240 likes | 360 Views
Null complementizers Sept. 21, 2012 – Day 11. Introduction to Syntax ANTH 3590/7590 Harry Howard Tulane University. Course management. http://www.tulane.edu/~howard/ANTH3590/ Check your quiz grades on Blackboard. R eview. Diagram these two sentences.
E N D
Null complementizersSept. 21, 2012 – Day 11 Introduction to Syntax ANTH 3590/7590 Harry Howard Tulane University
Course management • http://www.tulane.edu/~howard/ANTH3590/ • Check your quiz grades on Blackboard ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane
Review ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane
Diagram these two sentences • She wants to take a picture of herself. • Nobody said that they would have any fun. ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane
§3.6 NULL C IN FINITE CLAUSES ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane
OVERVIEW • The pattern, #42 • We didn’t know [if/whether he had resigned] • We didn’t know [that he had resigned] • We didn’t know [he had resigned] • Hypothesis: all embedded clauses have a complementizer. • See tree on next slide. ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane
We would know [{if/whether/that/Ø} he had resigned] TP PRN we T’ T would VP V know CP C if/whether that that TP ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane PRN he T’ T had VP V resigned
NULL C IN FINITE CLAUSES • More evidence • We didn’t know [he had resigned] or [that he had been accused of corruption] ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane
THE CONTRIBUTION OF COMPLEMENTIZERS • What does a complementizer do? • It marks the (illocutionary) force of a clause • declarative • interrogative ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane
CASE • What is (linguistic) case? • I am tired. (nominative) • Mary kissed him ~ Mary looked at him. (accusative) • Mary kissed his cheek. (genitive) • Case condition (#52) • A pronoun or noun expression is assigned case by the closest case-assigning head which c-commands it. • Hypothesis • A finite C assigns nominative case to the subject. ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane
§3.7 INFINITIVAL CLAUSES ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane
What structure do we postulate for:I will arrange [for him to see a specialist] TP PRN I T’ T will VP V arrange CP C for TP ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane PRN him T’ T to VP V see QP a specialist
A null C for for • She wanted [him to apologize] • She wanted [him to apologize] and [for her to receive the award] • She wanted more than anything [for him to apologize] • What she wanted was [for him to apologize] ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane
CONTROL CLAUSES TP PRN I T’ • Hypothesis: control clauses have a null C. • What structure do we postulate for: • I will try [to see a specialist] T will VP V try CP C Ø TP ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane PRN PRO T’ T to VP V see QP a specialist
§3.8 DEFECTIVE CLAUSES ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane
alternative ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane follow material from Ex 3.2
AN ORDINARY INFINITIVAL? • So what about They believe [her to be innocent]? • It looks like any other infinitival clause, but … • I believe Mary to be innocent and for John to be guilty. • I want Mary to be innocent and for John to be guilty. (cf. 55) • What I believe is (for) Mary to be innocent. (cf. 69a) • What I want is for Mary to be innocent. (cf. 58a) • She is believed to be innocent. (70a) • She is wanted to be innocent. * ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane * *
CONJECTURE • The complement to believe and similar verbs is a TP, not a CP. • Without a CP, there is no null C (ø) to assign case to the embedded subject. • So the matrix verb (believe) must be able to assign case across the TP boundary to the embedded subject. • This is an exception, which is why these are often called exceptional case-marking (ECM) verbs and clauses. • Lacking a CP, they can also be called defective clauses. ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane
ECM CLAUSE CP TP C ø PRN I T’ VP T Af1stSgPres V believe TP ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane PRN her T’ T to VP V be Adj innocent
PASSIVIZATION FROM AN ECM CLAUSE CP TP C ø PRN she T’ VP T is V believed TP ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane T’ PRN she T to VP V be Adj innocent
IMPENETRABILITY • There is still one datum left unaccounted for, which is why the subject of CP cannot passivize. • A complete answer presupposes an analysis of passivization, which we won’t see until §9. • But let us first assume that the embedded CP is impenetrable from the matrix clause: • The domain of a complementizer is impenetrable to a higher head c-commanding the complementizer. (almost #72) • “in the domain of” means ‘c-commanded by’ • A constituent in an impenetrable domain cannot enter into a syntactic relation outside of its domain. (HH) • Now we look at the following slide for an illustration. ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane
PASSIVIZATION FROM A CP CP TP C ø PRN he T’ VP T is V wanted CP ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane C ø TP T’ PRN he T to VP V apologize
NEXT TIME ANTH3590/7590, Harry Howard, Tulane Q3 Null determiners