get Case? V V VPI I DP A AP DP i intolerable Bill tjtj find [pres] DP A titi IP DP j I

34. Small clauses Even in a small clause, all DPs need to check Case. 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? 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. Answer: from the transitive verb find, allowed because Bill is in the its radius of government. V V VPI I DP A AP DP i intolerable Bill tjtj find [pres] DP A titi IP DP j I

35. Small clauses How do we know that? How do we know that? Bill finds me intolerable. Bill finds me intolerable. Notice that the case of the pronoun which is the subject of the small clause is objective—it is the type of Case assigned by a transitive verb (and not the type of Case assigned by finite I). Notice that the case of the pronoun which is the subject of the small clause is objective—it is the type of Case assigned by a transitive verb (and not the type of Case assigned by finite I). *Bill finds I intolerable. *Bill finds I intolerable. V V VPI I DP A AP DP i intolerable me tjtj find [pres] DP A titi IP DP j Bill

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). 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. 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. finite = not to. Has tense and agreement features, checks Nom. V V VPI I DP A AP DP i intolerable me tjtj find [pres] DP A titi IP DP j Bill

37. ECM For example: Bill finds me to be intolerable. For example: Bill finds me to be intolerable. V V VPI I DP I IP DP i me tjtj find [pres] I titi IP DP j Bill A AP VP V DP be intolerable to

38. ECM For example: Bill finds me to be intolerable. Bill wants for me to eat cake. For example: Bill finds me to be intolerable. Bill wants for me to eat cake. V V VPI I DP I IP DP i me tjtj want [pres] I cake IP DP j Bill V V VP DP titi eat to C CP for

39.                       