1 / 38

English Auxiliaries and the Cartography of the Clause

English Auxiliaries and the Cartography of the Clause. Gregory Campbell Ellison University of Geneva, Department of Linguistics Gregory.Ellison@lettres.unige.ch CUSO 2007, 20 March , Leysin. Objectives. Establish the nature and the behavior of ( English ) auxiliary verbs

pahana
Download Presentation

English Auxiliaries and the Cartography of the Clause

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. English Auxiliaries and the Cartography of the Clause Gregory Campbell Ellison University of Geneva, Department of Linguistics Gregory.Ellison@lettres.unige.ch CUSO 2007, 20March, Leysin

  2. Objectives • Establish the nature and the behavior of (English) auxiliary verbs • Determine the structural arrangement of three important projections: Tense, Agreement, and Negation

  3. X-bar (Chomsky 1986, etc.):The conventional model of the clause CP C’ C° IP Specifier I’ I° VP V’ V° Complement complementizer subject inflection main verb object …

  4. The conventional model and auxiliaries: merit • explainsproperties of auxiliaries not shared by main verbs (Palmer 1974) (6) – (9) • precedence toNegation • subjectI nversion • ‘Code’ • Emphatic affirmation

  5. The conventional model and auxiliaries: shortcomings • ideal: morphology ↔ structure one auxiliary + one verb • reality: • clauseswith no auxiliary • clauseswithmultiple auxiliaries • severe restrictions on combinations and ordering

  6. The modified model • auxiliaries head distinct projections • modals enter in I° • aspect / voice auxiliaries enter as heads of distinct VPs • selection via subcategorization • ad hoc modifications to fit the observations • treats aspect / voice auxiliaries as main verbs

  7. Objective 1 Find a better explanationfor the syntax of auxiliaries

  8. Split-IP / Cartography • Pollock (1989): IP [CP [TP [NegP [AgrP [VP … • Cartographic Syntax: CP, IP, VP  multiple FPs

  9. Cinque (1999) • based on cross-linguistically fixed order of inflectional adverbs and affixes IP  a universally ordered series of some thirty functional projections (FPs), each associated with a specific semantic notion

  10. Cinque’s hierarchy (partial) • MoodSPEECH ACTP > MoodEVALUATIVEP > MoodEVIDENTIALP > ModEPISTEMICP > … MoodIRREALISP > ModALETHIC NECESSITYP > ModALETHIC POSSIBILITYP > ModVOLITIONP > ModOBLIGATIONP > ModABILITY/PERMISSIONP > AspHABITUALP > … AspPERFECTP > … AspPROGRESSIVEP > … AspCOMPLETIVEP > … VoiceP …

  11. Hypothesis English auxiliaries are alternate realizations of the same inflectional FPs *NB: Cinque’s hierarchy is considered here to be potentially modifiable

  12. semantic equivalence Peter is certainly at home. Petermustbe at home. FP(epistemic necessity) • syntactic difference • adverbs are Specifiers (Spec, FPn) • auxiliaries are heads(Fn°)

  13. How this explains the syntax of auxiliaries • a clause may contain more than one auxiliarybecause the hierarchy consists of many inflectional projections [CP C° [FP1 F1° [FP2 F2° [FP3 F3° [FP4 F4° [… [FPn Fn° [VP V° …

  14. modals are lexically finite  restriction to one modal, which must be initial Mary would[+FIN] have[-FIN] read this book. *Mary would[-FIN] has[+FIN] read this book. no non-finite forms *Lisa wanted to can[-FIN] speak French. • aspect / voice auxiliariesare optionally finite occur with each other and with modals, need not be initial Mary has[+FIN]been reading this book. Mary would[+FIN]have[-FIN] read this book. have non-finite forms Mary wants to have[-FIN] read this book by tomorrow.

  15. Exceptional modal constructions • multiple modal constructions (MMCs) John mightshould oughta be painting the barn. = “Perhaps John should be painting the barn.” (Southern US; Coleman (1975:73))

  16. not satisfactorily explained by the conventional model • adverb + modal (Labov, Cohen, and Lewis (1968)) • lexical compounds heading single projections (Di Paolo (1989)) • merge in syntax as a single node (Boertien (1979)) • no problem for the current model • many available heads in the inflectional hierarchy of FPs • in contrast to Standard English, modals in MMC varieties are not obligatorily finite

  17. Evidence of non-finiteness in MMC varieties • infinitive modal constructions I would like to could swim. = “I would like to be able to swim.” (Hawick Scots; Brown (1991:75))

  18. Objective 2 Use English auxiliaries to reveal the arrangement of TP, NegP, and AgrP

  19. How is IP split? • Pollock (1989): IP [CP [TP [NegP [AgrP [VP … • Belletti (1990): IP [CP [AgrP [NegP [TP [VP …

  20. English has been treated as offering limited evidence because: • lack of rich verbal morphology • lexical verbs do not raise from VP

  21. Claim English modal auxiliaries provide an overlooked source of syntactic evidence toward revealing the structure of IP

  22. Aspect / voice auxiliaries (modal + havePERFECT + bePROGRESSIVE + bePASSIVE) all modal auxiliary FPs > FP(perfect aspect) > FP(progressive aspect) > FP(passive voice) *NB: FP(…) represents a Cinque-type projection without committing to his labeling or organization

  23. Aspect / voice auxiliaries when it is not initial, an aspect / voice auxiliary is not finite and does not precede negation *Mary would hasn’t read this book. cf. Mary wouldn’t have read this book. {TP, AgrP, and NegP} > aspect / voice auxiliary FPs

  24. Modal auxiliaries • tense, agreement, and negation (as well as modality) are fused as a single head in a clause with a negated modal auxiliary Warrencouldn’topen the door. FP(dynamic ability) (=“can”) tense (past) agreement (3s)negation TP ?><? AgrP ?><? NegP?><?{modal FPs}

  25. Scope syntactic scope ↔ semantic scope semantic scope of tense, agreement, and negation to the modality of modal auxiliaries  relative positions of the projections

  26. Semantic scope • ‘not always’ … = it is not the case that always … • ‘always not’ … = it is always the case that not …

  27. Syntactic scope XP syntactic scope of X° YP X’ Y’ X° ZP Y° WP Z’ W’ Z° UP W° U’ U°

  28. Modal F°s : T° & Neg° • modal auxiliaries can be categorized on the basis of the semantic scope relation of their modality to sentential negation and tense

  29. FPs (I) > {NegP, TP} • Epistemic modals: mayEPISTEMIC, mightEPIST, mustEPIST, oughtEPIST, shallEPIST, shouldEPIST,wouldEPIST, willEPIST • Root modals: mustNECESSITY oughtOBLIGATION, shallOBL, shouldOBL

  30. FPs (I) > {NegP, TP} • James mustn’t swim across the river. [ROOT NECESSITY [NEGATIVE+NON-PAST]] = “James is required not to swim …” • cf. past necessity: James had tonot swim across the river. = “James was required not to swim …” • cf. negated necessity: James needn’t swim across the river. = “James is not required to swim …”

  31. NegP > FPs (II) > TP • Epistemic modals: canEPIST, couldEPIST • Root modals: couldHYPOTHETICAL-ABILITY, couldHYPO-PERMISSION, mightHYPO-PERM, shouldHYPO‑PREDICTION, wouldHYPO‑PRED

  32. NegP > FPs (II) > TP • It couldn’t be snowing! [NEGATIVE[EPISTEMIC POSSIBILITY[NON-PAST]] = “It is not possible that it is snowing.” • cf. past possibility: It couldn’t have been snowing! = “It is not possible that it was snowing.” • cf. possibility of negation: It may not be snowing. = “It is possible that it is not snowing.”

  33. {NegP, TP} >FPs (III) • Root modals: canABIL / couldPAST-ABIL, canPERM / couldPAST-PERM, mayPERM / mightPAST-PERM, dare, need, shallPRED / shouldPAST-PRED, willPRED / wouldPAST‑PRED

  34. {NegP, TP} >FPs (III) • If she wanted the job, Mary couldn’t make a mistake. [NEGATIVE+PAST [ROOT ABILITY]] = “Mary was not able to…” • cf. non-past ability: If she wants the job, Mary can’t make a mistake. = “Mary is not able to…” • cf. ability of negation: When she focused, Mary could (usually) nót make a mistake. = “Mary was able not to …”

  35. TP >FPs (IV) > NegP • None

  36. Modal F°s : Agr° • AgrP* > all modal auxiliary FPs -agreement (φ) projects into every finite clause Martha arrives[+3s] / is[+3s] arriving tomorrow. -agreement morphology is not grammatical on a non-initial auxiliary or verb *Martha may arrives[+3s] / may is[+3s] arriving tomorrow. modal auxiliary bears agreement Martha may[+3s] arrive tomorrow. *NB: AgrP represents the projection associated with agreement features – it does not promote or deny the existence of a pre-Chomsky (1995) AgrSP.

  37. Conclusion AgrP>FPs(I) >NegP>FPs(II) >TP>FPs(III) > AspPERFP>AspPROGP> VoiceP> VP Belletti: [CP [AgrP [NegP [TP [VP…

  38. The End

More Related