Argument structure: 1

Transcription

1 Ph.D. course & workshop on Object Positions and Clause Structure June 14-17, 006, Sandbjerg Estate, S!nderborg, Denmark Christer Platzack, Center of Language and Literature, Lund University Argument structure: 1 Christer Platzack Center of Language and Literature, Lund University Introduction Aims The term Argument Structure is used here to refer to the syntactic configuration projected by a lexical item. Cross-linguistically, the number of DP-arguments (i.e., arguments not expresssed by the help of adpositions) varies between zero (1) and three (), presumably universally: (1) Det dansades till sent p!å kvä!llen it was danced until late at night () Johan gav Eva en bok John gave Eva a book. Allowing arguments expressed by adpositions, there are verbs that take more than three arguments, like köpa buy, which involves a buyer and a seller, a prize and an article: () Johan sålde boken till Eva för 00 kronor. Johan sold book.the to Eva for 00 crowns In Lesson 1 I will present a syntactic way to account for the restriction in the number of DP arguments that a verb may take, based on present-day generative grammar (the Minimalist framework). In Lesson I will show how some of the more frequent types of argument structure are analyzed, given the Minimalist tool-box. Lesson will show how the account of argument structure advanced here can be used to describe case in Icelandic. The account proposed here is not the only one possible within the Minimalist framework. A similar, but on crucial points different approach is outlined in Nordström (006). More diverging, but still within the general Minimalist framework is the suggestion advocated among others by Gillian Ramchand (006). In Ramchand s opinion, the situational aspect (aktionsart) of the verb phrase determines its argument structure. Thus, e.g., to account for an accomplishment like John ate the apple, Ramchand assumes a structure where John is the specifier of an INIT(iate) phrase, and the apple is the subject of a PROCESS Phrase and a RE- SULT phrase, mirroring the fact that the apple is measuring out the time of the Event. Lesson 1: The Theoretical Tool box In this section I will present and discuss concepts like the ones mentioned in (4): (4) a. The computational system Chomsky (1995/001) b. The general sentence structure c. Roots and categories (see (5)) Marantz (1997), Chomsky (005) d. UTAH (Universal Theta Assignment Hypothesis) Baker (1997) e. Valued and unvalued features Chomsky (001), Pesetsky & Torrego (001) f. The operation Agree Chomsky (001), Pesetsky & Torrego (001) g. EPP (Extended projection principle) Chomsky (198), Pesetsky & Torrego (001) h. Unpronounced arguments Hale & Keyser (00) 1. The computational system (Narrow syntax) According to mainstream minimalism, the computational system is an algebra that derives a Narrow syntactic representation of a sentence as the one given in (5).

2 (5) CP C C T v v P (5) illustrates the structure determined by the category verb, syntactically established by merging a category neutral root phrase P to v. If a root phrase is merged to p we get the category preposition, if it is merged to a, we get the category adjective, and if it is merged to n we get the category noun. This is illustrated in (6) for one and the same root: (6) a. pp p P b. ap a P (7) a. There is a pub the road. b. an tendency c. He is on the. d. And he s and says c. np n P d. vp v P 4 Each categorial structure determines its own particular functional structure; thus, e.g., the verb is embedded under a tense projection () and a sentence type projection (CP) that also may have somehting to do with finiteness. This is illustrated in (5). The noun is embedded under a number projection (NumP) and a determiner projection (DP), etc. as outlined in (8): (8) DP D D NumP Num Num np n n P DP John DP fear dogs To a certain extent, these functional projections determine what may appear within the root phrase. Thus, e.g., the root fear takes two arguments, the Experiencer and the feared object. When fear is embedded under vp, these arguments will be expressed as DPs, whereas in the case fear is embedded under np, the first argument is expressed as a DP in the genitive case, and the second one as a DP in a prepositional phrase: (9) a. John fears dogs. b. John s fear of dogs.

3 Narrow syntax may be seen as the zipper that joins the conceptual-intensional cognitive systems (roughly semantics ) with the perceptual-motor systems (roughly form, the cognitive systems for communicating language). According to current assumptions within the generative camp, it is Narrow syntax which is the unique human part of language. An important assumption about Narrow syntax is that the computational system is derivational in nature, i.e. restrictions on the syntactic representation of a sentence are built into the derivation of the sentence. Roughly, this means that the structure is derived from bottom to top; a category neutral root like e.g. fear combines/ merges with an already assembled phrase (DP 1 ) like e.g. dogs to create, which merges with another phrase (DP ) like e.g. John to create P, as seen in the lower part of (8). The root phrase is category neutral. In the following we will only consider the case where a root phrase is merged to v to create a verb. When v is merged to the root phrase containing John, fear and dogs, we get (10): (10) vp v P DP John DP 1 fear dogs. Universal Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH) In Baker (1997), UTAH is seen as a universal one-to-one correspondence between a DPexpressed thematic role (in a particular broad sense) and first merge: a DP with the role of Agent (Cause, Instrument) is first merged in Spec-vP, a DP being Benefactive, Goal, Recipient or Experiencer is first merged in Spec-VP, and a Patient or Theme DP is first merged in the complement of V. (11) The Thematic Hieararchy Agent > Goal > Theme. It follows from UTAH that no clause may contain more than one DP-argument of each thematic type. (1) a. *John broke the window a hammer. b. John broke the window with a hammer.. Features A syntactic structure is the result of merging of lexical elements, where the lexical entries consist of features with semantic values. These features may come in two guises, interpretable and valued or uninterpretable and unvalued. Only interpretable features are allowed at the semantic interface, hence the syntactic computation must delete the uninterpretable instances for the derivation to converge. (1) bruna hästar brown.pl horses I will follow Pesetsky & Torrego (001, 004) and use two features, tense (τ), interpretable in T and v, and person, gender and number (φ-features), interpretable in DP. 4. The operation Agree Uninterpretable features are deleted with the help of an operation called Agree, see Chomsky (001). This operation proceeds in three steps: Step 1: Select a probe i.e. a head with (at least) one uninterpretable feature uf. Step : Search the c-command domain of the probe for the closest goal with the same feature but with reversed value for interpretability, F. 1 1 X c-commands Y iff Z which is the closest dominator of X also dominates Y. C-command is a way to express scope relations within a syntactic structure.

4 Step : Value the uninterpretable feature of the probe in accordance with the value of the goal, and delete the uninterpretable feature. The relevant probes are v and T. I will assume that v, in terms of the features τ and φ, has the same inherent feature set for all types of verbs, contra Chomsky (001, 005) but in line with Legate (00). In particular, I will assume that all vp:s are phases, hence intermediary parts of the structure where transfer of information between Narrow syntax and the semantic part and the form part takes place. I will not use the concept phase in my descriptions below. 5. EPP and the Edge Feature Movement is forced either by EPP or by an Edge Feature. Consider first EPP, short for Extended Projection Principle. In its present use, EPP indicates that the valuation of an uninterpretable feature must have visible effects. This is indicated by the presence of EPP on an uninterpreted feature in a probe, technically represented as uf EPP. Movement is also forced by the presence of an Edge-feature (Chomsky 005) on C, T or v. Whereas movement triggered by EPP is similar to or identical with A-movement, i.e. the purely grammatically triggered movement that arguments may undergo, movement triggered by an Edge-feature is similar to or identical with A-bar-movement. (14) Maríu hef ég aldrei hitt. Mary have I never met (15) Fundurinn, sem fram hafði farið í Oslo, meeting.the that on had gone in Oslo (16) Lásu stúdentarnir greinina ekki allir? read students.the article.the not all 6 The derivation of a transitive clause John ate an apple The derivation of the simple transitive clause (17a) is outlined in (17b). The agree-relations at hand are indicated by arrows. In a V-language like German, Dutch or the Scandinavian languages, the verb is forced to raise to C (V) and the subject to Spec-CP, due to the Edgefeature in C. (17) a. John ate the apple. b. CP John T vp [τ, uφ EPP ] DP vp [uτ, φ] John v P [τ, uφ] ate DP ate [uτ, φ] the apple 7. Invisible Arguments Following a suggestion by Hale & Keyser (00:88-94), there are reason to assume that the structure may contain unpronounced DPs, semantically detectable and carrying features. Clear candidates for such an analysis are transitive verbs that appear with their complement left unexpressed but retrievable from the context or the meaning of the verb. Consider the English examples in (18): (18) a. John ate quickly. b. Sam wrote the whole day. Since uninterpretable features may have phonetic realization (see (1)), they cannot be deleted before transfer to the phonological component (Chomsky 005). 4

5 The objects of eat and write refer to food and texts, respectively, and cases like (18) are just as transitive as the corresponding cases with visible objects. Hence, example (18a) does not differ syntactically from (17) with respect to argument structure, as shown in (19): (19) CP John T vp [τ, uφ EPP ] DP vp [uτ, φ] John v P [τ, uφ] ate ate [uτ, φ] DP FOOD In (19), as in (17), we have two probes (T and v) and two goals (John and DP FOOD ), and the Agree operation proceeds smoothly in both cases. In Lesson I will show how some of the more frequent types of argument structure are analyzed, given the Minimalist tool-box. Lesson will show how the account of argument structure advanced here can be used to describe case in Icelandic. Appendix: Possible and impossible structures In the structures below, DP may be visible or not. However, DPs moved to Spec- due to EPP or an edge-feature in T must be visible. 1. No DP in Spec-vP A. No DP within P This is an impossible structure, since v will not get rid of its uφ B. One DP within P (i) T vp [τ, uφ EPP ] v P [τ, uφ] DP Ex: The train arrived [uτ, φ] (ii) [uφ,τ] [uφ,τ] DP VP [φ,uτ] V PP Ex: I long for you. C. Two DPs within P (iii) [uφ,τ] [uφ,τ] DP V [φ] V DP [φ,uτ] Ex: John loves Mary Mary was given the book (iv) [uφ,τ] [uφ,τ] DP V [φ,uτ] V DP [φ,uτ] Ex: Mary pleases me. (v) [uφ,τ] [uφ,τ] DP V V DP [φ,uτ] Ex: The book was given Mary 5

6 . DP in Spec-vP In this case, T will always probe the DP in Spec-vP (provided it has the full feature set ). A. DP in the complement of This is (17), John ate an apple. B. DP in the Specifier of P [uφ,τ] DP vp [φ,uτ] John [uφ,τ] DP VP her [φ,uτ] V helped Ex: John helped her. C. Two DPs in P This is ditransitive verbs, like John gave Mary the book. Note that only one of the DPs within P can have full feature set. 4 DP T John T vp [τ,uφ EPP ] DP v John v P [uτ φ] gave DP [τ uφ] Mary DP [φ] gave the book [uτ φ] It follows from Starke s Anti Identity principle (Starke 001, 8) that αβ...α...αβ is a legal environment for establishing a relation between the two instances of αβ. Hence the probe v will Agree with the direct object, bypassing the indirect one. 6