Tanmoy Bhattacharya
Centre for Advanced Studies in Linguistics
University of Delhi
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
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
Top Related