1 / 55

Levels of Representation

Exploring Chomsky's (1995) view on conditions at the interface, particularly Case theory and tough-movement constructions analyzed by Marcel den Dikken. Discusses motivation from properties of the interface and interpretation by performance systems.

jbates
Download Presentation

Levels of Representation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface Chomsky (1995:170–71) • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  2. Levels of Representation ☺ economy& the ‘intolerability’ of strong features derive all there is to say about movement and its timing • with Case analysed as a [–int] FF that needs to be checked, economy also derives the Case Filter and the distri- bution of (c)overt Case-driven mov’t ☻ Case Theory need not and cannot (recall English and VSO-lgs!) make reference to S-structure Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  3. Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ Case theory provides no support for any particu- lar level of syntactic representation once Case assignment is traded in for Case-feature checking Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  4. Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface ☻ • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  5. Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface (1a) he is easy [CPOp C [PRO to please t ]] (1b) * he is easy [CP C [PRO to please him ]] (1c) it is easy to please him • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  6. Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface (1a) he is easy [CPOp C [PRO to please t ]] → easy to pleaseis a predicate thanks to the Op – variable dependency inside CP • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  7. Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface (1a) he is easy [CPOp C [PRO to please t]] → Op is licensed only after movement → so the predicate for he emerges after mov’t • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  8. Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface (1a) he is easy [CPOp C [PRO to please t ]] → Op is licensed only after movement → so predication (θext ass.) happens after mov’t • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  9. Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface (1a) he is easy [CPOp C [PRO to please t ]] → reference to D-structure in the θ-domain is impossible • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  10. Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface since reference to D-structure in the θ-domain is impossible, the Projection Principle and the θ-Criterion cannot hold • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ the tough-movement/easy-to-please construction Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  11. Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface the good results of the Projection Principle and the θ-Criterion can be independently ensured: movement to θ-positions is untriggerable, hence * • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ (2b) *I showed Johni[a picture ti] (2a) *Johni loves ti Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  12. Levels of Representation Conditions on representations at the interface ☻ • ‘conditions on representations — those of binding theory, Case theory, θ-theory, and so on — hold only at the interface, and are motivated by properties of the interface, perhaps properly understood as modes of interpretation by performance systems’ ☻ the last pillar that may support D- and S-structure Q: do the binding-theoretic arguments hold? Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  13. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? (3a) is straightforward, at any level of application (3b) can give us the i-reading at S-Structure and the k-reading at D-structure Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 → argument for D/S-Structure application of BT-A?

  14. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? S-Structure application of BT-A is insufficient because (3c) also gives us the i-reading Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  15. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? S-Structure application of BT-A is insufficient → but that doesn’t necessarily make it wrong Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 → can we go further and show that it is wrong?

  16. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? i-reading available on non-idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ only gives us the k-reading Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  17. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? explanandum: the i-reading is available in (3b,c) in principle but NOT on the idiomatic ‘photograph’ reading Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  18. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) b. Billk took Johni does not know… how many pictures of himself how many pictures of himself movement as a two-step operation: (i) copy the constituent that is to be moved (ii) remerge one of the two copies ‘upstairs’ we now have two tokens of himselfat LF one locally c-commanded by Bill and the other by John Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  19. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) b. Billk took Johni does not know… how many pictures of himselfi how many pictures of himselfk is this going to be our final LF-representation? NO: the two copies are ‘too rich’! @ LF we want an operator-variable structure Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  20. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) b. how many pictures of himself Billk took Johni does not know… how many pictures of himself reducing the copies → OPTION I keep the complete upstairs copy turn the complete lower copy into a variable Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  21. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) b. how many pictures of himself Billk took t Johni does not know… reducing the copies → OPTION I → RESULT himselfis only present upstairs @ LF → the i-reading (and only the i-reading) ensues took picturesis NOT an LF-unit in this structure → the idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ is absent Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  22. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation aside… the only level of representation at which idiomatisation can be dealt with is LF: some idioms only exist as transforms you don’t have a leg to stand on you’ve got it made (in the shade) you’ve got your work cut out (for you) Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  23. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) b. how many pictures of himself Billk took Johni does not know… how many pictures of himself reducing the copies → OPTION II keep only the operator part of the upstairs copy keep the restriction in the downstairs copy Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  24. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) b. how many Billk took t Johni does not know… pictures of himself reducing the copies → OPTION II → RESULT himself is only present downstairs @ LF → the k-reading (and only the k-reading) ensues took picturesIS an LF-unit → the idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ is available Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  25. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) b. how many pictures of himself Billk took t Johni does not know… summary — OPTION I (i)i-reading (‘John’) only (ii) idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ UNavailable Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  26. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) b. how many Billk took t Johni does not know… pictures of himself summary — OPTION II (i)k-reading (‘Bill’) only (ii) idiomatic reading ‘photograph’ available Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  27. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? if BT-A were allowed to apply at S-Structure we could base antecedent choice directly on (3b) Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  28. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? … independently of what happens later, at LF! (i.e., regardless of whether option I or II is chosen) Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  29. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? binding S-str. idiom b′. how many Billk took t Johni does not know… LF Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016 pictures of himself

  30. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation (3) a. Johni does not know that Billk took pictures of himself*i/k b. Johni does not know how many pictures of himselfi/k Billk took c. how many pictures of himselfi/k does Johni think Billk took? … so we would predict the i-reading to be okay on the idiomatic reading of took pictures ← BAD! Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  31. Binding Theory &Levels of Representation conclusion: correlation between idiomatic fixing and antecedent choice follows ONLY with BT-A @ LF → reference to S-Structure is impossible in the domain of the Binding Theory Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  32. Binding Theory —Further Issues the distribution of ‘reconstruction’ and the Preference Principle Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  33. Binding Theory —Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j… hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic ofNP] hej saw [wh pic of NP] b. [wh pic of NP] hej saw [whpic of NP] [‘NP’ in (5) corresponds to himself in (4a), him in (4b), Bob in (4c)] → ‘reconstruction’ is optional in (4a) → ‘reconstruction’ is obligatory in (4b,c) (if ‘reconstruction’ were optional, j-reading should be fine) Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  34. Binding Theory —Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j … hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of h.s.i/*j] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.] b. [whpic of h.s.] hej saw [whpic of h.s.*i/j] twh twh the LF in (5a) yields i-reading for (4a) the LF in (5b) yields j-reading for (4a) Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  35. Binding Theory —Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j… hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of NP*i/j] hej saw [wh pic of Bob ] b. [whpic of Bob ] hej saw [whpic of NP*i/*j] twh twh the LF in (5a) should support a j-reading for (4b) the LF in (5a) should support a j-reading for (4c) why don’t these sentences support the j-reading? Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  36. Binding Theory —Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j… hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of NP*i/j] hej saw [wh pic of Bob ] b. [whpic of Bob ] hej saw [whpic of NP*i/*j] (6) ‘minimize the restriction in the operator position’ (Chomsky 1995:209) twh twh → (5b) must be chosen whenever possible why don’t these sentences support the j-reading? Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  37. Binding Theory —Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j… hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of NP*i/j] hej saw [wh pic of Bob ] b. [whpic of Bob ] hej saw [whpic of NP*i/*j] (6) ‘minimize the restriction in the operator position’ (Chomsky 1995:209) twh twh no problem choosing (5b) in (4b,c) → so do! why don’t these sentences support the j-reading? Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  38. Binding Theory —Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j… hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of NP*i/j] hej saw [wh pic of Bob ] b. [whpic of Bob ] hej saw [whpic of NP*i/*j] (6) ‘minimize the restriction in the operator position’ (Chomsky 1995:209) twh twh no problem choosing (5b) in (4b,c) → so do! → j-reading blocked in (4b,c) — as desired Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  39. Binding Theory —Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j… hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of NP*i/j] hej saw [wh pic of Bob ] b. [whpic of Bob ] hej saw [whpic of NP*i/*j] (6) ‘minimize the restriction in the operator position’ (Chomsky 1995:209) twh twh Q:what makes (4a) stray from the preference for (5b)? Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  40. Binding Theory —Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j… hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of h.s.i/*j] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.] b. [whpic of h.s.] hej saw [whpic of h.s.*i/j] (7) a. John saw a picture of himself twh twh Q:what makes (4a) stray from the preference for (5b)? (7a) is input to anaphor movement at LF → (7b) Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  41. Binding Theory —Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j… hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of h.s.i/*j] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.] b. [whpic of h.s.] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.*i/j] (7) a. John saw a picture of himself b. John himself-I saw picture of t twh twh (7b) gives himself antecedent via Spec-Head agr. Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  42. Binding Theory —Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j… hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) [wh pic of h.s.] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.] if LF anaphor mov’t starts out from higher copy the higher copy must be preserved in full@ LF to ensure local licensing of himself’s trace @ LF → (6) can be overridden by need to converge Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  43. Binding Theory —Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j… hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (6) ‘minimize the restriction in the operator position’ (Chomsky 1995:209) → (6) can be overridden by need to converge Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  44. Binding Theory —Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j… hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) [wh pic of h.s.] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.] but of course (6) does not have to be overridden himselfcan also be launched from lower copy → in that case, preserve the restriction downstairs Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  45. Binding Theory —Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j… hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of NP] hej saw [wh pic of NP] b. [whpic of NP] hej saw [whpic of NP] twh twh → with NP=himself, (5a,b) are both available → hence the ambiguity of (4a) notwithstanding the general preference for (5b) Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  46. Binding Theory —Further Issues (4) hei wondered… a. which picture of himselfi/j b. which picture of himi/*j… hej saw c. which picture of Bob*i/*j (5) a. [wh pic of h.s.i/*j] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.] b. [whpic of h.s.] hej saw [wh pic of h.s.*i/j] (7) a. John saw a picture of himself b. John himself-I saw picture of t twh twh governing category is now superfluous for BT-A Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  47. Summary of Main Results governing category is superfluous for BT-A BT-C never referred to government to begin with (perhaps BT-C is not a condition of grammar) BT-B is the mirror image counterpart of BT-A → can be restated as an elsewhere condition governmentis superfluous for all of BT perhaps all of Binding Theory is superfluous Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  48. Summary of Main Results government is superfluous in the domain of trace theory: the ‘ECP’ has been reduced to a chain condition, the Minimal Link Condition (‘minimise chain links’) government is superfluous in the domain of Case theory: Case assignment has been recast as Case checking, happening uniformly under Spec-Head agreement (in Chapter 3) Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  49. Summary of Main Results recall Chomsky (1995:29–30) ‘The P&P approach is sometimes termed Govern-ment-Binding (GB) Theory. The terminology is misleading. True, early efforts to synthesize current thinking in these terms happened to concentrate on the theories of government and of binding …, but these modules of language stand alongside many others: Case theory, θ-theory, and so on. It may turn out that the concept of government has a kind of unifying role, but there is nothing inherent to the approach that requires this.’ Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

  50. Summary of Main Results reference to D/S-structure is impossible in the domain of Binding Theory reference to D-structure as the sole input to Move is impossible reference to D-structure is impossible in the domain of θ-theory/predication reference to S-structure is impossible in the domain of Case Theory Marcel den Dikken @ EGG 2016

More Related