Pedagogical Grammar ENG 240 PDF

Pedagogical Grammar ENG 240 Fall Semester 2024 Mondays & Thursdays, 13.30–15.00 Chapter 5 Agreement & Uninterpretable Features Today: Finding out about Agreement Reflecting Syntactic Dependencies. Next step: Implementing Agreement. And then: Exploring Consequences:...

Pedagogical Grammar ENG 240 Fall Semester 2024 Mondays & Thursdays, 13.30–15.00 Chapter 5 Agreement & Uninterpretable Features Today: Finding out about Agreement Reflecting Syntactic Dependencies. Next step: Implementing Agreement. And then: Exploring Consequences: Binding and C-Command. Agreement in Syntactic Dependencies (1) a. *John love her. Syntactic agreement between b. *I loves him. subject and finite verb form. (2) to speak (Modern English) Singular Plural 1st I speak we speak 2nd you speak youspeak 3rd he/she/it speak–s they speak (3) to speak (Middle English) Singular Plural 1st I speak–e we speak–en 2nd thou speak–es(t) youspeak–en 3rd he/she/hit speak–eth they speak–en Agreement Paradigm: Cross-linguistic (4) mιλώ milo ‘to speak’ (Greek) 1st εγώ μιλ–ώ εμείς μιλ–ούμε 2nd εσύ μιλ–άς εσείς μιλ–άτε 3rd αυτός/–ή/–ό μιλ–ά αυτοί/–ές/–ά μιλ–ούν (5) parler ‘to speak’ (French) 1st je parl–e nous parl–ons 2nd tu parl–es vous parl–ez 3rd il/elle parl–e ils/elles parl–ent (6) hablar ‘to speak’ (Spanish) 1st yo habl–o nosotros habl–amos 2nd tú habl–as vosotros habl–áis 3rd él/ella habl–a ellos/ellas habl–an  A Quick Note on Agreement Agreement between subject and (finite) verb in English: i. Agreement markers appear obligatorily. ii. Agreement markers are semantically inactive. In Standard English, the b-examples are syntactically ill-formed —not semantically; agreement is a syntactic relation. (7) a. John loves her. b. John love her. (8) a. I love her. b. I loves her.  Person and Number Features If a non-native speaker would utter (9), what’s the meaning? (9) I walks [1SG] [3SG] While there are comparable features on the subject DP and on the finite verb (e.g., [1SG] or [3SG]), the person and number features on a noun contribute more to the meaning of the sentence than the person and number features on a verb: (10) a. John loves her. Standard Modern English b. John love her. African American Vernacular c. I walks. West Country English  Interpretable Features Likewise, a singular AGENT and a single activity as in (11a) does not come from the person and number features either. After all, (11b) signals a similar single event but clearly with plural AGENTs and (11c) distributes many AGENTs and events: (11) a. Harry is lifting a piano. [3SG] one event b. The girls are lifting a piano now. [3PL] one event c. Every girl is carrying an umbrella. [3SG] many events  Uninterpretable Features So, agreement markers on verbs are semantically inactive. (12) John love –s her. [3SG] [u3SG] On V/Fin they are uninterpretable but on DP interpretable. (13) *I loves her. (14) Any clause in which some element carries an un- interpretable feature [uF] requires the presence of a matching interpretable feature [F]; otherwise the clause is ungrammatical.  Person and Number Agreement (15) FinP 3 DP Fin' John 3 [3SG] Fin VP –s 3 [u3SG] V DP love his children But something in Fin must be interpretable too: (16) a. (for Mary) to be leaving b. (Mary) is leaving More on (Un)interpretable Features Fin is responsible for both, finiteness (so [Fin] vs. [Non-fin]) and tense (namely [Past] vs. [Present]); that’s enough: (17) a. [Fin] on Fin for finiteness b. [Non-fin] on Fin for non-finiteness (18) a. [Fin: Past] on Fin for past tense b. [Fin: Present] on Fin for present tense Person and number (and gender) features: phi-features. (19) a. e.g. [φ: 3, SG] on nouns (interpretable) b. e.g. [uφ: 3, SG] on verbs (uninterpretable)  John loves his children. (20) FinP qp DP Fin' ei Fin VP 3 V DP [D][N] [Fin: Present] [V] [D][N] [φ: 3, SG] [uφ: 3, SG] John –s love his children  *I loves his children. (21) FinP qp DP Fin' ei Fin VP 3 V DP [D][N] [Fin: Present] [V] [D][N] [φ: 1, SG] [uφ: 3, SG] I –s love his children  I love his children. (22) FinP qp DP Fin' ei Fin VP 3 V DP [D][N] [Fin: Present] [V] [D][N] [φ: 1, SG] [uφ: 1, SG] I –Ø love his children  *I loves the child. (23) FinP qp DP Fin' ei Fin VP 3 V DP [D][N] [Fin: Present] [V] [D][N] [φ: 1, SG] [uφ: 3, SG] [φ: 3, SG] I –s love the child  A Condition on Matching Features There is a potential matching interpretable feature [φ: 3, SG] (on the child) for the uninterpretable [uφ: 3, SG] (on –s). But the sentence is still ungrammatical. Why? à It looks like the uninterpretable φ-features in Fin can only agree with interpretable φ-features on subjects, not objects (24) An uninterpretable feature [uF] requires the presence of a matching interpretable feature [F] within the same phrase, not in any lower phrase. To explain (24), let’s reconsider nominative and accusative case from the perspective of (un)interpretable features. The Role of [Fin] for Nominative Case Where do we find nominative case? On the subject nominal phrase of a finite clause—that is, on the DP which sits in the specifier position of finite FinP. In other words, a DP which is the complement of a transitive verb (object) or a DP which is the subject of a non-finite clause (as in I expected [her to laugh] or I saw [him cross the street], but also PRO in John wants [PRO to win the race]) are not marked nominative. So… there clearly is a relationship between the Fin head with the feature [Fin] and nominative case on the DP in SpecFinP.  He loves his children. (25) FinP qp DP Fin' ei Let’s encode the relationship Fin VP through interpretable [Fin] 3 and uninterpretable [uFin]. V DP [D][N] [Fin] [V] [D][N] [φ: 3, SG] [uφ: 3, SG] [uFin] He –s love his children The Role of [V] for Accusative Case Where does accusative case show up? On the DP complement of V or P. To build on this parallel, if nominative is the result of [uFin] on DP in the vicinity of [Fin] on Fin, then accusative could perhaps also relate to a feature shared by DP and V/P in their vicinity. (26) a. *Him loves his child. b. He loves his children. c. *Him loves his children. (27) a. Mary loves me. b. *Mary loves I.  Mary loves me. (28) FinP qp DP Fin' ei Fin VP 3 V DP [D][N] [Fin] [V] [D][N] [φ: 3, SG] [uφ: 3, SG] [uV] [uFin] Mary –s love me  *Mary loves I. (29) FinP qp DP Fin' ei Fin VP 3 V DP [D][N] [Fin] [V] [D][N] [φ: 3, SG] [uφ: 3, SG] [uFin] [uFin] Mary –s love I  *Him loves his children. (30) FinP qp DP Fin' ei Fin VP 3 V DP [D][N] [Fin] [V] [D][N] [φ: 3, SG] [uφ: 3, SG] [uV] Him –s love his children  Interim Summary In this chapter we introduced the distinction into interpretable and uninterpretable features: [F] – [uF] Agreement is a reflex of this distinction, for example subject– verb agreement: [φ] on DP in SpecFinP, matching [uφ] on Fin. Case is another reflex that can be built into feature checking: – nominative as the result of [uFin] on DP in SpecFinP and [Fin] on its head Fin (specifier–head relation, within same phrase); – accusative as the result of [uV] on DP and [V] on its head V or [uP] on DP and [P] on its head P (head–complement relation, also within same phrase, either within VP or within PP). Consequences: Binding & C-Command The introduction of agreement as a condition on syntactic well- formedness led us to the formal implementation of feature matching between an uninterpretable feature [uF] and an interpretable feature [F] within the same phrase. We will now do three more things: 1. Consider how so-called binding relations can be analysed. 2. Apply a version of agreement in terms of c-command. 3. Extend the feature-checking approach further.  Binding and Coreference (31) a. I like myself. b. Mary sees herself in the mirror. c. Peter and Bill excused themselves. These cases illustrate the semantic implication of binding: co- reference between a reflexive pronoun and its antecedent, which can be a full DP (like a name) or a personal pronoun. (32) a. Ii like myselfi. b. Maryi sees herselfi in the mirror. c. [Peter and Bill]i excused themselvesi.  Non-Reflexive Pronouns Take i and j to be indices that signal reference of expressions. (32) a. Johni told Maryj that shej can call himi at 7. b. Theyi didn’t tell Johnj that hej had misrepresented themi. (33) a. Mary called me. b. They said I was wrong. c. I can’t believe he did that. d. You are not allowed to smoke here. (34) Every boy who knows his house can direct you to it. (35) [Every boy]i who knows hisi/j house can direct you to it. Reflexive vs. Non-Reflexive Pronouns Pronouns may be coreferent with another expression, but they need not be. In contrast, reflexive pronouns must be bound: (36) a. *You like myself. b. *John sees herself in the mirror. c. *Peter knows each other. (37) [Every boy]i who likes himselfi/*j can be perceived as arrogant. (38) John said that Peter thought that Harry blamed himself. (39) John said that Peter thought that Harry blamed him.  Binding Theory (40) a. *Ii like mei. b. *Maryi sees heri in the mirror. c. *[Peter and Bill]i excused themi. (41) Binding Generalisations a. A reflexive must be bound by a nearby antecedent. b. A non-reflexive pronoun cannot be bound by a nearby antecedent. (41a) is often referred to as Principle A of Binding Theory, and (41b) as Principle B of Binding Theory.  Binder and Bindee (42) a. Ii like myselfi. b. *Ii like mei. (43) a. Maryi sees herselfi in the mirror. b. *Maryi sees heri in the mirror. (44) a. [Peter and Bill]i excused themselvesi. b. *[Peter and Bill]i excused themi. (45) a. Johnk said that Peterj thought that Harryi blamed himselfi/*j/*k/*m. b. Johnk said that Peterj thought that Harryi blamed him*i/j/k/m.  Closest Finite FinP (46) a. Johni wants [FinP himselfi to succeed ]. b. Wei expected [FinP ourselvesi to do better next time ]. (47) a. PRINCIPLE A (revised version) A reflexive must be bound within the closest finite FinP dominating it. b. PRINCIPLE B (revised version) A non-reflexive pronoun cannot be bound within the closest finite FinP dominating it. (48) a. [FinP John said [CP that [FinP Peter thought [CP that [FinP Harry blamed himself ]]]].] b. [FinP John said [CP that [FinP Peter thought [CP that [FinP Harry blamed him ]]]].]  A Structural Relation (49) a. *The book about the presidenti upset himselfi. b. *Johnj’s sister likes himselfj. c. *Admiring Maryk suits herselfk. (50) FinP 3 DP Fin' I 3 Fin VP –φ 3 V DP like myself The Structural Relation: C-Command (51) FinP wo DP Fin' 3 3 DP D' Fin VP John 2 –s 3 D NP V DP ’s sister like himself (52) C-COMMAND A c-commands B if and only if the node that immediately dominates A also dominates B.  C-Command: An Illustration (53) XP 3 A c-commands B. A X' 3 X YP 3 … B (54) XP wo ZP X' A doesn’t c-command B. 3 3 Z A X YP 3 … B John likes Mary’s ideas about herself. (55) FinP 3 DP Fin' John 3 Fin VP –s 3 V DP like 3 DP D' Maryi 3 D NP ’s 3 N PP ideas 3 P DP about herselfi  Binding Principles A & B (Final) (56) a. PRINCIPLE A (final version) A reflexive must be bound by a c-commanding antecedent that is dominated by the closest finite FinP that also dominates this reflexive. b. PRINCIPLE B (final version) A non-reflexive pronoun may not be bound by a c-commanding antecedent that is dominated by the closest finite FinP that also dominates this non-reflexive pronoun. An Extension of Binding Principle B (57) PRINCIPLE B (alternative formulation) If you have a choice between using a reflexive and a corresponding non-reflexive pronoun to express the same thing, you must use the reflexive. (58) THE ‘ELSEWHERE’ PRINCIPLE Whenever there is competition in grammar between a more specific and a more general form to express the same meaning, the more specific form wins if no grammatical rules are violated.  Binding and Agreement (59) a. *I love herself. b. I love her. (60) An uninterpretable feature [uF] requires the presence of a matching interpretable feature [F] within the same phrase, not in any lower phrase. (61) An uninterpretable feature [uF] must be c-commanded by a matching interpretable feature [F] in the same finite clause; otherwise the structure is ungrammatical.  Mary loves herself. (62) FinP wo DP Fin' wo Fin VP 3 V DP [D][N] [Fin] [V] [D][N] [φ: 3, SG] [uφ: 3, SG] [uV] [uFin] [uφ: 3, SG] Mary –s love herself  *I loves the child. (63) FinP wo DP Fin' wo Fin VP 3 V DP [D][N] [Fin] [V] [D][N] [φ: 1, SG] [uφ: 3, SG] [φ: 3, SG] I –s love the child  Summary We can now state that all syntactic dependencies (= subject– verb agreement, case assignment, and binding phenomena) reduce to one and the same agreement mechanism: An uninterpretable feature [uF] must be c-commanded by a matching interpretable feature [F] in the same finite clause; otherwise the structure is ungrammatical. Another term for this mechanism is feature checking: An uninterpretable feature must be checked off by a c- commanding matching interpretable feature.