Episode 4a. Binding Theory, NPIs, c- command, ditransitives, and little v CAS LX 522 Syntax I

A phrase A full phrase can have all of these pieces (plus perhaps some additional adjuncts) A full phrase can have all of these pieces (plus perhaps some additional adjuncts) specifier complementhead [X, …] X XP intermediate projection maximal projection minimal projection adjunct XP maximal projection

Complements vs. adjuncts PPs seem to be freely reorderable— when they are adjuncts. PPs seem to be freely reorderable— when they are adjuncts. I ate lunch on Tuesday at Taco Bell with Pat I ate lunch on Tuesday at Taco Bell with Pat I ate lunch on Tuesday with Pat at Taco Bell I ate lunch on Tuesday with Pat at Taco Bell I ate lunch with Pat on Tuesday at Taco Bell I ate lunch with Pat on Tuesday at Taco Bell I ate lunch on Tuesday with Pat at Taco Bell I ate lunch on Tuesday with Pat at Taco Bell etc… etc… But consider glance at Chris. But consider glance at Chris. I glanced at Chris on Tuesday I glanced at Chris on Tuesday *I glanced on Tuesday at Chris *I glanced on Tuesday at Chris Ok: Why? Ok: Why?

Binding Theory Binding Theory consists of three Principles that govern the allowed distribution of NPs. Binding Theory consists of three Principles that govern the allowed distribution of NPs. Pronouns: he, her, it, she, … Pronouns: he, her, it, she, … Anaphors: himself, herself, itself, … Anaphors: himself, herself, itself, … R-expressions: John, the student, … R-expressions: John, the student, …

R-expressions and anaphors R-expressions are NPs like Pat, or the professor, or an unlucky farmer, which get their meaning by referring to something in the world. Most NPs are like this. R-expressions are NPs like Pat, or the professor, or an unlucky farmer, which get their meaning by referring to something in the world. Most NPs are like this. An anaphor does not get its meaning from something in the world—it depends on something else in the sentence. An anaphor does not get its meaning from something in the world—it depends on something else in the sentence. John saw himself in the mirror. John saw himself in the mirror. Mary bought herself a sandwich. Mary bought herself a sandwich.

Pronouns A pronoun is similar to an anaphor in that it doesn’t refer to something in the world but gets its reference from somewhere else. A pronoun is similar to an anaphor in that it doesn’t refer to something in the world but gets its reference from somewhere else. John told Mary that he likes pizza. John told Mary that he likes pizza. Mary wondered if she agreed. Mary wondered if she agreed. …but it doesn’t need to be something in the sentence. …but it doesn’t need to be something in the sentence. Mary concluded that he was crazy. Mary concluded that he was crazy.

The problem There are very specific configurations in which pronouns, anaphors, and R-expressions can/must be used. Even though both he and himself could refer to John below, you can’t just choose freely between them. There are very specific configurations in which pronouns, anaphors, and R-expressions can/must be used. Even though both he and himself could refer to John below, you can’t just choose freely between them. John saw himself. John saw himself. *John saw him. *John saw him. John thinks that Mary likes him. John thinks that Mary likes him. *John thinks that Mary likes himself. *John thinks that Mary likes himself. John thinks that he is a genius. John thinks that he is a genius. *John thinks that himself is a genius. *John thinks that himself is a genius. The question Binding Theory strives to answer is: When do you use anaphors, pronouns, and R-expressions? The question Binding Theory strives to answer is: When do you use anaphors, pronouns, and R-expressions?

Indices and antecedents Anaphors and pronouns are referentially dependent; they can (or must) be co- referential with another NP in the sentence. Anaphors and pronouns are referentially dependent; they can (or must) be co- referential with another NP in the sentence. The way we indicate that two NPs are co- referential is by means of an index, usually a subscripted letter. Two NPs that share the same index (that are coindexed) also share the same referent. The way we indicate that two NPs are co- referential is by means of an index, usually a subscripted letter. Two NPs that share the same index (that are coindexed) also share the same referent. John i saw himself i in the mirror. John i saw himself i in the mirror.

Indices and antecedents John i saw himself i in the mirror. John i saw himself i in the mirror. An index functions as a “pointer” into our mental model of the world. An index functions as a “pointer” into our mental model of the world. John here is a name that “points” to our mental representation of some guy, John, which we notate by giving the pointing relation a label (“i”). John here is a name that “points” to our mental representation of some guy, John, which we notate by giving the pointing relation a label (“i”). himself here shares the same pointing relation, it “points” to the same guy John that John does. himself here shares the same pointing relation, it “points” to the same guy John that John does. So, any two NPs that share an index (pointing relation) necessarily refer to the same thing. So, any two NPs that share an index (pointing relation) necessarily refer to the same thing.

Indices and antecedents John i saw himself i in the mirror. John i saw himself i in the mirror. The NP from which an anaphor or pronoun draws its reference is called the antecedent. The NP from which an anaphor or pronoun draws its reference is called the antecedent. John is the antecedent for himself. John and himself are co-referential. John is the antecedent for himself. John and himself are co-referential.

Constraints on co-reference John i saw himself i. John i saw himself i. *Himself i saw John i. *Himself i saw John i. *John i ’s mother saw himself i. *John i ’s mother saw himself i. It is impossible to assign the same referent to John and himself in the second and third sentences. What is different between the good and bad sentences? It is impossible to assign the same referent to John and himself in the second and third sentences. What is different between the good and bad sentences?

John’s mother John’s mother is an NP. John’s mother is an NP. [John’s mother] i saw herself i. [John’s mother] i saw herself i. She saw John. She saw John. But it’s an NP that is made up of smaller pieces (John’s and mother). But it’s an NP that is made up of smaller pieces (John’s and mother). So what is the internal structure of the NP John’s mother? So what is the internal structure of the NP John’s mother?

[ NP John’s mother] Remember that pronouns come in three distinguishable forms (in English): Remember that pronouns come in three distinguishable forms (in English): I, he, shenominative I, he, shenominative Me, him, heraccusative Me, him, heraccusative My, his, hergenitive My, his, hergenitive The genitive case forms seem to have pretty much the same kind of “possessive” meaning that John’s does. The genitive case forms seem to have pretty much the same kind of “possessive” meaning that John’s does. So, let’s suppose that John’s is the genitive case form of John. So, let’s suppose that John’s is the genitive case form of John.

[ NP John’s mother] Another point about John’s mother is that it seems that the head should be mother. Another point about John’s mother is that it seems that the head should be mother. John’s sort of modifies mother. John’s sort of modifies mother. Sort of like an adjective does… sort of like an adverb does for a verb… Sort of like an adjective does… sort of like an adverb does for a verb… Let’s suppose (for now! In chapter 7 we’ll revise this) that John’s is just adjoined to the NP mother. Let’s suppose (for now! In chapter 7 we’ll revise this) that John’s is just adjoined to the NP mother. (Hard to draw clearly) (Hard to draw clearly) NP motherJohn’s NP i NP

Binding What is the difference between the relationship between John and himself in the first case and in the second case? What is the difference between the relationship between John and himself in the first case and in the second case? see himself NP NP i V John sawhimself NP i VP NP i V V motherJohn’s NP i * VP V NP

Binding We think of the position that John is in in the first tree as being a position from which it “commands” the rest of the tree. It is hierarchically superior in a particular way. We think of the position that John is in in the first tree as being a position from which it “commands” the rest of the tree. It is hierarchically superior in a particular way. see himself NP NP i V John sawhimself NP i VP NP i V V motherJohn’s NP i * VP V NP

Tree relations A node X c-commands its sisters and the nodes dominated by its sisters. A node X c-commands its sisters and the nodes dominated by its sisters. A BC D E

Tree relations A node X c-commands its sisters and the nodes dominated by its sisters. A node X c-commands its sisters and the nodes dominated by its sisters. B c-commands C, D, and E. B c-commands C, D, and E. A BC D E

Tree relations A node X c-commands its sisters and the nodes dominated by its sisters. A node X c-commands its sisters and the nodes dominated by its sisters. B c-commands C, D, and E. B c-commands C, D, and E. D c-commands E. D c-commands E. A BC D E

Tree relations A node X c-commands its sisters and the nodes dominated by its sisters. A node X c-commands its sisters and the nodes dominated by its sisters. B c-commands C, D, and E. B c-commands C, D, and E. D c-commands E. D c-commands E. C c-commands B. C c-commands B. A BC D E

Binding So, again what is the difference between the relationship between John and himself in the first case and in the second case? So, again what is the difference between the relationship between John and himself in the first case and in the second case? see himself NP NP i V John sawhimself NP i VP NP i V V motherJohn’s NP i * VP V NP

Binding In the first case, the NP John c-commands the NP himself. But not in the second case. In the first case, the NP John c-commands the NP himself. But not in the second case. see himself NP NP i V John sawhimself NP i VP NP i V V motherJohn’s NP i * VP V NP

Binding When one NP c-commands and is coindexed with another NP, the first is said to bind the other. When one NP c-commands and is coindexed with another NP, the first is said to bind the other. see himself NP NP i V John sawhimself NP i VP NP i V V motherJohn’s NP i * VP V NP

Binding Definition: A binds B iff Definition: A binds B iff A c-commands B A c-commands B A is coindexed with B “if and only if” A is coindexed with B “if and only if” see himself NP NP i V John sawhimself NP i VP NP i V V motherJohn’s NP i * VP V NP

Binding Principle A of the Binding Theory (preliminary) : An anaphor must be bound. Principle A of the Binding Theory (preliminary) : An anaphor must be bound. see himself NP NP i V John sawhimself NP i VP NP i V V motherJohn’s NP i * VP V NP

Principle A This also explains why the following sentences are ungrammatical: This also explains why the following sentences are ungrammatical: *Himself i saw John i in the mirror. *Himself i saw John i in the mirror. *Herself i likes Mary i ’s father. *Herself i likes Mary i ’s father. *Himself i likes Mary’s father i. *Himself i likes Mary’s father i. There is nothing which c-commands and is coindexed with himself and herself. The anaphors are not bound, which violates Principle A. There is nothing which c-commands and is coindexed with himself and herself. The anaphors are not bound, which violates Principle A.

Binding domains But this is not the end of the story; consider But this is not the end of the story; consider *John i said that himself i likes pizza. *John i said that himself i likes pizza. *John i said that Mary called himself i. *John i said that Mary called himself i. In these sentences the NP John c-commands and is coindexed with (=binds) himself, satisfying our preliminary version of Principle A—but the sentences are ungrammatical. In these sentences the NP John c-commands and is coindexed with (=binds) himself, satisfying our preliminary version of Principle A—but the sentences are ungrammatical. John didn’t say that anyone likes pizza. John didn’t say that anyone likes pizza. John didn’t say that Mary called anyone. John didn’t say that Mary called anyone.

Binding domains John i saw himself i in the mirror. John i saw himself i in the mirror. John i gave a book to himself i. John i gave a book to himself i. *John i said that himself i is a genius. *John i said that himself i is a genius. *John i said that Mary dislikes himself i. *John i said that Mary dislikes himself i. What is wrong? John binds himself in every case. What is different? What is wrong? John binds himself in every case. What is different? In the ungrammatical cases, himself is in an embedded clause. In the ungrammatical cases, himself is in an embedded clause.

Binding domains It seems that not only does an anaphor need to be bound, it needs to be bound nearby (or locally). It seems that not only does an anaphor need to be bound, it needs to be bound nearby (or locally). Principle A (revised): An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. Binding Domain (preliminary): The binding domain of an anaphor is the smallest clause containing it. Principle A (revised): An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. Binding Domain (preliminary): The binding domain of an anaphor is the smallest clause containing it.

Pronouns *John i saw him i in the mirror. *John i saw him i in the mirror. John i said that he i is a genius. John i said that he i is a genius. John i said that Mary dislikes him i. John i said that Mary dislikes him i. John i saw him j in the mirror. John i saw him j in the mirror. How does the distribution of pronouns differ from the distribution of anaphors? How does the distribution of pronouns differ from the distribution of anaphors? It looks like it is just the opposite. It looks like it is just the opposite.

Principle B Principle B A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. Free Not bound Principle B A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. Free Not bound *John i saw him i. *John i saw him i. John i ’s mother saw him i. John i ’s mother saw him i.

Principle C We now know where pronouns and anaphors are allowed. So what’s wrong with these sentences? The pronouns are unbound as needed for Principle B. What are the binding relations here? We now know where pronouns and anaphors are allowed. So what’s wrong with these sentences? The pronouns are unbound as needed for Principle B. What are the binding relations here? *He i likes John i. *He i likes John i. *She i said that Mary i fears clowns. *She i said that Mary i fears clowns. His i mother likes John i. His i mother likes John i.

Principle C Binding is a means of assigning reference. Binding is a means of assigning reference. R-expressions have intrinsic reference; they can’t be assigned their reference from somewhere else. R-expressions have intrinsic reference; they can’t be assigned their reference from somewhere else. R-expressions can’t be bound, at all. R-expressions can’t be bound, at all. Principle C An R-expression must be free. Principle C An R-expression must be free.

Binding Theory Principle A. An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. Principle A. An anaphor must be bound in its binding domain. Principle B. A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. Principle B. A pronoun must be free in its binding domain. Principle C. An R-expression must be free. Principle C. An R-expression must be free. The binding domain for an anaphor is the smallest clause that contains it. The binding domain for an anaphor is the smallest clause that contains it. Bound: coindexed with a c-commanding antecedent (Free: not bound). Bound: coindexed with a c-commanding antecedent (Free: not bound).

Constraints on interpretation Binding Theory is about interpretation. Binding Theory is about interpretation. Only a structure that satisfies Binding Theory is interpretable. Only a structure that satisfies Binding Theory is interpretable. Lexicon Workbench Merge pronounce interpret

Constraints on interpretation If we put together a tree that isn’t interpretable, the process (derivation) is sometimes said to crash. If we put together a tree that isn’t interpretable, the process (derivation) is sometimes said to crash. Lexicon Workbench Merge pronounce interpret

Constraints on interpretation If we succeed in putting together a tree that is interpretable (satisfying the constraints), we say the process (derivation) converges. If we succeed in putting together a tree that is interpretable (satisfying the constraints), we say the process (derivation) converges. Lexicon Workbench Merge pronounce interpret

Negative Polarity Items Certain words in English seem to only be available in “negative” contexts. Certain words in English seem to only be available in “negative” contexts. Pat didn’t invite anyone to the party. Pat didn’t invite anyone to the party. Pat does not know anything about syntax. Pat does not know anything about syntax. Pat hasn’t ever been to London. Pat hasn’t ever been to London. Pat hasn’t seen Forrest Gump yet. Pat hasn’t seen Forrest Gump yet. *Pat invited anyone to the party. *Pat invited anyone to the party. *Pat knows anything about syntax. *Pat knows anything about syntax. *Pat has ever been to London. *Pat has ever been to London. *Pat has seen Forrest Gump yet. *Pat has seen Forrest Gump yet.

Negative Polarity Items These are called negative polarity items. These are called negative polarity items. They include ever, yet, anyone, anything, any N, as well as some idiomatic ones like lift a finger and a red cent. They include ever, yet, anyone, anything, any N, as well as some idiomatic ones like lift a finger and a red cent. Pat didn’t lift a finger to help. Pat didn’t lift a finger to help. Pat didn’t have a red cent. Pat didn’t have a red cent. *Pat lifted a finger to help. *Pat lifted a finger to help. *Pat had a red cent. *Pat had a red cent.

Licensing NPI’s are only allowed to appear if there’s a negative in the sentence. NPI’s are only allowed to appear if there’s a negative in the sentence. John didn’t invite Mary to the party, did he? John didn’t invite Mary to the party, did he? John didn’t invite anyone to the party. John didn’t invite anyone to the party. John invited Mary to the party, didn’t he? John invited Mary to the party, didn’t he? *John invited anyone to the party. *John invited anyone to the party. Nobody invited Mary to the party, did they? Nobody invited Mary to the party, did they? Nobody invited anyone to the party. Nobody invited anyone to the party. We say that negation gives them “license to appear”: NPI’s are licensed by negation in a sentence. We say that negation gives them “license to appear”: NPI’s are licensed by negation in a sentence. Just like you need a driver’s license to drive a car (legally), you need negation to use a NPI (grammatically). Just like you need a driver’s license to drive a car (legally), you need negation to use a NPI (grammatically).

Any Just to introduce a complication right away, there is a positive-polarity version of any that has a different meaning, known as the “free choice any” meaning. This meaning is distinguishable (intuitively) from the NPI any meaning, and we are concentrating only on the NPI any meaning—for now, we will just consider any to be ambiguous, like bank. Just to introduce a complication right away, there is a positive-polarity version of any that has a different meaning, known as the “free choice any” meaning. This meaning is distinguishable (intuitively) from the NPI any meaning, and we are concentrating only on the NPI any meaning—for now, we will just consider any to be ambiguous, like bank. John read anything the professor gave him. John read anything the professor gave him. Anyone who can understand syntax is a genius. Anyone who can understand syntax is a genius. In fact, there are a couple of things other than negation that license NPIs, though we’ll ignore them for now. In fact, there are a couple of things other than negation that license NPIs, though we’ll ignore them for now. Pick any card. Pick any card. Did anyone bring cake? Did anyone bring cake?

Negative Polarity Items But it isn’t quite as simple as that. Consider: But it isn’t quite as simple as that. Consider: I didn’t see anyone. I didn’t see anyone. *I saw anyone. *I saw anyone. *Anyone didn’t see me. *Anyone didn’t see me. *Anyone saw me. *Anyone saw me. It seems that simply having negation in the sentence isn’t by itself enough to license the use of an NPI. It seems that simply having negation in the sentence isn’t by itself enough to license the use of an NPI.

Negative Polarity Items As a first pass, we might say that negation has to precede the NPI. As a first pass, we might say that negation has to precede the NPI. I didn’t see anyone. Nobody saw anyone. I didn’t see anyone. Nobody saw anyone. *Anyone didn’t see me. *Anyone saw nobody. *Anyone didn’t see me. *Anyone saw nobody. But that’s not quite it either. But that’s not quite it either. *[The picture of nobody] pleased anyone. *[The picture of nobody] pleased anyone.

Negative Polarity Items *[The picture of nobody] surprised anyone *[The picture of nobody] surprised anyone Nothing surprised anyone Nothing surprised anyone VP VNP The picture of nobody surprisedanyone V nothing suprised anyone NP i VP NP i V V

Giving 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.

Giving 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.

Giving 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

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?)

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

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.

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.

So V and PP are sisters… Larson (1988) took this as evidence that the V is a sister to the PP oringinally. Larson (1988) took this as evidence that the V is a sister to the PP oringinally. 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

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]

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] ]]]

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.

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

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

Exercise to ponder Young kids (5-6 years) seem to accept sentences like (1) as meaning what (2) means for adults. Young kids (5-6 years) seem to accept sentences like (1) as meaning what (2) means for adults. (1) Mama Bear is pointing to her. (1) Mama Bear is pointing to her. (2) Mama Bear is pointing to herself. (2) Mama Bear is pointing to herself. Suppose that contrary to appearances, kids do know and obey Principle B. Look carefully at the definitions of Binding Theory. If Principle B isn’t the problem, what do you think kids are getting wrong to allow (1) to have the meaning of (2)? Suppose that contrary to appearances, kids do know and obey Principle B. Look carefully at the definitions of Binding Theory. If Principle B isn’t the problem, what do you think kids are getting wrong to allow (1) to have the meaning of (2)? Think in particular about how you decide which index to assign to her. What is the implication of having the same index? What is the implication of having different indices? Think in particular about how you decide which index to assign to her. What is the implication of having the same index? What is the implication of having different indices?

                      