Encounter 9a. Encounter 9a. -roles in DP,-roles in DP,and an introduction to little and an introduction to little nn..

7.3-7.67.3-7.6

CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax I

The DPThe DP Last time, we introduced the idea that the Last time, we introduced the idea that the

nominal elements of the sentences nominal elements of the sentences (subjects, objects), are actually DPs, rather (subjects, objects), are actually DPs, rather than NPs.than NPs. Determiners:Determiners:

thethe, , aa, , somesome, , everyevery, , ØØmassmass, , ØØproperproper, , ØØpossposs, …, …

Today, we’ll continue our investigations of Today, we’ll continue our investigations of the internal structure of DPs.the internal structure of DPs.

studentsD

DP

theNP

Some null DsSome null Ds ØØgengen: has a [: has a [gengen] feature and in whose ] feature and in whose

specifier we find possessors.specifier we find possessors. ØØindefindef: a nonsingular indefinite article, in : a nonsingular indefinite article, in

whose complement we find plurals and mass whose complement we find plurals and mass nouns.nouns. [[ØØindefindef Milk] spilled. [ Milk] spilled. [ØØindefindef People] cried.People] cried. I’ve also been known to write the one with mass I’ve also been known to write the one with mass

nouns as nouns as ØØmassmass.. Mass vs. count:Mass vs. count: Some nouns indicate countable Some nouns indicate countable

things (things (chairschairs) others indicate stuff () others indicate stuff (milkmilk). ). Singular/plural distinctions don’t apply with Singular/plural distinctions don’t apply with mass nouns.mass nouns.

Proper namesProper names As for proper names like As for proper names like PatPat, we , we

will assume that they have a will assume that they have a structure something like structure something like studentsstudents.. The Pat we respect came to the party.The Pat we respect came to the party. O Giorgos ephugeO Giorgos ephuge

the George leftthe George left‘George left.’‘George left.’

ØØproperproper (names are not indefinite; (names are not indefinite; this is probably mostly the same this is probably mostly the same as as thethe, but silent)., but silent).

Implementation:Implementation:ØØproperproper has a [ has a [uuproperproper] feature, ] feature, PatPat has a [proper] feature. has a [proper] feature.

DØindef

DP

studentsNP

DØproper

DP

PatNP

Number agreement on DNumber agreement on D To reiterate: To reiterate: there are three kinds of D an indefinite there are three kinds of D an indefinite

DP can show up with, and it depends on the number DP can show up with, and it depends on the number and/or the count/mass property of the noun:and/or the count/mass property of the noun: A(n)A(n):: SingularSingular [A scanner] read the ballot.[A scanner] read the ballot. ØØindefindef:: PluralPlural [[ØØindefindef Voters] emerged. Voters] emerged. ØØmassmass:: MassMass They wait for [They wait for [ØØmassmass news]. news].

What is wrong with What is wrong with *[*[DP DP A studentsA students]] and and **[[DPDP studentstudent]]? ? No agreement in number. Like No agreement in number. Like *Students eats lunch*Students eats lunch..

We can encode this in the same way: The indefinite We can encode this in the same way: The indefinite determiner has a [determiner has a [uunum:num:] feature, and the N has ] feature, and the N has --features as always (including a num feature).features as always (including a num feature).

The [The [uunum:num:] feature is valued and checked by the ] feature is valued and checked by the num feature of the N.num feature of the N.

Number agreementNumber agreement This means This means aa and and ØØindefindef are in fact pronunciations are in fact pronunciations

of the same D (Like of the same D (Like meme and and II are). are). AA is the pronunciation when it has a [ is the pronunciation when it has a [uunumnum:sg] feature:sg] feature ØØ is the pronunciation otherwise is the pronunciation otherwise

[[DP DP ØØindefindef students] students] [[DPDP a student] a student]

D[D, unum:sg,uN*, case]

DP

NPstudent

[N, :3sg]

D[D, unum:pl,uN*, case]

DP

NPstudents

[N, :3pl]

Deverbal nounsDeverbal nouns

The structure inside the DP can be The structure inside the DP can be as complicated as inside a clause, as as complicated as inside a clause, as it turns out.it turns out. Pat broke the vase.Pat broke the vase. Pat’s breaking of the vase startled me.Pat’s breaking of the vase startled me. The bees startled me.The bees startled me.

It seems to be possible to convert It seems to be possible to convert the whole clause the whole clause Pat broke the vasePat broke the vase into a “noun” (a DP).into a “noun” (a DP).

Deverbal nounsDeverbal nouns What’s more, the relationship between What’s more, the relationship between

breakbreak, , PatPat, and , and the vasethe vase seems to be the seems to be the same inside the DP as it is in the clause.same inside the DP as it is in the clause. Pat broke the vase.Pat broke the vase. Pat’s breaking of the vase made me angry.Pat’s breaking of the vase made me angry. Pat Pat is an Agent, is an Agent, the vase the vase is a Theme.is a Theme. Pat danced.Pat danced. Pat’s dancing startled me.Pat’s dancing startled me.

Just as the verb Just as the verb breakbreak assigns assigns -roles, it -roles, it seems as if the nominalized seems as if the nominalized breakingbreaking assigns assigns the same the same -roles. The DP is in a way like a -roles. The DP is in a way like a little clause.little clause.

TPs and DPsTPs and DPs One difference between clausal DPs and TPs is One difference between clausal DPs and TPs is

in the case realized by the arguments.in the case realized by the arguments.

I called him.I called him. Agent is nom (from T), Theme is acc (from Agent is nom (from T), Theme is acc (from vv))

My calling of him was unplanned.My calling of him was unplanned. Agent is gen, Theme looks like a PP introduced by Agent is gen, Theme looks like a PP introduced by

ofof..

So, the case assigners within a DP are different So, the case assigners within a DP are different from the case assigners within a clause.from the case assigners within a clause.

Two kinds of NTwo kinds of N Not all N’s assign Not all N’s assign -roles. Some do, some -roles. Some do, some

don’t. Generally, the nouns related to a don’t. Generally, the nouns related to a verb that assigns verb that assigns -roles will assign -roles will assign --roles. But something like roles. But something like lunchlunch doesn’t. doesn’t. Pat’s lunch was enormous.Pat’s lunch was enormous. Pat’s eating of lunch was shockingly rapid.Pat’s eating of lunch was shockingly rapid.

So, we can either find a DP with a So, we can either find a DP with a -role -role with genitive case, or we can find a with genitive case, or we can find a possessor with genitive case, in SpecDP.possessor with genitive case, in SpecDP.

Ditransitive NDitransitive N Consider the ditransitive verb Consider the ditransitive verb givegive and the and the

related noun related noun giftgift. Just as . Just as givegive is responsible for is responsible for three three -roles (Agent, Theme, Goal), so can -roles (Agent, Theme, Goal), so can giftgift be: be: Pat gave an apple to Chris.Pat gave an apple to Chris. Pat’s gift of an apple to Chris was unexpected.Pat’s gift of an apple to Chris was unexpected.

The exact same problem arises with ditransitive The exact same problem arises with ditransitive nouns as arose with ditransitive verbs.nouns as arose with ditransitive verbs.

Binary branching allows for just two arguments Binary branching allows for just two arguments in NP. We need an additional projection for the in NP. We need an additional projection for the third. Let’s try doing this just like we did for third. Let’s try doing this just like we did for verbs…verbs…

Little Little nn Suppose Suppose

that DP that DP is like TPis like TP

PP

V

Vgive

VP

DPbooks

v

v

vP

<DP>

DPChris

Pto

PP

N

Ngift

NP

DPof books

n

n

nP

<DP>

DPChris

Pto

T

T

TP

DPPat

D

D

DP

DPPat’s

nom gen

acc of

DP is like TPDP is like TP

If we suppose that DP works like TP, If we suppose that DP works like TP, we can extend our theoretical we can extend our theoretical machinery in an exactly analogous machinery in an exactly analogous way.way.

Hierarchy of ProjectionsHierarchy of ProjectionsD > D > nn > N > N

UTAHUTAHDP daughter of DP daughter of nnP: P: AgentAgentDP daughter of NP: DP daughter of NP: ThemeThemePP daughter of NPP daughter of N: : GoalGoal

Case in the DPCase in the DP In the DP, the “subject” appears with In the DP, the “subject” appears with

genitive case.genitive case. Cf. The subject in TP, which has nominative case, Cf. The subject in TP, which has nominative case,

due to a [nom] feature on T.due to a [nom] feature on T. So, we say D can have a [So, we say D can have a [gen*gen*] feature.] feature.

This checks the genitive case on the subject of the This checks the genitive case on the subject of the DP, and forces it to move into SpecDP.DP, and forces it to move into SpecDP.

In the DP, the “object” appears with the In the DP, the “object” appears with the preposition preposition ofof.. Cf. The object in TP, which has accusative case, Cf. The object in TP, which has accusative case,

due to an [acc] feature on due to an [acc] feature on vv.. So, we say that So, we say that nn has an [ has an [ofof] feature.] feature.

The The ofof case case What’s the deal with this “What’s the deal with this “ofof case” that case” that

objects in DPs get? Isn’t objects in DPs get? Isn’t ofof a preposition? a preposition? Shouldn’t Shouldn’t of cheeseof cheese in in The gift of cheese to The gift of cheese to the senator was appreciatedthe senator was appreciated be a PP? be a PP?

This This ofof is completely meaningless, it acts is completely meaningless, it acts like a case marker. So, we’re going to like a case marker. So, we’re going to analyze it as such. analyze it as such. Of cheeseOf cheese is a DP with is a DP with the the ofof case marking. Just like case marking. Just like Pat’sPat’s is a DP is a DP with the genitive (with the genitive (’s’s) case marking.) case marking.

Treating Treating ofof as case allows a complete as case allows a complete parallel between TP and DP; parallel between TP and DP; vv has an [ has an [accacc] ] feature, feature, nn has an [ has an [ofof] feature.] feature.

Passive nounsPassive nouns

Last time, we looked at the passive Last time, we looked at the passive construction.construction. The sandwich was eatenThe sandwich was eaten

Here, the Theme Here, the Theme the sandwichthe sandwich becomes the subject because the becomes the subject because the strong feature of T forces it to move strong feature of T forces it to move to SpecTP. The to SpecTP. The vv does not project an does not project an Agent.Agent.

PassivePassive

In the passive, In the passive, vv does does not introduce an not introduce an Agent, and does not Agent, and does not have an [have an [accacc] feature.] feature.

T still has a [T still has a [nomnom] ] feature, so it checks feature, so it checks the [the [casecase] feature on ] feature on the sandwichthe sandwich..

T has a [T has a [uuD*D*] feature, ] feature, so the sandwich moves so the sandwich moves to SpecTP to check it.to SpecTP to check it.

VP

Veat

<DP>

vP

v

PassP

Passbe

T

T

TP

DPthe

sand-wich

nom

Passive nounsPassive nouns Very similar to the passive, if an Very similar to the passive, if an

nn doesn’t introduce an Agent, doesn’t introduce an Agent, the Theme can move to SpecDP the Theme can move to SpecDP and surface as genitiveand surface as genitive

Ndestruction

NP

DPof the

sidewalk

n

n

nP

<DP>

D

D

DP

DPPat’s

gen

of

Ndestruction

NP

<DP>

nP

n

D

D

DP

gen DPthe

side-walk’s

Passive nounsPassive nouns If the DP has a head D like If the DP has a head D like thethe that does not check that does not check

genitive case, then there can be no Agent (nothing genitive case, then there can be no Agent (nothing could check its case), and the Theme stays could check its case), and the Theme stays unmoved (its unmoved (its ofof-case checked by -case checked by nn).).

Ndestruction

NP

DPof the

sidewalk

nP

n

DP

Dthe

of

Ndestruction

NP

<DP>

nP

n

D

D

DP

gen DPthe

side-walk’s

Case and Case and -roles-roles We now predict the observation Adger makes: We now predict the observation Adger makes:

Either an Agent or a Theme can show up in the Either an Agent or a Theme can show up in the genitive, but only a Theme can show up with genitive, but only a Theme can show up with ofof--case.case. Adger’s analysis of the DP is simple.Adger’s analysis of the DP is simple. The DP’s analysis is simple.The DP’s analysis is simple. *The analysis of Adger is simple.*The analysis of Adger is simple.

This is essentially the same as the generalization This is essentially the same as the generalization that, in a clause, either an Agent or a Theme can that, in a clause, either an Agent or a Theme can show up with nominative case, but only a Theme show up with nominative case, but only a Theme can show up with accusative case.can show up with accusative case. I called her.I called her. She tripped.She tripped. *Her tripped. *Tripped her.*Her tripped. *Tripped her.

Back to possessionBack to possession Prior to today, the genitive case was Prior to today, the genitive case was

associated with the possessor. So far today associated with the possessor. So far today we’ve been looking at deverbal nouns, we’ve been looking at deverbal nouns, where genitive case goes to the subject.where genitive case goes to the subject.

Our new improved UTAH says, among Our new improved UTAH says, among other things:other things: DP daughter of NP: ThemeDP daughter of NP: Theme DP daughter of DP daughter of nnP: AgentP: Agent

Possessors are neither of these, so Possessors are neither of these, so possessors need to be initially Merged into possessors need to be initially Merged into a distinct place in the structure.a distinct place in the structure.

PossessorsPossessors Adger proposes Adger proposes

that Possessors that Possessors are introduced are introduced by a new head, by a new head, Poss.Poss.

HoP:HoP:D > (Poss) > D > (Poss) > nn > > NN

nPhat

Poss

Poss

PossP

<DP>

D

D

DP

DPPat’s

gen

Hungarian possessorsHungarian possessors Consider the following:Consider the following:

Az en kalapomAz en kalapom A te kalapodA te kalapodthe I hatthe I hat the you hatthe you hat‘my hat’‘my hat’ ‘your hat’‘your hat’

A Mari kalapjaA Mari kalapja Marinak a kalapjaMarinak a kalapjathe Mary hatthe Mary hat Mary the hatMary the hat‘Mary’s hat’‘Mary’s hat’ ‘Mary’s hat’‘Mary’s hat’

Assuming that the DP in Hungarian has the Assuming that the DP in Hungarian has the basic structure we’ve been discussing, what basic structure we’ve been discussing, what is the structure of this kind of possessive is the structure of this kind of possessive construction?construction?

How about that (person?) agreement on How about that (person?) agreement on ‘hat’?‘hat’?

AdjectivesAdjectives Adjectives are to nouns as adverbs are to Adjectives are to nouns as adverbs are to

verbs. So what would the structure be for verbs. So what would the structure be for Pat’s complete destruction of the sidewalkPat’s complete destruction of the sidewalk? ? Or Or the silly ideathe silly idea? Or ? Or The pencil on the deskThe pencil on the desk??

In In Pat completely destroyed the sidewalkPat completely destroyed the sidewalk, , we adjoin we adjoin completelycompletely to to vvP. The subject P. The subject moves to SpecTP.moves to SpecTP.

In the same way, we adjoin In the same way, we adjoin completecomplete to to nnP, P, and and PatPat moves to SpecDP. moves to SpecDP.

AdjunctsAdjuncts Suppose Suppose

that DP that DP is like TPis like TP

VP

Vdestroy

v

DPthe

driveway

vP

v

vP

<DP>

NP

Ndestruction

n

n

nP

nP

AdjPcomplete

T

T

TP

DPPat

D

D

DP

DPPat’s

AdvPcompletely

DPof the

driveway

<DP>

The Italian DPThe Italian DP

In Italian, in many cases, there is simply In Italian, in many cases, there is simply an option (stylistically governed) as to an option (stylistically governed) as to whether you say whether you say The GianniThe Gianni or just or just GianniGianni::

GianniGianni mi ha telefonato.mi ha telefonato.GianniGianni me has telephonedme has telephoned‘Gianni called me up.’‘Gianni called me up.’

Il GianniIl Gianni mi ha telefonato.mi ha telefonato.the Giannithe Gianni me has telephonedme has telephoned‘Gianni called me up.’‘Gianni called me up.’

The Italian DPThe Italian DP However, there is a difference with However, there is a difference with

respect to the order of adjectives and the respect to the order of adjectives and the noun depending on which one you use.noun depending on which one you use. L’ antica RomaL’ antica Roma

the ancient Romethe ancient Rome‘Ancient Rome’‘Ancient Rome’

*Antica Roma*Antica Roma ancient Rome ancient Rome

Roma anticaRoma anticaRome ancientRome ancient

Generalization:Generalization: If there’s a determiner, If there’s a determiner, the noun follows the adjective. If there the noun follows the adjective. If there isn’t the noun precedes the adjective.isn’t the noun precedes the adjective.

E’venuto il vecchio Cameresi.came the older Cameresi

*E’venuto vecchio Cameresi. came older CameresiE’venuto Cameresi vecchio.came Cameresi older

The Italian DPThe Italian DP We can apply the same analysis to the We can apply the same analysis to the

order nouns and adjectives as we did to order nouns and adjectives as we did to the order of adverbs and verbs.the order of adverbs and verbs. Recall that in French, verbs precede adverbs, Recall that in French, verbs precede adverbs,

but in English, verbs follow adverbs. We but in English, verbs follow adverbs. We conclude that in French, conclude that in French, vv moves to T. moves to T.

In Italian, when the noun precedes the In Italian, when the noun precedes the adjective it has moved over it, to D. The adjective it has moved over it, to D. The generalization is that this happens generalization is that this happens except if D is already filled.except if D is already filled.

L’ antica RomaL’ antica Romathe ancient Romethe ancient Rome

Roma anticaRoma antica *Antica Roma*Antica RomaRome ancientRome ancient ancient Romeancient Rome <n>

nP

…

N+n+D

DP

AdjP

nP

<v>

vP

…

V+v+T

TP

AdvP

vP

ParametersParameters Languages differ on whether Languages differ on whether nn moves to D, moves to D,

yielding some languages where nouns precede yielding some languages where nouns precede adjectives, and some languages where nouns adjectives, and some languages where nouns follow adjectives.follow adjectives. Likewise, languages differ on whether Likewise, languages differ on whether vv moves to T, moves to T,

yielding some languages (e.g., French) where verbs yielding some languages (e.g., French) where verbs precede adverbs, and some languages (e.g., English) precede adverbs, and some languages (e.g., English) where verbs follow adverbs.where verbs follow adverbs.

What governs whether What governs whether nn moves to D is the strength moves to D is the strength of an uninterpretable feature checked on D or of an uninterpretable feature checked on D or nn by by the other. One such feature is [the other. One such feature is [uunum:num:].]. Italian: [Italian: [uunum:*num:*] is strong on null determiners.] is strong on null determiners. English: [English: [uunum:num:] is weak, even on null determiners.] is weak, even on null determiners.

[[ØØindefindef Happy students] poured forth from the classroom. Happy students] poured forth from the classroom.

More Italian, same pointMore Italian, same point

[[DPDP Il mio Gianni] ha finalmente telefonato. Il mio Gianni] ha finalmente telefonato. the my G. has finally called the my G. has finally called‘My Gianni has finally called.’‘My Gianni has finally called.’

*[*[DPDP Mio Gianni] ha finalmente telefonato.Mio Gianni] ha finalmente telefonato.

[[DPDP Gianni mio] ha finalmente telefonato. Gianni mio] ha finalmente telefonato.

Some HebrewSome Hebrew harisat ha-oyev ’et ha-’irharisat ha-oyev ’et ha-’ir

destruction the-enemy OM the-citydestruction the-enemy OM the-city‘The enemy’s destruction of the city’‘The enemy’s destruction of the city’

tipul ha-Siltonot ba-ba’ayatipul ha-Siltonot ba-ba’ayatreatment the-authorities in-the-problemtreatment the-authorities in-the-problem‘The authorities’ treatment of the problem’‘The authorities’ treatment of the problem’

Construct state.Construct state. What seems to be happening What seems to be happening here? Again, parametric variation.here? Again, parametric variation. [[gengen] feature of D is weak in Hebrew, strong ] feature of D is weak in Hebrew, strong

(when there) in English. But [(when there) in English. But [uunum:num:] feature is ] feature is strong in Hebrew.strong in Hebrew.

Rather like VSO languages, where Rather like VSO languages, where vv moves to T moves to T (like in French, unlike in English), but the subject (like in French, unlike in English), but the subject doesn’t move to SpecTP (the [doesn’t move to SpecTP (the [uuDD] feature of T is ] feature of T is weak).weak).