1 On tough-movement* Milan Rezac, University ... - Multimania.co.uk

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.1 Predication as interpretation of non-thematic DPs In the next three subsections, I summarize the syntax-semantic mapping of DPs base-generated in non-thematic positions in Rezac (2004a: chapter 3, 2004b). Tough-movement naturally emerges, accounting for the subject-gap correlation and linking problems, and the split interpretation of thematic and quantificational properties. A DP in a thematic position receives its interpretation by composing with its sister, (the projection of) the lexical entry of which has a corresponding λ-abstract, as in (11). 7 (11) Lexical entry for love: [[ love]] = λx ∈ D e .λy ∈ D e .y loves x An DP in a non-thematic position is interpreted because its sister is a derived predicate, that is a λ-abstract that is introduced not by its lexical entry but by an interpretive rule (Heim and Kratzer 1998). Syntax, particularly the syntax of movement, must determine that when the sister of the girl in (12)a is interpreted, the λ-abstract introduced must bind x 1 from which the girl has moved, not another variable such as x 2 . Free binding occurs only when movement is not involved, yielding the interpretation of pronouns including resumptives, as in (12)b. (12) a. The girl 1 is not believed by her 1/2 friend to have come t' 1/*2 from here. b. The girl 1 such that the wizard thought she 1/2 must have t learned her 1/2 magic early. Therefore, Heim and Kratzer (1998:109ff.) build the introduction of the trigger for λ- abstraction directly into the singulary transformation Move. In the syntax, Move maps β and a designated subconstituent α within in as in (13): β is converted to a structure γ sister to α, where γ properly contains β', that is β with α replaced by the e-type object t i (trace/variable), and the index i which identifies t i as the open variable for α within β'. (13) Move maps [ β … α i …] to [α [ γ i [ β' … t i …]]]. γ in (13) is interpreted as a derived predicate by Predicate Abstraction in (14)a: the index (i) is interpreted as a λ-operator binding a variable in its sister (β') corresponding to it, namely the indexed trace (t i ) introduced by Move. Functional Application (14)b, which applies identically to derived and lexical predicates, composes a predicate with its sister by substituting the latter into the variable bound by the predicate's λ-abstract. A useful shorthand is to say that the predicate's sister (α in (13)) λ-binds the variable bound by the predicate's λ-operator (Reinhart 2000). (14) Interpretive rules a. Predicate Abstraction (PA): Let α be a branching node with daughters β and γ, where β dominates only a numerical index i. Then, for any variable assignment, a, [[ α ]] a = λx ∈ D e .[[ γ ]] a[x/i] . (Heim and Kratzer 1998:186) b. Functional Application (FA): If α is a branching node and {β, γ} the set of its daughters, then, for any assignment a, α is in the domain of [[ ]] a if both α and β are, and [[ β ]] a is a function whose domain contains [[ γ ]] a . In this case, [[ a ]] a = [[ β ]] a ([[ g ]] a ). (Heim and Kratzer 1998:105) 6
Adopting the copy theory for traces does not modify any of the essentials, under Fox's (2002) hypothesis that copies are interpreted as definite descriptions containing a bound variable. Take the copy-theoretic structure every girl left every girl. Fox proposes that the quantifier of the lower copy is replaced by the through Determiner Replacement (15)b, and that the resulting definite description is interpretively linked to the higher copy through Variable Insertion (15)a that attaches to it the predicate λy(y=x) 'is identical to x', where x is a variable name (index) bound by the higher copy. In order for this to work with the interpretation of movement, the index introduced by Variable Insertion must be the same as that introduced by Move (13), a point I return to. (15) Trace Conversion (Fox 2002:67) a. Variable Insertion: (Det) Pred → (Det) [Pred λy(y=x)] b. Determiner Replacement: (Det) [Pred λy(y=x)] → the [Pred λy(y=x)] These tools need to be modified to work with the Compositional Theory of Movement CTM proposed in Chomsky (2000:101f., 2001, 2004): (16) CTM: Movement is not a primitive; it is a composition of (at least) the basic structurebuilding operation Merge and the dependency-forming operation Agree. Under the CTM, movement is a sequence of Merge and Agree with no hard-wired link between them. CTM has the advantage of predicting the existence of structures like TM and copy-raising, as in (17). Here the matrix subject is base-generated independently of the complete clause downstairs (17)a, but the DP it λ-binds is identified by the locality of φ-Agree, thus ruling out (17)b (cf. esp. Potsdam and Runner 2001). (17) a. The shoe 1 seems like it 1 's on the other foot. b. *The other foot 1 seems like the shoes is on it 1 . The issue posed by CTM and addressed in Rezac (2004a: chapter 3, 2004b), is how to constrain Merge of [Spec, HP] to base-generate a DP that λ-binds the goal of H's Agree, which is an independent operation that took place earlier in the derivation when H' was constructed (Rezac 2003). The leading idea is that it is Agree that transmits the index i in (13), because i is in fact just a valued φ-feature of a φ-probe, so that indices enter syntax as part of the interpretable φ-features of DPs. These assumptions are implemented as follows: (18) a. There is an index feature [ix] which is unvalued on φ-probes, but valued and interpretable on DPs (cf. number). b. Variable Insertion (modified): (Det[ φ …ix=x n …]) Pred → (Det[ φ …ix=x n …]) [Pred λy(y=x n )] Under these assumptions, φ-Agree values [ix] as it does other φ-features, (19); in fact by the Free Rider Principle of Chomsky (1995:265f., 268-70, 275), Agree by any feature of H values [ix] on H if present. (19) [ HP H [ix] … DP [ix=n] …] → Agree [ HP H [ix=n] … DP [ix=n] …] 7
Page 1 and 2: On tough-movement * Milan Rezac, Un
Page 3 and 4: that it involves an Ā-step between
Page 5: d. *John is easy that anyone likes
Page 9 and 10: In tough-movement, the TM subject i
Page 11 and 12: (28) *There were asked what things
Page 13 and 14: . =No person is such that it seems
Page 15 and 16: constructions, all accounts share t
Page 17 and 18: the top of the OP clause. Various q
Page 19 and 20: not find an active wh-phrase as a g
Page 21 and 22: The pattern of goodness and degrada
Page 23 and 24: Although there is reason to be caut
Page 25 and 26: makes them available to external φ
Page 27 and 28: 14 It is an open question whether O
Page 29 and 30: References Abeillé, A., Goddard, D
Page 31 and 32: Kaplan, R. M. and Bresnan, J. 1982.
Page 33 and 34: Rizzi, L. Forthcoming. "On the form
Page 35: TABLE 1: Properties of "On wh-movem

1 On tough-movement* Milan Rezac, University ... - Multimania.co.uk

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?