grammatical foundations

Exercise 4

In our sentence, this position cannot be the final position of the DP Mary the v head of the middle vP is occupied by the passive morpheme -en, which does not assign accusative Case. So the DP has to move on to the next position where it has a chance to receive Case. This position is the specifier of IP, where the finite I head assigns nominative Case to it. The main verb has to adjoin to the lower v, which is an abstract bound morpheme. This complex head has to move on to the middle v head containing the passive morpheme, which is also a bound morpheme. The upper vP is the tense vP where be is inserted as a dummy auxiliary as the thematic verb cannot move further on from the passive vP. Be together with the tense morpheme moves on to I containing the zero agreement morpheme.

(12)CP

391

Suggested Answers and Hints - Chapter 6

l) In the sentence Jim took his shoes off we find a phrasal verb take off. The main verb take occupies the V head, assigning a theme thematic role to the DP in its specifier position and it also takes a PP complement, which consists of a mere head. The agent DP occupies the specifier of the vP. The v head is occupied by an abstract light verb, which is a bound morpheme requiring the main verb to adjoin to it. The agent DP has to move to the specifier of the IP in order to receive nominative Case from the finite I head. From the lower vP the verb moves on to the tense vP and I.

(13)CP

C©

C IP

DP1 I©

took2+3 v©

v vp

v VP

392

Exercise 4

m) In the sentence Jim took off his shoes we also find the phrasal verb take off, but here the preposition off precedes the DP his shoes. The structure of the sentence can be derived from the structure in (13). The only difference between the two derivations is that the preposition adjoins to the main verb before it moves to the v head. The rest of the derivation is the same as in (13).

(14)CP

393

Suggested Answers and Hints - Chapter 6

n) In the sentence John thinks that Jim knows that Mary gave his book to Jane there is a verb think which takes a clause as its argument. In this clause there is a verb know which again takes a clause as an argument. The verb think assigns two thematic roles: an experiencer to the DP John, which occupies the specifier of the vP in the D-structure, and a propositional, which is assigned to the CP in the specifier position of the VP. The DP John has to move to the specifier position of the IP in order to get Case from the finite I head. There is an abstract light verb in the v head which requires the main verb to adjoin to it. The CP is in a Case position but CPs do not need to be assigned Case, moreover, CPs avoid Case positions, so the CP moves rightwards and adjoins to the VP. Inside this clause the V head is occupied by the verb know, which takes two arguments: an experiencer in the specifier of the vP, which moves to the specifier of the IP for Case, and a propositional, which is a CP and occupies the specifier position of the VP. The verb adjoins to the light verb. The CP is again in a Case position, and moves to the right adjoining to the VP. Inside the CP, the V is occupied by the verb give. Give takes three arguments: an agent in the specifier of the vP, a theme in the specifier of the VP and a goal PP in the complement position of the verb. The DP Mary moves to the specifier of the IP, while the DP his book receives Case in its base position from the v head. The DP Jane is assigned Case in its base position by the preposition to. Besides all this the thematic verbs undergo the usual movements to the tense v and then to I, which appears in a simplified form in the tree to avoid a really disturbing abundance of traces (notice, however, that e.g. knows is made up of two morphemes, know and -s, so there should be two traces in tense v).

v VP

t3 V©

V

t2

394

Exercise 4

v VP

t5 V©

V

t6

395

Suggested Answers and Hints - Chapter 7

Chapter 7

Check Quesions

Q1 The set of complementizers in English include the words if, that and for (disregarding any non-overt complementizer for the time being). These elements introduce clauses and determine what is called the ’force’ of the clause, i.e. whether the clause is a statement (declarative) or a question (interrogative). Thus, if introduces interrogative while that and for declarative clauses. The latter two differ in terms of whether the clause they introduce is finite (that) or non-finite (for). Complementizers are not part of basic clause structure (i.e. the IP) but they form a constituent with it. The force, in other words a salient property of a clause is determined by the complementizer, thus it can be argued that they are heads determining the properties of the structure they head (compare if they should leave vs that they should leave vs for them to leave). Heads select their complements and indeed, complementizers select the type of IP they subcategorise for. Another head-like property manifested by complementizers is that they are word-level categories and not phrases, followed by their complement phrase (the IP) which renders them strikingly similar to other functional heads taking only one type of complement.

396

Check Quesions

Q2 Main clauses in English, although it is preferable for them to be conceptualised as CPs, are never introduced by an overt complementizer. Nevertheless, given that the clause is interpreted either as declarative or interrogative, the presence of a non-overt complementizer is justified. Finite declarative object clauses may or may not contain an overt complementizer (Peter knew (that) Mary left) in line with the assumption that they are CPs. Subordinate subject clauses, on the other hand, must contain an overt complementizer (That Mary left surprised everyone).

Q3 Canonical structural realisation principles underlie the observation that certain arguments are typically realised by certain structures. More specifically, theme arguments are usually realised as DPs, location arguments as PPs and propositional arguments as CPs. This way it may be claimed that verbs which select for a finite declarative complement select for a CP rather than an IP. It must be noted that there are exceptions to canonical structural realisation principles, i.e. there are non-canonical realisations, e.g. when a nominal realises a goal argument which is usually realised by a PP (e.g. home).

Q4 On one hand, there are certain verbs that take (non-finite) complement clauses that do not contain complementizers (these also lack overt subjects, e.g. try, attempt, promise, etc.), on the other hand, there are finite complement clauses which contain a wh-phrase but not an overt complementizer (e.g. He didn’t know what to do). It is assumed that in these cases there is a non-overt element in the complementizer position.

Q5 It suggests that these elements occupy the same position, i.e. the C head position.

Q6 In an embedded yes-no question the presence of the interrogative complementizer determines the force of the clause, i.e. that it is interpreted as a question. In an embedded wh-question there is no overt element occupying the C head position and [Spec, CP] is occupied by the wh-element itself. Nevertheless, the clause is interpreted as interrogative. Given assumptions about specifier-head agreement observed elsewhere, it may be assumed that although the element in the C head position is non-overt, it has the [+wh] feature and that is what the wh-element in the [Spec, CP] position agrees with. Thus, it is necessary for the wh-element to appear in the [Spec, CP] position to manifest this specifier-head agreement relationship. For this reason a wh-element is seen as an operator necessary to promote the interpretation of a clause. In echo-questions the wh-element remains in its base position and the structure is not interpreted as a question, instead, it is interpreted as a device to provide missing information. A wh-element is only interpreted as an operator if it has moved into the [Spec, CP] position. In multiple wh-questions only one wh-element moves, the other remains in situ. The interpretation of the non-moved wh-element as an operator depends on the presence or absence of a moved wh-element in the same clause (The interpretative principle: Interpret a wh-element as an operator if it is in [Spec, CP] or is coindexed with a wh-element in [Spec, CP].).

397

Suggested Answers and Hints - Chapter 7

Q7 Operators are elements that indicate a process necessary in order to be able to work out the meaning of a clause that contains them. For example, fronted whelements are operators as they signify that the clause should be interpreted as interrogative, or ’whether’ is analysed as a general interrogative operator introducing subordinate yes-no questions similarly to its non-overt counterpart appearing in matrix yes-no questions. (Quantificational pronouns like ’everyone’ or ’someone’ are also operators).

Q8 A-movement (A=argument) is case-motivated (grammatically motivated), e.g. subject-movement, and the element moving is an argument that ands in an argument position, while A-bar movement (movement of an argument or non-argument to a nonargument position) is semantically motivated, e.g. wh-movement where the interpretation of the clause as interrogative is due to the wh-element moving.

Q9 According to one the motivation behind I-to-C movement is that in interrogative clauses there is a non-overt bound morpheme occupying the C head position and movement of the element in I is necessary to support that bound morpheme. According to the other set of assumptions, I-to-C movement is triggered by the C head position being empty and the requirement that it be filled. The element in I moves to satisfy that requirement. It is assumed that a main clause interrogative, where I-to-C movement occurs, cannot contain an overt complementizer (as opposed to embedded interrogatives). But the clause has to be marked as interrogative, thus the auxiliary moves to the empty head position, thereby providing a head the wh-element in [Spec, CP] position can agree with.

Q10 ‘Whether’ differs from other complementizers in that it can introduce both finite and non-finite clauses. Secondly, as opposed to other complementizers, it can be coordinated with the negative particle not. In Old English ‘whether’ was used to introduce yes-no questions, yet Old English clauses were not introduced by complementizers, so ‘whether’ is assumed not to be one either. Although ‘whether’ is similar to wh-elements in that they can also introduce finite and non-finite clauses (e.g. what he should do – what to do; whether he should go – whether (or not) to go), it differs from wh-elements in that unlike wh-phrases, it is not associated with a gap inside the clause containing it.

Q11 It is a constraint that bans the co-occurrence of an overt wh-operator and an overt complementizer in a CP. It can contain only either one or the other, even though the two are not generated in the same structural position.

Q12 (i) Subjects precede the verb; (ii) the negative particle follows the finite tense and precedes the verb; (iii) adverbs follow the finite tense and precede the verb.

Q13 Regarding their interpretation, restrictive relative clauses pick and focus on one element out of a set of elements while non-restrictive relatives add extra information about the noun they modify. Structurally, restrictive relative clauses may contain a whpronoun or a complementizer or a non-overt element, while non-restrictives can and must contain a wh-pronoun. A further difference between the two types of relative clause is that non-restrictives must be inserted between commas or dashes (in speech there is a pause preceding them). Fourthly, non-restrictives appear to be more distant

398

Check Quesions

structurally from the noun they modify than restrictives as only restrictives can be part of one-pronominalisation together with the noun they modify. Both types can be coordinated with identical constituents, though, and both are analysed as adjuncts with the non-restrictive relative clause being attached further away from the noun head than the restrictive.

Q14 An interrogative pronoun has the feature [+wh] while a relative pronoun has the feature [-wh]. ‘What’ as an interrogative pronoun is associated with non-animate referents, while ‘what’ as a relative pronoun used in dialects is not. ‘What’ as a relative pronoun can only introduce so-called headless relatives in standard English.

Q15 It can only be used in finite clauses while relative pronouns may introduce both finite and non-finite clauses. It does not allow pied-piping, i.e. it must be separated from a preposition it is the complement of (e.g. the man with whom they talked – the man whom they talked with - *the man with that they met – the man that they talked with). As ‘that’ is a complementizer, there is no associated gap of the moved element after the preposition.

Q16 If the wh-element is part of a PP, there are two options as to the way it can move: along with the preposition, i.e. the whole PP moves (pied-piping, e.g. with whom did you leave) or separate from the preposition (preposition stranding, e.g. who did you leave with).

Q17 There are three main types of relative clauses, wh-relatives, that-relatives and zero-relatives. Wh-relatives contain an overt wh-pronoun associated with a trace of the noun head in the nominal structure while that-relatives and zero-relatives contain the non-overt counterpart (a null operator) of the relative pronoun associated with the trace of the noun. Besides, there are the so-called headless relatives that apear to lack amodified noun head, but they also have the distribution of a DP so they shuld be analysed as such: [whoever you support] will be promoted

Q18 Topic: it denotes information that is already part of the discourse or is easily identifiable by the participants on the basis of the context or general knowledge (socalled ‘old-information’). Focus: the stressed element that carries new information. Comment: information that follows the topic (so-called ‘new information’).

Q19 Matrix clauses: topicalised elements (potentially more than one) + wh-element. Embedded clauses: wh-element + topicalised elements.

Q20 Topicalisation, focus-fronting and negative-fronting.

Q21 The inverted auxiliary in negative–fronting structures precedes the inverted auxiliary but follows the complementizer.

Q22 The topic precedes the fronted negative. The topic also precedes the focus. The fronted negative is in complementary distribution with the focus.

399

Suggested Answers and Hints - Chapter 7

Exercise 1

Nominative case is given by the finite inflection, that is, an inflection that is tensed. Accusative case can be given by either a transitive verb or a preposition.

Exercise 2

aThe letter was sent to the government last night. passivisation

D-structure: [e] was sent [DP the letter] to the government last night S-structure: the letter1 was sent t1 to the government last night

bInteresting books, I often read. topicalisation

D-structure: [e] I often read [DP interesting books] S-structure: interesting books1 I often read t1

cCan you lend me your umbrella? Subject–auxiliary inversion (yes–no question) D-structure: [e] you can lend me your umbrella S-structure: can1 you t1 lend me your umbrella

dIn this garden, you can have a rest. topicalisation

D-structure: [e] you can have a rest [PP in this garden] S-structure: in this garden1 you can have a rest t1

400