CAS LX 522 Syntax I

CAS LX 522Syntax I Week 3a. q-roles, feature checking 3.5-3.6

Previously, in LX522… • We left off last time exploring the idea that sentences are built from syntactic objects by using the operation Merge, taking two syntactic objects and forming a new one from them. • Big picture: What we’re trying to model is a system that can construct all—and only—those strings of words that correspond to sentences of a language (e.g., English). If we succeed, this system is (at least isomorphic to) what we know when we know the language. B C E D

Previously, in LX522… • So far, we have: • The lexicon (containing words, bundles of features) • Merge (forms a syntactic object from two others). • Merging two objects yields a new object that has the properties of one of the two objects. • Merging eat and lunch yields a object that has the same kinds of properties as eat. • The object whose features determine the features of the new object (project) is the headof the new object—the most important component. • The question now is: how does Merge know which one is the head? B C E D

Who’s in charge here? • The idea we are going to pursue here is that one of the two objects needs Merge to happen—and the needy one is the head. • What does it mean to “need to Merge”? • Consider hit. This can’t really stand on its own. It doesn’t mean anything (its truth can’t be evaluated) without providing a hitter and a hittee. B C E D

Predicates, arguments, and propositions • Conventional wisdom has it that a sentence needs a subject and a predicate. • The idea is that the sentence expresses that the property signified by the predicate holds of the subject. • Pat danced. • Dancedis the predicate, it’s a property that Pat, the subject, has (if the sentence is true). Something that can be true or false, a “complete thought”, is a proposition.

Verbs and arguments • Some are basically complete as they stand. • Rain: It rained. • Some have only a subject, they can’t have an object—the intransitiveverbs (1-place predicates). • Sleep: Bill slept; *Bill slept the book. • Some also need an object—the transitive verbs (2-place predicates). • Hit: *Bill hit; Bill hit the pillow. • Some need two objects—ditransitiveverbs (3-place predicates). • Put: *Bill put; *Bill put the book;Bill put the book on the table.

Verbs and arguments • The “participants” in an event denoted by the verb are the argumentsof that verb. • Some verbs require one argument, some require two arguments, some require three arguments, some require none. • Intuitively, the number of arguments is the number of things that a verb needs in order to make a proposition (something that can be either true or false).

Predicates • We will consider verbs to be predicateswhich define properties of and/or relations between the arguments. • Bill hit the ball • There was a hitting, Bill did the hitting, the ball was affected by the hitting. • Different arguments have different roles in the event. (e.g., The hitter, the hittee)

Thematic relations • It has come to be standard practice to think of the selectional restrictions in terms of the thematic relationthat the argument has to the verb—the role it plays in the event. • One thematic relation is agent of an action, like Bill in: • Bill kicked the ball.

Common thematic relations • Agent: initiator or doer in the event • Theme: affected by the event, or undergoes the action • Bill kicked the ball. • Experiencer: feel or perceive the event • Bill likes pizza. • Proposition: a statement, can be true/false. • Bill said that he likes pizza.

Thematic relations • Goal: • Bill ran to Copley Square. • Bill gave the book to Mary.(Recipient) • Source: • Bill took a pencil from the pile. • Instrument: • Bill ate the burrito with a plastic spork. • Benefactive: • Bill cooked dinner for Mary. • Location: • Bill sits under the tree on Wednesdays.

Thematic relations • Armed with these terms, we can describe the semantic connection between the verb and its arguments. • Ray gave a grape to Bill. • Ray: Agent, Source, … • A grape: Theme • Bill: Goal, Recipient, …

Intransitives:Unergatives and unaccusatives • For intransitive verbs (1-place predicates), there are two primary classes: • Unergatives: Agent assigned to argument. • Pat danced. Pat yodelled. • Unaccusatives: Theme assigned to argument. • Pat tripped. The boat sank. • Basically what you’d expect considering the normal transitive (2-place) verbs that have an Agent and a Theme. • The naming of these classes is not my fault.

q-roles • An argument can participate in several thematic relations with the verb (e.g., Agent, Goal). • In the syntax, we assign a special connection to the verb called a “q-role”, which is a collection of thematic relations. • For the purposes of syntax, the q-role (the collection of relations) is much more central than the actual relations in the collection. q-role Source Agent

-roles • We will often need to make reference to a particular q-role, and we will often do this by referring to the most prominent relation in the collection. • For example, in Bill hit the ball, we say that Billhas the “Agent q-role”, meaning it has a q-role containing the Agent relation, perhaps among others.

The Unique q Generalization • Each q-role must be assigned to a constituent, but a constituent cannot be assigned more than one q-role. • (a.k.a. “the q-criterion”) • Verbs have a certain number of q-roles to assign (e.g., say has two), and each of those must be assigned to a distinct argument.

C-selection • Verbs are recorded in the lexicon with the q-roles they assign as part of their meaning. • But, (some) verbs can assign the same type of q-role to different categories of argument: • Pat felt a tremor. Pat felt uncomfortable. Pat felt that Chris had not performed well. • Pat is the Experiencer; a tremor (noun), uncomfortable (adjective), or that…well (sentence) is the Theme/Source. So q-role does not determine syntactic category. And syntactic category certainly does not determine q-role. • Pat kicked a pail. *Pat kicked unhappy. *Pat kicked that the earth is round. • So verbs also need to be recorded with information about the syntactic categor{y/ies} they combine with.

C-selection (“Subcategorization”) • Kickneeds a nominal object. • Pat kicked the pail. • Kickhas a [V] category feature, but also needs to have an [N] category feature in some form to specify that it needs a nominal object. • BUT—We don’t want to risk interpreting kickas a noun, though. So, the [V] and [N] features must have a different status. • On kick, the [V] feature is interpretable. The [N] feature is just for use in assembling the structure, it is not interpreted—hence uninterpretable. • The uninterpretable feature is an instruction for Merge. • The interpretable feature plays a role in determining the meaning of the word.

C-selection • Not all transitive verbs (that take just one object) can take the same kind of object. • Sue knows [DP the answer ] • Sue knows [CP that Bill left early ] • Sue hit [DP the ball ] • *Sue hit [CP that Bill left early] • So knowcan take either a DP or a CP as its object argument; hit can only take a DP as its object argument.

S-selection • Verbs also exert semantic control of the kinds of arguments they allow. • For example, many verbs can only have a volitional (agentive) subject: • Bill likes pizza. Bill kicked the stone. • #Pizza likes anchovies. #The stone kicked Bill. • We’ll assume that this is not encoded in the syntactic features, but if you mess up with respect to s-selection, the interpretation is anomalous.

Feature checking • For our model, we will say that if a syntactic object has an uninterpretable feature, it must Merge with a syntactic object that has a matching feature— and once it’s done, the requirement is met. The uninterpretable feature is checked. • Specifically: • Full Interpretation: The structure to which the semantic interface rules apply contains no uninterpretable features. • Checking Requirement: Uninterpretable features must be checked (and once checked, they are deleted) • Checking (under sisterhood): An uninterpretable feature F on a syntactic object Y is checked when Y is sister to another syntactic object Z which bears a matching feature F.

Feature checking • To distinguish interpretable features from uninterpretable features, we will write uninterpretable features with a u in front of them. • D has uninterpretable feature F • E has interpretable feature F. • If we Merge them, the uninterpretable feature can be checked (under sisterhood). D [uF] E [F]

Feature checking • To distinguish interpretable features from uninterpretable features, we will write uninterpretable features with a u in front of them. • D has uninterpretable feature F • E has interpretable feature F. • If we Merge them, the uninterpretable feature can be checked (under sisterhood). C D [uF] E [F]

Feature checking • Or, for a more concrete example • kick is a verb (has an interpretable V feature) and c-selects a noun (has an uninterpretable N feature). • me is a noun (a pronoun in fact, has an interpretable N feature, and others like accusative case, first person, singular) kick [uN, V] me [N, acc, 1, sg]

Feature checking • Or, for a more concrete example • kick is a verb (has an interpretable V feature) and c-selects a noun (has an uninterpretable N feature). • me is a noun (a pronoun in fact, has an interpretable N feature, and others like accusative case, first person, singular) • Merging them will check the uninterpretable feature, and the structure can be interpreted. V kick [uN, V] me [N, acc, 1, sg]

Feature checking • The head is the “needy” one. The one that had the uninterpretable feature that was checked by Merge. • The combination has the features of the verb kick and so its distribution will be like a verb’s distribution would be. • Pat wants to kick me. • Pat wants to drive. • I like to draw elephants. • *Pat wants to elephants. • *I like to draw kick me. V kick [uN, V] me [N, acc, 1, sg]

Chris glanced at Pat Pat [ ] Chris [ ] at [ ] glanced [ ]

         

CAS LX 522 Syntax I