Week 4a. The DP and the geometry of trees CAS LX 522 Syntax I.

Week 4a. The DP and the geometry of trees CAS LX 522 Syntax I

Previously, in LX522… Sentences are made of constituents, themselves possibly made of constituents, etc. Sentences are made of constituents, themselves possibly made of constituents, etc. [The kid [who [dropped [the cookie]]]] [ate [it]] [The kid [who [dropped [the cookie]]]] [ate [it]] Any account of syntactic knowledge will need to provide this kind of hierarchical structure. Any account of syntactic knowledge will need to provide this kind of hierarchical structure. Overall idea: The syntactic system we have in our head builds trees, such that all and only the trees that the system can build are grammatical. Overall idea: The syntactic system we have in our head builds trees, such that all and only the trees that the system can build are grammatical. To the extent that grammatical and ungrammatical sentences are distinguished in terms of the hierarchical structure, it must be part of the system. To the extent that grammatical and ungrammatical sentences are distinguished in terms of the hierarchical structure, it must be part of the system.

Minimalism As we try to determine what the properties of this grammatical system are, we should assume as little as we can get away with. As we try to determine what the properties of this grammatical system are, we should assume as little as we can get away with. Any language-like system that is going to create hierarchical structure is going to need something that takes two (or more, but let’s say that “two is simpler than any other number”) things and puts them together into something eligible for further combinations. Any language-like system that is going to create hierarchical structure is going to need something that takes two (or more, but let’s say that “two is simpler than any other number”) things and puts them together into something eligible for further combinations. So, the machine that builds the trees has at least the operation Merge. So, the machine that builds the trees has at least the operation Merge.

X-theory A phrase is a syntactic object formed by combining (merging) two syntactic objects, with the properties inherited from one of them (the head of the phrase). A phrase is a syntactic object formed by combining (merging) two syntactic objects, with the properties inherited from one of them (the head of the phrase). A word is a syntactic object. A word is a syntactic object. specifier complement X YP X XP head ZP intermediate projection maximal projection minimal projection

X-theory In the ’70s and ’80s, these ideas went by the name “X-theory”. In the ’70s and ’80s, these ideas went by the name “X-theory”. Every XP has exactly one: Every XP has exactly one: head (a lexical item) head (a lexical item) complement (another XP) complement (another XP) specifier (another XP) specifier (another XP) for any X (N, V, A, P, I, etc.) for any X (N, V, A, P, I, etc.) specifier complement X YP X XP head ZP intermediate projection maximal projection minimal projection

Radford and the X(P) To forestall confusion: lunch is both a minimal projection and a maximal projection. It functions as a phrase, an XP, but it has nothing in it but a head, an X. To forestall confusion: lunch is both a minimal projection and a maximal projection. It functions as a phrase, an XP, but it has nothing in it but a head, an X. Since you need to write something, Radford generally opts to write X for these X/XPs. Since you need to write something, Radford generally opts to write X for these X/XPs. eatlunch VNP VP

Radford and the X(P) In this class, and on my overheads, I will usually write X/XP as XP. You should do the same, but you should be aware that Radford does it differently. In this class, and on my overheads, I will usually write X/XP as XP. You should do the same, but you should be aware that Radford does it differently. In general, this will depend on whether the properties we are focusing on are those of phrases (XPs) or heads (Xs). In these ambiguous cases, it will almost invariably turn out that they act like phrases with respect to what we are focusing on. In general, this will depend on whether the properties we are focusing on are those of phrases (XPs) or heads (Xs). In these ambiguous cases, it will almost invariably turn out that they act like phrases with respect to what we are focusing on. eatlunch VNP VP

Radford and the X(P) Another similar comment pertains to the status of IP below. It is an IP. It is not an I. It’s true that it will be an I after we combine Pat with the IP, but it isn’t yet. Cf. Radford p. 120. Another similar comment pertains to the status of IP below. It is an IP. It is not an I. It’s true that it will be an I after we combine Pat with the IP, but it isn’t yet. Cf. Radford p. 120. Pat eatlunch I VNP NIP will VP

X, X, XP In English, the head and the complement always seem to come in that order: head-complement. In English, the head and the complement always seem to come in that order: head-complement. at lunch(P NP = PP) at lunch(P NP = PP) eat lunch(V NP = VP) eat lunch(V NP = VP) will eat lunch(I VP = IP) will eat lunch(I VP = IP) But here, languages differ. English is a head-first (or head-initial) language. But here, languages differ. English is a head-first (or head-initial) language. atlunch PNP PP

X, X, XP In Japanese, the head follows the complement. Japanese is head-final. In Japanese, the head follows the complement. Japanese is head-final. ringo-o tabeta(NP V = VP) apple ate ringo-o tabeta(NP V = VP) apple ate toshokan de(NP P = PP) library at toshokan de(NP P = PP) library at This seems to be a parameter that distinguishes languages (the head parameter) This seems to be a parameter that distinguishes languages (the head parameter) toshokande NPP PP

X, X, XP Whether the specifier comes before X or after is independent of whether the head comes before the complement. Whether the specifier comes before X or after is independent of whether the head comes before the complement. Specifiers are overwhelmingly initial, although a few languages may be best analyzed as having final specifiers (sometimes). Specifiers are overwhelmingly initial, although a few languages may be best analyzed as having final specifiers (sometimes). E.g., Japanese, which is head-final, nevertheless has initial specifiers. E.g., Japanese, which is head-final, nevertheless has initial specifiers. Ringo-ga ringo-o tabe- I NP I IP ta VP

Narrowing in: NP? Traditionally, a phrase like the students is called a noun phrase and written as NP. Traditionally, a phrase like the students is called a noun phrase and written as NP. What does this imply about the structure? What does this imply about the structure? What category is students? What category is students? What category is the? What category is the? Which one is the head? Which one is the head? Where is the other one? Where is the other one?

Narrowing in: NP? Traditionally, a phrase like the students is called a noun phrase and written as NP. Traditionally, a phrase like the students is called a noun phrase and written as NP. What does this imply about the structure? What does this imply about the structure? What category is students? What category is students? What category is the? What category is the? Which one is the head? Which one is the head? Where is the other one? Where is the other one? Is this Japanese? Is this Japanese? students DP NP the N ?

Narrowing in: NP? There are a couple of problems with this. There are a couple of problems with this. There’s the headedness problem There’s the headedness problem The syntactic object that combines with the head is the complement, not the specifier. The syntactic object that combines with the head is the complement, not the specifier. (Note: There is a way out of this, we’ll see it later) (Note: There is a way out of this, we’ll see it later) Supposing that the is a whole DP is suspicious, because it can never be modified by anything. Modifiability is a signature property of phrases. Supposing that the is a whole DP is suspicious, because it can never be modified by anything. Modifiability is a signature property of phrases. students DP NP the N ?

DP! If the students is not an NP, it must be a DP. If the students is not an NP, it must be a DP. It’s head-initial, like English should be. It’s head-initial, like English should be. The NP can of course be modified (happy students). The NP can of course be modified (happy students). There are several reasons to think that the students is a DP and not an NP, even better than these two, which we’ll see in due course (…at the appropriate juncture, in the fullness of time). There are several reasons to think that the students is a DP and not an NP, even better than these two, which we’ll see in due course (…at the appropriate juncture, in the fullness of time). students D DP the NP !

DP Consider the genitive (possessive) ’s in English: Consider the genitive (possessive) ’s in English: John’s hat John’s hat The student’s sandwich The student’s sandwich The man from Australia’s book The man from Australia’s book The man on the hill by the tree’s binoculars The man on the hill by the tree’s binoculars Notice that the ’s attaches to the whole possessor phrase—in the last two examples, it isn’t even attached to the head noun (it’s the man’s book and binoculars, not Australia’s or the tree’s, after all). Notice that the ’s attaches to the whole possessor phrase—in the last two examples, it isn’t even attached to the head noun (it’s the man’s book and binoculars, not Australia’s or the tree’s, after all). This is not a noun suffix. It seems more like a little word that signals possession, standing between the possessor and the possessee. (Recall, it’s a clitic). This is not a noun suffix. It seems more like a little word that signals possession, standing between the possessor and the possessee. (Recall, it’s a clitic).

DP It seems to be impossible to have both a ’s and a determiner. It seems to be impossible to have both a ’s and a determiner. *The building’s the roof *The building’s the roof Cf. The roof of the building Cf. The roof of the building *The tiger’s the eye *The tiger’s the eye Determiners like the and the possession marker ’s seem to be in complementary distribution—if one appears, the other cannot. Determiners like the and the possession marker ’s seem to be in complementary distribution—if one appears, the other cannot. You may recall a similar pattern from a couple of weeks ago. What was the explanation for the *s? You may recall a similar pattern from a couple of weeks ago. What was the explanation for the *s? The big fluffy pink rabbit*The that rabbit The big fluffy pink rabbit*The that rabbit *The my rabbit*Every my rabbit *The my rabbit*Every my rabbit

DP *Pat’s the big fluffy pink rabbit *Pat’s the big fluffy pink rabbit This would make sense if both the and ’s are instances of the category D; DP can have only one head. This would make sense if both the and ’s are instances of the category D; DP can have only one head.

Possessors This suggests a structure like this for possession phrases: This suggests a structure like this for possession phrases: The possessor DP is in the specifier of DP. And of course, this can be as complex a DP as we like, e.g., the very hungry linguistics student by the tree with the purple flowers over there. The possessor DP is in the specifier of DP. And of course, this can be as complex a DP as we like, e.g., the very hungry linguistics student by the tree with the purple flowers over there. The possessed NP is the complement of D. The possessed NP is the complement of D. D ’s D DP book NP DP D student NP the

Recursion Another noteworthy aspect of the possessor phrase is its recursive property. Another noteworthy aspect of the possessor phrase is its recursive property. The possessor is a DP in the specifier of DP. That means that the DP possessor could have a possessor too… The possessor is a DP in the specifier of DP. That means that the DP possessor could have a possessor too… The student’s father’s book The student’s father’s book The student’s mother’s brother’s roommate The student’s mother’s brother’s roommate

X-bar theory: DP The student’s mother’s brother’s roommate The student’s mother’s brother’s roommate D D DP roommate NP DP D student NP the D D brother NP DP D ’s D mother NP DP ’s

X-bar theory: DP What do we do with apparently simple “NPs” like John or students (e.g., Students in the class complained bitterly)? Are these NPs or DPs? What do we do with apparently simple “NPs” like John or students (e.g., Students in the class complained bitterly)? Are these NPs or DPs? Well, there are two options… Well, there are two options… One: They are NPs. One: They are NPs. Pro: Just as they appear. Pro: Just as they appear. Con: Subjects, objects, etc. can be either NPs or DPs. Con: Subjects, objects, etc. can be either NPs or DPs. Two: They are DPs. Two: They are DPs. Pro: Subject, objects, etc. are always DPs. Pro: Subject, objects, etc. are always DPs. Con: Not obvious from the surface pronunciation. Con: Not obvious from the surface pronunciation.

Pronouns Consider: me, you, him (or I, you, he)… Consider: me, you, him (or I, you, he)… Since a pronoun can be the subject of a sentence (e.g., I left), a pronoun must be part of a DP. Since a pronoun can be the subject of a sentence (e.g., I left), a pronoun must be part of a DP. For pronouns, however, there’s some reason to believe that they actually head the DP. That is, that the pronoun I is a D. For pronouns, however, there’s some reason to believe that they actually head the DP. That is, that the pronoun I is a D. That is, not PRN as we’d called it up until now, but actually in the same category as the and ’s. That is, not PRN as we’d called it up until now, but actually in the same category as the and ’s.

X-bar theory: Pronouns Consider the following: Consider the following: You politicians are all alike. You politicians are all alike. We linguists need to stick together. We linguists need to stick together. The media always mocks us academics. The media always mocks us academics. These seem to have a pronoun followed by a noun inside the DP; we can make sense of this if the pronoun is a D which can optionally take an NP complement. These seem to have a pronoun followed by a noun inside the DP; we can make sense of this if the pronoun is a D which can optionally take an NP complement. D we DP linguists NP

X-bar theory: Bare nouns and proper names How about something like students (in Students poured out of the auditorium at noon) or John (in John went for a walk)? How about something like students (in Students poured out of the auditorium at noon) or John (in John went for a walk)? For students, we want to believe that it is an instance of the N category (in order to make sense of the students or we students or John’s students. But if this N is contained in a DP (the complement of a D head), where is the D? For students, we want to believe that it is an instance of the N category (in order to make sense of the students or we students or John’s students. But if this N is contained in a DP (the complement of a D head), where is the D? In order to maintain consistency, we’ll suppose that in bare nouns D is present but null (it has no phonological representation; we write this as Ø). In order to maintain consistency, we’ll suppose that in bare nouns D is present but null (it has no phonological representation; we write this as Ø).

X-bar theory: Bare nouns and proper names So for the bare noun students, we have a structure like that shown here. So for the bare noun students, we have a structure like that shown here. As for proper names like Pat, we will assume that they are essentially like students. As for proper names like Pat, we will assume that they are essentially like students. Why? Why not like I, me, them? Why? Why not like I, me, them? D Ø DP students NP D Ø DP John NP

Trees We will be working with trees a lot, and the geometry of trees will be quite important. We need some terminology to talk about the parts of trees. We will be working with trees a lot, and the geometry of trees will be quite important. We need some terminology to talk about the parts of trees.

Trees An abstract tree structure… A BC D E

Trees The “joints” of the tree are nodes. The nodes here are labeled (with node labels). The “joints” of the tree are nodes. The nodes here are labeled (with node labels). A BC D E

Trees Nodes are connected by branches. Nodes are connected by branches. A BC D E

Trees The “joints” of the tree are nodes. The nodes here are labeled (with node labels). The “joints” of the tree are nodes. The nodes here are labeled (with node labels). Nodes are connected by branches. Nodes are connected by branches. The node at the top of the tree (with no branches above it) is called the root node. A is the root node. The node at the top of the tree (with no branches above it) is called the root node. A is the root node. A BC D E

Trees Nodes with no branches beneath them are called terminal nodes. Nodes with no branches beneath them are called terminal nodes. B, D, E are terminal nodes. B, D, E are terminal nodes. A BC D E

Trees Nodes with no branches beneath them are called terminal nodes. Nodes with no branches beneath them are called terminal nodes. B, D, E are terminal nodes. B, D, E are terminal nodes. Nodes with branches beneath them are called nonterminal nodes. Nodes with branches beneath them are called nonterminal nodes. A, C are nonterminal nodes. A, C are nonterminal nodes. A BC D E

Tree relations A node X dominates nodes below it on the tree; these are the nodes which would be pulled along if you grabbed the node X and pulled it off of the page. A node X dominates nodes below it on the tree; these are the nodes which would be pulled along if you grabbed the node X and pulled it off of the page. A BC D E

Tree relations A node X dominates nodes below it on the tree; these are the nodes which would be pulled along if you grabbed the node X and pulled it off of the page. A node X dominates nodes below it on the tree; these are the nodes which would be pulled along if you grabbed the node X and pulled it off of the page. C dominates D and E. C dominates D and E. A BC D E C D E

Tree relations Remind you of anything? To briefly reconnect with actual language data, it seems as if you do something to C (like pull it off the page), it affects D and E as a unit. Remind you of anything? To briefly reconnect with actual language data, it seems as if you do something to C (like pull it off the page), it affects D and E as a unit. A BC D E C D E

Tree relations A set of terminal nodes is a constituent if they are all dominated by the same node and no other terminal nodes are dominated by that node. A set of terminal nodes is a constituent if they are all dominated by the same node and no other terminal nodes are dominated by that node. “D E” is a constituent. “D E” is a constituent. “B D” is not. “B D” is not. A BC D E C D E

Tree relations A node X immediately dominates a node Y if X dominates Y and is connected by only one branch. A node X immediately dominates a node Y if X dominates Y and is connected by only one branch. A immediately dominates B and C. A immediately dominates B and C. A BC D E

Tree relations A node X immediately dominates a node Y if X dominates Y and is connected by only one branch. A node X immediately dominates a node Y if X dominates Y and is connected by only one branch. A immediately dominates B and C. A immediately dominates B and C. A is also sometimes called the mother of B and C. A is also sometimes called the mother of B and C. A BC D E

Tree relations A node which shares the same mother as a node X is sometimes called the sister of X. A node which shares the same mother as a node X is sometimes called the sister of X. B is the sister of C. B is the sister of C. C is the sister of B. C is the sister of B. D is the sister of E. D is the sister of 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. 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

X-bar configurations The complement is the sister of the head. The complement is the sister of the head. The specifier is the sister of X that is a daughter of XP. The specifier is the sister of X that is a daughter of XP. XP YP X X ZP

Precedence The tree also encodes the linear order of the terminal nodes. The tree also encodes the linear order of the terminal nodes.

Precedence The is pronounced before students. The is pronounced before students. NP DN thestudents

Precedence The tree also encodes the linear order of the terminal nodes. The tree also encodes the linear order of the terminal nodes. The is pronounced before students. The is pronounced before students. Saw is pronounced before the and students. Saw is pronounced before the and students. NP DN thestudents V saw VP

Precedence That is, V is pronounced before NP, meaning V is pronounced before all of the terminal nodes dominated by NP. That is, V is pronounced before NP, meaning V is pronounced before all of the terminal nodes dominated by NP. NP DN thestudents V saw VP

Precedence Even if the tree is drawn sloppily, nothing changes—(everything dominated by) V is pronounced before (everything dominated by) NP. This is still “saw the students”. Even if the tree is drawn sloppily, nothing changes—(everything dominated by) V is pronounced before (everything dominated by) NP. This is still “saw the students”. NP DN thestudents V saw VP

No line crossing One of the implications of this is that you cannot draw a well- formed tree with lines that cross. One of the implications of this is that you cannot draw a well- formed tree with lines that cross. The can’t be pronounced before V because The is part of DP and V has to be pronounced before all of DP. The can’t be pronounced before V because The is part of DP and V has to be pronounced before all of DP. NP students Vthe D DP VP meet

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

Week 4a. The DP and the geometry of trees CAS LX 522 Syntax I.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Week 4a. The DP and the geometry of trees CAS LX 522 Syntax I."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Week 4a. The DP and the geometry of trees CAS LX 522 Syntax I.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Week 4a. The DP and the geometry of trees CAS LX 522 Syntax I."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback