270 likes | 289 Views
Lecture 1: Trace Theory. Advanced Syntax. We have seen that things move : Arguments move out of the VP into subject position Wh-phrases move out of IP into CP Verbs move from V position to I and C But this can’t be the whole story: It isn’t the case that anything can move anywhere
E N D
Lecture 1: Trace Theory Advanced Syntax
We have seen that things move : • Arguments move out of the VP into subject position • Wh-phrases move out of IP into CP • Verbs move from V position to I and C • But this can’t be the whole story: • It isn’t the case that anything can move anywhere • Besides looking at what can move we also need to look at what can’t • For a full picture, we also need to know why: • Things can and can’t move Movement
In the next 3 weeks we will be looking at: • What happens to positions that things move out of • What restrictions there are on movements • Why things move The theory of movement
There is a central idea, proposed in the 1970s, that movements do not change structures: Structural Preservation • If not: • any structure could be produced by a movement • there would be no theory of structure
Another idea is that movements do not alter lexical properties: The projection principle • If not: • There would be no lexical restrictions on structure • Words could change categories or subcategories
An intransitive verb cannot become transitive by something moving into its object position • He smiled (a smile) at Mary • * He smiled Mary at • A transitive verb cannot become intransitive by moving its object • He smiled a smile (unergative) • There arrived a letter (unaccusative) • Who did he meet • * Who did he meet a meet • * Who did there meet a man Movement does not alter lexical properties
When a subject moves from one clause to another (raising)- • John seems [ to be intelligent] • the clause does not behave as though it has lost its subject: • Clauses without subjects are ungrammatical • * is intelligent • Only the subject of a clause can be the antecedent of a reflexive pronoun in the object position of that clause • John thinks [ Bill likes himself] • John seems [ to like himself] Other things movement doesn’t change
When a verb moves out of V into I, the VP does not behave as though it has lost its head: • The heat made [VP the ice melt] • The heat melt-ed [VP the ice] • Phrases without heads are ungrammatical • The inflection can only take a VP complement Other things movement doesn’t change
In the mid-1970s it was suggested that when something moves, the position that it leaves does not disappear and neither is it left empty • A ‘trace’ of the moved element is left behind • Traces have the same properties as the moved element (category, reference, etc.) • But they are phonologically empty • The heat melt–ed [VP the ice [Vt] ] • Who did he meet [DPt] • He seems [IP [DPt] to be intelligent ] The trace theory of movement
If traces are invisible, how do we know they are there? • There are three phenomena which seems to support the supposition of traces: • ‘Wanna’ contraction • Doubling • Resumption A question
When want is followed immediately by to, they can be contracted to the form wanna in informal spoken English: • I want to hold your hand I wanna hold your hand • Obviously, this can’t happen if there is something between want and to: • I want you to hold my hand • * I wanna you hold my hand • * I you wanna hold my hand ‘Wanna’ contraction
Now consider: • who do you want to hold your hand • As want and to are adjacent, we might think that they can contract – but they can’t: • * who do you wanna hold your hand • This can be explained with trace theory: the trace sits between want and to: • you want who to hold your hand • who do you want t to hold your hand ‘Wanna’ contraction
If we did not suppose the presence of a trace in these sentence, it would be difficult to account for why wanna contraction can take place in some cases but not others: • I wanna hold your hand • * who do you wanna hold your hand • From the surface, both these cases look identical. Wanna contraction and trace theory
Doubling is a phenomena found in some languages where a moved element is pronounced twice: • Once in the position it is moved to • Once in the position it is moved from Doubling
For example, in some dialects of Dutch and Italian, a moved wh-phrase can appear twice: • ci alo visto ci? (Italian dialect) • whom has-he seen whom • “who has he seen?” • wie denk je wie ik gezien heb? (Dutch dialect) • who think you who I seen have • “who do you think I have seen?” Doubling
Some languages do the same thing with verbs that move: • In Gungbe (Togo), to emphasise a verb it is moved to the front of a clause – but it is also pronounced in its normal position inside the clause too: • ∂ù Sená ∂ù ble∂ì lo • eat Sena eat bread DET • “Sena ATE the bread” Doubling
Doubling is associated with movement • It is not just the repetition of words or phrases • One part of the doubled element is pronounced in the ‘extraction site’ • Exactly where the trace would be in cases with no doubling • Doubling therefore appears to involve the pronunciation of the trace doubling and trace theory
Resumptive pronouns are pronouns used in positions from which movement has taken place. • In English we find them in two contexts: • Left dislocation • In constructions that would otherwise involve an ungrammatical movement Resumption
Left dislocation is similar to topicalisation • Topicalisation involves the movement of an argument to the front of the clause: • (Usually, he likes animals but)those hamsters, he won’t go anywhere near • With topicalisation the extraction site is left empty Left dislocation
With left dislocation the argument is moved to the front of the clause, but the extraction site is not empty: • That politician, I can’t stand him • The pronoun in the extraction site is called a resumptive pronoun • There has been much discussion of the structure of left dislocation • Whether it involves a single clause • Whether it involves movement at all • If it is a single clause and it does involve movement, then it seems that traces alternate with resumptive pronouns • John, I despise (him) Left dislocation
There are some constructions in which movements produce ungrammaticalities • which candidate do you know [Bill voted for] • * which candidate do you know [why Bill voted for] • The syntactic contexts (e.g. a clause which begins with a wh-phrase) which prevent movement are often called Islands Rescuing ungrammatical movements
We know relative clauses begin with a wh-phrase (the relative pronoun), though they are not always pronounced • the man [(who) you gave the money to] • The movement of the relative pronoun is also blocked by Islands • * the man who I wondered why you gave the money to • However, this ungrammaticality can often be improved with a resumptive pronoun in the extraction position • the man who I wondered why you gave the money to him Ungrammatical relative clauses
Resumption is a little like doubling, though: • Instead of the trace being pronounced as a full DP, a pronoun is used instead • Resumption is a more common phenomena (English doesn’t have doubling, but it does use resumptive pronouns, for example) • It has been claimed that a resumptive pronoun is a partial pronunciation of a trace • The pronoun realises the category and the reference of the trace, but not its full lexical content • Again, resumptive pronouns are visible traces Resumptive pronouns and traces
A sentence can contain several movement and a single element can move several times Each movement leaves behind a trace So we need to keep track of which trace belongs to which moved element Multiple movement = multiple traces
To do this we use indices: • [CP - [IP - past [VP -en [VP who see]]]] • Movements: • Object moves to subject position • Wh-phrase moves to specifier of CP • Verb moves to passive morpheme • Auxiliary moves to C (after insertion to support tense) • S-structure • [CP who1 was3 [IP t1 t3 [VP see2 -en [VP t1 t2]]]] indicies
Traces are (usually) unpronounced elements left behind by movements • They preserve the structure of the sentence and the lexical properties of the elements in the sentence • We have phonological evidence of their existence • They can be pronounced • They block certain phonological processes • They are indexed with the moved element Summary