Tanmoy Bhattacharya

Centre for Advanced Studies in Linguistics

University of Delhi

tanmoy@linguistics.du.ac.in

12

02

13

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

1

The standard view: CHL : ([F],LEX) EXP

However, this has been called into question

recently (Stroik 2000, 2009) from the perspective of

conceptual necessity, so has been the associated

machinery:

Phases

Phase Impenetrability Condition (PIC)

Phase Complement Transfer (PCT)

Transfer

(Multiple) Spell Out

Economy conditions like Shortest Move

12

02

13

2

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

Similarly: Why Internal Merge (IM)?

1. Axioms and Derived Operations

2. Unifying External and Internal Merge

3. A model without IM is similar to a L-

to-R parsing algorithm

12

02

13

3

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

Head as a postulate/ axiom should be regarded as

a purely formal statement (and not necessarily as a

fact based on experience) asymmetry

Head Projections array of LIs from LEX for

further computation

Head basic local relations

(where H-Complement is more fundamental, others

being “elsewhere”)

Head Chain Link

A Head gives rise to a

12

02

13

4

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

A CFC Head allows an “extra” Spec [Wh(C),

EPP(T), and OS(v)]:

= [XP [(EA) H YP]]

The set resulting from S-selection and H-

asymmetry, has the following properties that hold

between the members:

a) HEAD

[XP [(EA) H(=C) YP]]

b) HEAD Relate to higher T

[(EA) H(=V) YP] Extended Locality

c) ZP [pseudo direction]

[XP [ H(=C) YP]]

12

02

13

5

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

Optimal solutions to design principles:

Filler-Gap Dependency

Displacement

External motivation:

distinct semantic interpretation (Q-scope)

Processing (reanalysis)

Displacement and devices implementing

it are only apparent imperfections

12

02

13

6

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

Chain Link + Adjuncts

DOMAIN

Basic elements of representations

(to be derived derivationally = CH)

Basic transformation operation:

FORM CHAIN

(tension btween SM versus fewest steps)

[e seems [e to be likely [John to win]]]

CH = (John, t’, t) in a single step via Form Chain

12

02

13

7

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

With recursive PS rules, Generalized

Transformation (GT) was given up, MP revives is

through parallel derivations

GT: Binary operation: (K, K1) K*

Move : Singularly operation: K K*

Unifying: Target external to K in both:

Extension Condition

[substitution operations always extend target]

1

(a) [ seems [ is certain [John to be here]]]

it 2

12

02

13

8

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

[Bhattacharya, 2008]

The problem of encoding movement in a

left-to-right parser generally

They also highlight the difficulty of

implementing the syntactic finding that

subjects in Bangla occupy a high topic-like

position.

Designing an efficient P-G parser requires

reexamination of the idea of EPP/EFs in

general

12

02

13

9

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

The CP as a Wh-phrase raises from a

postverbal SVO base-position to a

Wh-position located below the subject,

resulting in licensing of the Wh-phrase

as follows:

Sub [CP … wh …]i V tiBangla has WH movement

12

02

13

10

FL@

IITD

/ Bh

atta

ch

ary

a

Position of subject hides Wh movement in Bangla.

Thus only referentially specific elements occur as

subjects preceding Wh-phrases in the “subject-

position”:

Chele du-To [kon boi-Ta]i poRlo ti ?

boy two-CL which book-CL read

„Which books did the two boys read?‟

#Du-To chele [kon boi-Ta]i poRlo ti ?

two-CL boy which book-CL read

[DP +Specific/ *-Specific] > WH

12

02

13

11

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

Bangla is a language with obligatory

overt Wh-movement from an

underlying SVO base position

Non-Wh arguments (Subjects)/

adjuncts raise to a Topic-like position

The Wh/Q-licensing position follows

the regular surface position of the

subject and is headed by a polarity-

type functional head

12

02

13

12

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

12

02

13

13

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

Since Chain Links are axiomatic, Minimal Domain is

derivative and so is Agree

Agree is an Operational explanation (and so is Phi-

agreement)

Agree as valuation-driven rather than interpretability

driven

Pesetsky and Torrego (2007):

“[…] reason for assuming that the T-feature of Tns is

unvalued, though interpretable: the fact that Tns appears

to learn its value in finite clauses from the finite verb.”

interpretable unvalued feature: [uF:val] values [iF: __]

Selected Modal/T/C is of that type (Wurmbrand)

12

02

13

14

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

Zeijlstra (2010):

iF [goal] » uF [probe]

Haegeman and Lohndal (2010):

α Agrees with β if α c-commands β, α and β both

have a feature F, and there is no γ with the feature

F such that α c-commands γ and γ c-commands β.

o Adger (2003):

An uninterpretable feature F on a syntactic object

Y is checked when Y is in a c-command relation

with another syntactic object which bears a

matching feature F.

12

02

13

15

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

12

02

13

16

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

12

02

13

17

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a

12

02

13

18

FL

@IIT

D/ B

hatta

ch

ary

a