1. Episode 4b. UTAH 4.3-4.4 CAS LX 522 Syntax I

2. We give trees to ditransitives You may recall our discussion of  -theory, where we triumphantly classified verbs as coming in three types: You may recall our discussion of  -theory, where we triumphantly classified verbs as coming in three types: Intransitive (1  -role) Intransitive (1  -role) Transitive (2  -roles) Transitive (2  -roles) Ditransitive (3  -roles) Ditransitive (3  -roles) Theta roles go to obligatory arguments, not to adjuncts. Theta roles go to obligatory arguments, not to adjuncts.

3. We give trees to ditransitives You may also recall that we believe that trees are binary branching, where: You may also recall that we believe that trees are binary branching, where: Syntactic objects are formed by Merge. Syntactic objects are formed by Merge. There’s just one complement and one specifier. There’s just one complement and one specifier.

4. We give trees to ditransitives Fantastic, except that these things just don’t fit together. Fantastic, except that these things just don’t fit together. We know what to do with transitive verbs. We know what to do with transitive verbs. But what do we do with ditransitive verbs? We’re out of space! But what do we do with ditransitive verbs? We’re out of space! OBJ V V VP SUB

5. Problems continue… I showed Mary to herself. I showed Mary to herself. *I showed herself to Mary. *I showed herself to Mary. I introduced nobody to anybody. I introduced nobody to anybody. *I introduced anybody to nobody. *I introduced anybody to nobody. This tells us something about the relationship between the direct and to-object in the structure. (What?) This tells us something about the relationship between the direct and to-object in the structure. (What?)

6. Problems continue… The OBJ c-commands the PP. But how could we draw a tree like that? The OBJ c-commands the PP. But how could we draw a tree like that? Even if we allowed adjuncts to get  -roles, the most natural structure would be to make the PP an adjunct, like this, but that doesn’t meet the c-command requirements. Even if we allowed adjuncts to get  -roles, the most natural structure would be to make the PP an adjunct, like this, but that doesn’t meet the c-command requirements. OBJ V SUB V V PP * VP

7. Some clues from idioms Often idiomatic meanings are associated with the verb+object complex—the meaning derives both from the verb and the object together. Often idiomatic meanings are associated with the verb+object complex—the meaning derives both from the verb and the object together. Suppose that this is due being Merged into the structure together initially. Suppose that this is due being Merged into the structure together initially. Bill threw a baseball. Bill threw a baseball. Bill threw his support behind the candidate. Bill threw his support behind the candidate. Bill threw the boxing match. Bill threw the boxing match.

8. Idioms in ditransitives In ditransitives, it seems like this happens with the PP. In ditransitives, it seems like this happens with the PP. Beethoven gave the Fifth Symphony to the world. Beethoven gave the Fifth Symphony to the world. Beethoven gave the Fifth Symphony to his patron. Beethoven gave the Fifth Symphony to his patron. Lasorda sent his starting pitcher to the showers. Lasorda sent his starting pitcher to the showers. Lasorda sent his starting pitcher to Amsterdam. Lasorda sent his starting pitcher to Amsterdam. Mary took Felix to task. Mary took Felix to task. Mary took Felix to the cleaners. Mary took Felix to the cleaners. Mary took Felix to his doctor’s appointment. Mary took Felix to his doctor’s appointment.

9. So V and PP are sisters… Larson (1988) took this as evidence that the V is a sister to the PP “originally.” Larson (1988) took this as evidence that the V is a sister to the PP “originally.” Yet, we see that on the surface the OBJ comes between the verb and the PP. Yet, we see that on the surface the OBJ comes between the verb and the PP. Mary sent a letter to Bill. Mary sent a letter to Bill. Where is the OBJ? It must c-command the PP, remember. Why is the V to the left of the OBJ when we hear it? Where is the OBJ? It must c-command the PP, remember. Why is the V to the left of the OBJ when we hear it? PP V V

10. Where’s the V? Where’s the OBJ? We can paraphrase John gave a book to Mary as John caused a book to go to Mary. We can paraphrase John gave a book to Mary as John caused a book to go to Mary. Chichewa: Chichewa: Mtsikana ana-chit-its-a kuti mtsuku u-gw-e girl agr-do-cause-asp that waterpot agr-fall-asp ‘The girl made the waterpot fall.’ Mtsikana ana-chit-its-a kuti mtsuku u-gw-e girl agr-do-cause-asp that waterpot agr-fall-asp ‘The girl made the waterpot fall.’ Mtsikana anau-gw-its-a kuti-mtsuku girl agr-fall-cause-asp that waterpot ‘The girl made the waterpot fall.’ Mtsikana anau-gw-its-a kuti-mtsuku girl agr-fall-cause-asp that waterpot ‘The girl made the waterpot fall.’ Suppose that in both cases Merge puts things together in the same way initially: Suppose that in both cases Merge puts things together in the same way initially: [[that waterpot] fall] [[that waterpot] fall]

11. Causatives Mtsikana ana-chit-its-a kuti mtsuku u-gw-e girl agr-do-cause-asp that waterpot agr-fall-asp ‘The girl made the waterpot fall.’ Mtsikana ana-chit-its-a kuti mtsuku u-gw-e girl agr-do-cause-asp that waterpot agr-fall-asp ‘The girl made the waterpot fall.’ Mtsikana anau-gw-its-a kuti-mtsuku girl agr-fall-cause-asp that waterpot ‘The girl made the waterpot fall.’ Mtsikana anau-gw-its-a kuti-mtsuku girl agr-fall-cause-asp that waterpot ‘The girl made the waterpot fall.’ [[that waterpot] fall] [[that waterpot] fall] Then it’s merged with cause (basically transitive: needs a causer and a causee): Then it’s merged with cause (basically transitive: needs a causer and a causee): [cause [[that waterpot] fall]] [cause [[that waterpot] fall]] And then it’s Merged with the Agent And then it’s Merged with the Agent [girl [cause [[that waterpot] fall]]] [girl [cause [[that waterpot] fall]]] At which point, one can move fall over to cause. At which point, one can move fall over to cause. [girl [cause+fall [[that waterpot] ]]] [girl [cause+fall [[that waterpot] ]]]

12. Ditransitives again The proposal will be that English ditransitives are really a lot like Chichewa causatives. The proposal will be that English ditransitives are really a lot like Chichewa causatives. One moves fall over to cause to get: One moves fall over to cause to get: [girl [cause+fall [[that waterpot] ]]] [girl [cause+fall [[that waterpot] ]]] Starting with Starting with [[the book] [go [to Mary]] [[the book] [go [to Mary]] Merging cause and an Agent Merging cause and an Agent [John [cause [[the book] [go [to Mary]]]]] [John [cause [[the book] [go [to Mary]]]]] One then moves go over to cause to get: One then moves go over to cause to get: [John [cause+go [[the book] [ [to Mary]]]]] [John [cause+go [[the book] [ [to Mary]]]]] John “gave” the book to Mary. John “gave” the book to Mary.

13. A very, very little bit of French If you’ve tried to learn any French at all, you’ve come across this phenomenon: If you’ve tried to learn any French at all, you’ve come across this phenomenon: de ‘of’le ‘the (masculine)’ de ‘of’le ‘the (masculine)’ à ‘at’la ‘the (feminine)’ à ‘at’la ‘the (feminine)’ à la biblioteque ‘to the library (fem)’ à la biblioteque ‘to the library (fem)’ *à le cinéma‘to the movies (masc)’ *à le cinéma‘to the movies (masc)’ au cinema‘to the movies (masc)’ au cinema‘to the movies (masc)’ de la mayonnaise‘of mayonnaise (fem)’ de la mayonnaise‘of mayonnaise (fem)’ *de le lait ‘of milk (masc)’ *de le lait ‘of milk (masc)’ du lait‘of milk’ (masc) du lait‘of milk’ (masc)

14. A very, very little bit of French This is usually taught as: This is usually taught as: au = à + le au = à + le du = de + le du = de + le If your underlying intent is à ‘at’ + le ‘the’, you pronounce it like au. If your underlying intent is à ‘at’ + le ‘the’, you pronounce it like au. So is au a preposition or an article? So is au a preposition or an article? There’s no reason to believe that au cinéma has a different syntactic structure from à la bibliotèque. There’s no reason to believe that au cinéma has a different syntactic structure from à la bibliotèque. This is just about how it is pronounced. This is just about how it is pronounced. Au = à + le. Give = cause + go. Au = à + le. Give = cause + go. N NP D PP P

15. Where’s the V? Where’s the OBJ? Larson’s proposal was basically this. Logically, if we’re going to have binary branching and three positions for argument XPs (SUB, OBJ, PP), we need to have another XP above the VP. Larson’s proposal was basically this. Logically, if we’re going to have binary branching and three positions for argument XPs (SUB, OBJ, PP), we need to have another XP above the VP. Since the subject is in the specifier of the higher XP, that must be a VP too. Since the subject is in the specifier of the higher XP, that must be a VP too. Ditransitive verbs really come in two parts. They are in a “VP shell” structure. Ditransitive verbs really come in two parts. They are in a “VP shell” structure. Furthermore, the higher part seems to correlate with a meaning of causation. Furthermore, the higher part seems to correlate with a meaning of causation. PP V V VP OBJ v v vPvP SUB

16. Where’s the V? Where’s the OBJ? The higher verb is a “light verb” (we’ll write it as vP to signify that)—its contribution is to assign the  -role to the subject. The lower verb assigns the  -roles to the OBJ and the PP. The higher verb is a “light verb” (we’ll write it as vP to signify that)—its contribution is to assign the  -role to the subject. The lower verb assigns the  -roles to the OBJ and the PP. That is, V has [uP, uN] features, and v has a [uN] feature. That is, V has [uP, uN] features, and v has a [uN] feature. Hierarchy of Projections (so far): Hierarchy of Projections (so far): v > V v > V “V comes with v” “V comes with v” PP V VP OBJ v v+V vPvP SUB

17. Where we are We’ve just come up with an analysis of sentences with ditransitive verbs, such as Pat gave books to Chris that accords with the constraints of the syntactic system we have developed so far. We’ve just come up with an analysis of sentences with ditransitive verbs, such as Pat gave books to Chris that accords with the constraints of the syntactic system we have developed so far. Merge is binary Merge is binary  -roles are assigned to specifiers and complements.  -roles are assigned to specifiers and complements. The solution is to assume a two-tiered structure, with a little v in addition to the VP. The solution is to assume a two-tiered structure, with a little v in addition to the VP. PP V V VP NP v v vPvP Pat books toChris NPP gave

18. Where we are The three  -roles for give are assigned like this: The three  -roles for give are assigned like this: The PP gets a Goal  -role. The PP gets a Goal  -role. The lower NP gets a Theme  -role. The lower NP gets a Theme  -role. The highest NP (in the specifier of vP) gets an Agent  -role. The highest NP (in the specifier of vP) gets an Agent  -role. But how did we know that? But how did we know that? More importantly, how do kids come to know that? More importantly, how do kids come to know that? Do they memorize this list for each verb they learn? Do they memorize this list for each verb they learn? PP V V VP NP v v vPvP Pat books toChris NPP gave

19. Uniformity of Theta Assignment If kids are really memorizing which  -role goes where for each verb, there should be some verbs that do it in other ways. If kids are really memorizing which  -role goes where for each verb, there should be some verbs that do it in other ways. For example, there might be a ditransitive verb with Theme in the specifier of vP, Goal in the specifier of VP, and Agent in the complement of VP. For example, there might be a ditransitive verb with Theme in the specifier of vP, Goal in the specifier of VP, and Agent in the complement of VP. E.g., to tup: Books tup on the shelf Chris ‘Chris put books on the shelf.’ E.g., to tup: Books tup on the shelf Chris ‘Chris put books on the shelf.’ Agent V V VP Goal v v vPvP Theme ? tup

20. Uniformity of Theta Assignment But that just never happens. But that just never happens. It seems that all verbs have  -role assignment that looks pretty much the same. It seems that all verbs have  -role assignment that looks pretty much the same. If there’s an Agent, it’s the first (uppermost) NP. If there’s an Agent, it’s the first (uppermost) NP. If there’s a Theme it’s down close to the verb. If there’s a Theme it’s down close to the verb. Given that things seem to be relatively uniform, it has been proposed that this is a fundamental property of the syntactic system. Each  -role has a consistent place in the structure. Given that things seem to be relatively uniform, it has been proposed that this is a fundamental property of the syntactic system. Each  -role has a consistent place in the structure. Agent V V VP Goal v v vPvP Theme  tup

21. UTAH The Uniformity of Theta-Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH): Identical thematic relationships between predicates and their arguments are represented syntactically by identical structural relationships when items are Merged. The Uniformity of Theta-Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH): Identical thematic relationships between predicates and their arguments are represented syntactically by identical structural relationships when items are Merged. That is, all Agents are structurally in the same place (when first Merged). All Patients are structurally in the same place, etc. That is, all Agents are structurally in the same place (when first Merged). All Patients are structurally in the same place, etc. We can take this to be a property of the interpretation. When a structure is interpreted, the  - role an argument gets depends on where it was first Merged. We can take this to be a property of the interpretation. When a structure is interpreted, the  - role an argument gets depends on where it was first Merged.

22.  -roles and structure Great. So, the Agent (Pat) in Pat gave books to Chris is in the specifier of vP. Because that’s where Agents go. Great. So, the Agent (Pat) in Pat gave books to Chris is in the specifier of vP. Because that’s where Agents go. But.. What about structures like the ones we had before for things like Pat called Chris? But.. What about structures like the ones we had before for things like Pat called Chris? Pat calledChris NP VP NPV V PP V V VP NP v v vPvP Pat books toChris NPP gave ?

23.  -roles and structure Well, if we’re serious about working within the constraints of UTAH, we need a v there too— to host the Agent. Well, if we’re serious about working within the constraints of UTAH, we need a v there too— to host the Agent. Hierarchy of Projection: v > V Hierarchy of Projection: v > V calledChris NPV VPVPPP V V VP NP v v vPvP Pat books toChris NPP gave v v vPvP NP Pat

24.  -roles and structure Specifier of vP = Agent Specifier of vP = Agent But where’s the Theme? Isn’t that in different places in Pat called Chris and Pat gave books to Chris? But where’s the Theme? Isn’t that in different places in Pat called Chris and Pat gave books to Chris? calledChris NPV VPVPPP V V VP NP v v vPvP Pat books toChris NPP gave v v vPvP NP Pat

25.  -roles and structure NP, daughter of vP = Agent NP, daughter of vP = Agent NP, daughter of VP = Theme NP, daughter of VP = Theme PP, daughter of V = Goal PP, daughter of V = Goal That seems to work, and it seems a reasonable interpretation of UTAH. That seems to work, and it seems a reasonable interpretation of UTAH. calledChris NPV VPVPPP V V VP NP v v vPvP Pat books toChris NPP gave v v vPvP NP Pat

26. Unaccusatives vs. unergatives Recall that there are two types of single- argument (intransitive) verbs in terms of the  -role they assign to their single argument. Recall that there are two types of single- argument (intransitive) verbs in terms of the  -role they assign to their single argument. Unaccusatives: Have one, Theme  -role. Unaccusatives: Have one, Theme  -role. Fall, sink, break, close Fall, sink, break, close Unergatives: Have one, Agent  -role. Unergatives: Have one, Agent  -role. Walk, dance, laugh Walk, dance, laugh

27. Unaccusatives vs. unergatives Unaccusatives: Have one, Theme  -role. Unaccusatives: Have one, Theme  -role. Fall, sink, break, close Fall, sink, break, close Unergatives: Have one, Agent  -role. Unergatives: Have one, Agent  -role. Walk, dance, laugh Walk, dance, laugh If we adopt the UTAH, then we are forced to a certain view of the original Merges. If we adopt the UTAH, then we are forced to a certain view of the original Merges. If you’re going to be a Theme, you need to be NP daughter of VP. If you’re going to be a Theme, you need to be NP daughter of VP. If you’re going to be an Agent, you need to be NP daughter of vP. If you’re going to be an Agent, you need to be NP daughter of vP. (Is it bad to be forced into an analysis?) (Is it bad to be forced into an analysis?)

28. Unaccusatives Let’s go back and consider VP shells a bit in connection with unaccusatives. Let’s go back and consider VP shells a bit in connection with unaccusatives. The ice melted. The ice melted. The boat sank. The boat sank. The door closed. The door closed. The ice, the boat, the door are all Themes— the argument starts as NP daughter of VP. The ice, the boat, the door are all Themes— the argument starts as NP daughter of VP. Unaccusatives have a relatively “inert” v, no “causal” meaning. Unaccusatives have a relatively “inert” v, no “causal” meaning. There are two kinds of v, the causal one that needs an NP (Agent), and a non-causal one. There are two kinds of v, the causal one that needs an NP (Agent), and a non-causal one. What if we pick the causal v (and provide an Agent NP)? What if we pick the causal v (and provide an Agent NP)? NP VPVP V the icemelt vPvP v

29. VP shells Bill melted the ice. Bill melted the ice. Straightforward enough. The causal v adds an Agent. Straightforward enough. The causal v adds an Agent. Bill was the agent/instigator of a melting that affected the ice. Bill was the agent/instigator of a melting that affected the ice. Why isn’t the unaccusative version Melted the ice, though? Why isn’t the unaccusative version Melted the ice, though? (English being head-initial, after all) (English being head-initial, after all) v v vPvP NP VPVP V the icemelt NP Bill

30. Preview Why isn’t the unaccusative version Melted the ice, though? Why isn’t the unaccusative version Melted the ice, though? (English being head-initial, after all) (English being head-initial, after all) We will turn to this question more thoroughly next. But to a first approximation, we say that: We will turn to this question more thoroughly next. But to a first approximation, we say that: Sentences need subjects. Sentences need subjects. Subjects come first. Subjects come first. Since there is only one NP here, it has to be the subject, and it has to come first. Since there is only one NP here, it has to be the subject, and it has to come first. We suppose that a movement operation (something like what happens to give when it moves up to v) carries the subject over to the left of the vP. We suppose that a movement operation (something like what happens to give when it moves up to v) carries the subject over to the left of the vP. vPvP v NP VPVP V the icemelt

31. Preview Sentences need subjects. Sentences need subjects. Subjects come first. Subjects come first. Since there is only one NP here, it has to be the subject, and it has to come first. Since there is only one NP here, it has to be the subject, and it has to come first. We suppose that a movement operation (something like what happens to give when it moves up to v) carries the subject over to the left of the vP. We suppose that a movement operation (something like what happens to give when it moves up to v) carries the subject over to the left of the vP. As for where it goes (how it is integrated into the structure), we’ll concern ourselves more with that next week. As for where it goes (how it is integrated into the structure), we’ll concern ourselves more with that next week. vPvP v+V NP VPVP V melt NP the ice

32. Bill lied. Just to address the last case, the unergatives, consider Bill lied. Just to address the last case, the unergatives, consider Bill lied. That’s got an Agent, so it’s got a v. That’s got an Agent, so it’s got a v. So, it would look like this. So, it would look like this. v v vPvP VP lie NP Bill

33. Auxiliary selection Molte ragazze telefonano many girls phone ‘Many girls are phoning.’ Molte ragazze telefonano many girls phone ‘Many girls are phoning.’ Molte ragazze arrivano many girls arrive ‘Many girls are arriving.’ Molte ragazze arrivano many girls arrive ‘Many girls are arriving.’ Molte ragazze hanno telefonato many girls have phone[past-part.3sg] ‘Many girls phoned.’ Molte ragazze hanno telefonato many girls have phone[past-part.3sg] ‘Many girls phoned.’ Molte ragazze sono arrivate. Many girls are arrive[past-part.3pl] ‘Many girls arrived.’ Molte ragazze sono arrivate. Many girls are arrive[past-part.3pl] ‘Many girls arrived.’

34. Auxiliary selection Molte ragazze telefonano many girls phone ‘Many girls are phoning.’ Molte ragazze telefonano many girls phone ‘Many girls are phoning.’ Molte ragazze arrivano many girls arrive ‘Many girls are arriving.’ Molte ragazze arrivano many girls arrive ‘Many girls are arriving.’ Molte ragazze hanno telefonato many girls have phone[past-part.3sg] ‘Many girls phoned.’ Molte ragazze hanno telefonato many girls have phone[past-part.3sg] ‘Many girls phoned.’ Molte ragazze sono arrivate. Many girls are arrive[past-part.3pl] ‘Many girls arrived.’ Molte ragazze sono arrivate. Many girls are arrive[past-part.3pl] ‘Many girls arrived.’

35. Double objects Just as you can give a book to Chris, so can you give Chris a book. Just as you can give a book to Chris, so can you give Chris a book. But… But… If we try to analyze Pat gave Chris a book in the same way, we run into trouble. If we try to analyze Pat gave Chris a book in the same way, we run into trouble.

36. Pat gave Chris a book NP, daughter of vP = Agent NP, daughter of vP = Agent NP, daughter of VP = Theme NP, daughter of VP = Theme PP, daughter of V = Goal PP, daughter of V = Goal See the problem? See the problem? If we believe the UTAH, this can’t be right. If we believe the UTAH, this can’t be right. V V VP NP v v vPvP Pat Chris a book NP go (“gave”) ?

37. Two kinds of giving The two forms of give are not quite equivalent, though: The two forms of give are not quite equivalent, though: Pat gave a book to Chris. Pat gave a book to Chris. Pat gave Chris a book. Pat gave Chris a book. *Pat gave a headache to Chris. *Pat gave a headache to Chris. Pat gave Chris a headache. Pat gave Chris a headache. Try paraphrasing… Try paraphrasing… Pat sent a letter to Chicago. Pat sent a letter to Chicago. *Pat sent Chicago a letter. *Pat sent Chicago a letter. Pat taught French to the students. Pat taught French to the students. Pat taught the students French. Pat taught the students French.

38. To have NP, daughter of vP = Agent NP, daughter of vP = Agent NP, daughter of VP = Theme NP, daughter of VP = Theme PP, daughter of V = Goal PP, daughter of V = Goal NP, daughter of V = Possessee NP, daughter of V = Possessee This might solve the problem. This might solve the problem. hasa book NPV VPVPv vPvP Pat V V V VP NP v v vPvP Pat Chris a book NP have (“gave”)

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