Introduction to generative syntax

Xavier Villalba, Dept. de Filologia Catalana

Foundations and Structure of Language. 2019-20

2
Contents

1 Constituent structure 7
1.1 The grounds for constituent structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.1.1 Ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2 Making a hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 Testing the hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.1 Case 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3.2 Case 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.3 Case 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4 Taking stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.5 Beyond syntactic ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.5.1 Lexical ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.5.2 Vagueness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.6 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2 X-bar Theory 17
2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2 The bare bones of X-bar theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.1 Complements vs. adjuncts: transparency to extraction phenomena . . . . 20
2.2.2 Complements vs. adjuncts: extraction from weak islands . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.3 Complements vs. adjuncts: word order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.4 Complements vs. adjuncts: ellipsis phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.3 Some refinements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3.1 Binary branching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.3.2 Functional categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3.3 Sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.5 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3 C-command 37
3.1 Beyond precedence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2 Binding theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2.1 Anaphors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2.2 Pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3
4 CONTENTS

3.2.3 Referential expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.3 Adding binary branching to the picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.4 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4 Transformational rules 59
4.1 Classical transformational grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.1.1 Phrase structure grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.1.2 Deep Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.1.3 Transformational component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.1.4 Surface Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.2 Revising the framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.2.1 Phrase structure grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.2.2 Deep structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.2.3 Transformations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.2.4 S-structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.3 The minimalist program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.3.1 Basic components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.3.2 Lexicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.3.3 Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.3.4 Copy theory of movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.3.5 Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.5 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

5 Empty categories 89
5.1 Traces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
5.1.1 The internal subject hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.2 Null pronouns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.2.1 Subjects of nonfinite verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.2.2 Null subject languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.3 Ellipsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5.3.1 Identity problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
5.4 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

6 Sentence syntax 99
6.1 Intransitive verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.1.1 Unergatives and unaccusatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.1.2 Formal proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.2 Transitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6.3 Class changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.3.1 Passive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.3.2 Impersonals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6.3.3 Causative alternation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
CONTENTS 5

6.3.4 Causative construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

6.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.5 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

7 The periphery of sentence 115

7.1 Wh-movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7.2 Evidence for further structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
7.2.1 PP fronting and negative inversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
7.2.2 Multiple complementizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
7.3 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6 CONTENTS
Chapter 1

Constituent structure

1.1 The grounds for constituent structure

1.1.1 Ambiguity
The key to understanding the role of constituent structure is recognizing the many cases of
syntactic ambiguity.1 Consider a very simple example:

(1) Old men and women will receive a money reimbursement.

We can easily appreciate that this utterance has two different interpretations:

(2) a. Old men and old women will receive a money reimbursement.
b. Women and old men will receive a money reimbursement.

This is a typical case of syntactic ambiguity, which we can describe in informal terms saying that
the adjective old is related to the conjunct of men and women in the former case, and saying that
it is only related to men in the latter. Yet, even these informal terms presuppose a hierarchical
relation, for we need to relate old to another unit resulting from the combination of men and
women:

(3) a. [ α Old men ] and women will receive a money reimbursement.

b. [ α Old [ β men and women] ] will receive a money reimbursement.

One can think of a simple rule for saying that an adjective modifies the first noun to its right,
which works fine for (3)-a , but then we need the rule to identify β as ‘the first noun to its right’,
which cannot be done on purely linear terms.
Moreover, if we allow such a rule to affect any noun to its right, we would get into trouble
with examples like the following:

(4) I am a 22 year old man and women my age do not like me.
1
On the differences between syntactic ambiguity, lexical ambiguity, and vagueness, see 1.5.

7
8 CHAPTER 1. CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE

Here, it is pretty obvious that old just combines with man, whereas women is a different sentence.
A surface linear analysis not taking constituent structre into account would predict the combination
of [ old [ man and women ] ] to be possible, against fact.

1.2 Making a hypothesis

Once we have confirmed that a syntactic ambiguity exists, we make a hypothesis, namely a
proposal for analyzing the ambiguous sentence with as many different constituent structures as
meanings are found.

meaning 1 ↔ syntactic structure 1

meaning 2 ↔ syntactic structure 2
... ...
meaning n ↔ syntactic structure n
Table 1.1: Syntactic ambiguity

Let’s take again the case considered before, where we are making the hypothesis that a
different constituent structure is associated to each interpretation. In the first case, the adjective
forms a constituent α with the noun to its right, but not with the constituent β:

(5) [ α Old men ] and [ β women ] will receive a money reimbursement.

In the second case, the adjective forms a constituent a constituent α with a constituent β containing
both nouns:

(6) [ α Old [ β men and women] ] will receive a money reimbursement.

These two proposal are reasonable for they explain why the adjective old only affects men in (5),
but men and women in (6). Now, we must test the hypothesis.

1.3 Testing the hypothesis

Hypotheses (i.e. the syntactic analyses proposed) are tested empirically by checking the accuracy
of their predictions. In syntactic terms, if we propose a particular constituent structure, which
are the consequences of such a move regarding syntactic operations?

1.3.1 Case 1
Take the first meaning and its associated structure of the sentence introduced above, namely the
one where the adjective old only affects men:

(7) [ α Old men ] and [ β women ] will receive a money reimbursement.

1.3. TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS 9

We can predict that if α is a real constituent –say a noun phrase– it will be affected as a whole
by syntactic operations like movement. For instance, since the order of the coordinates by and
is indifferent (Mary and John came = John and Mary came), we can predict that the change of
order between old men and women will have no impact on the meaning of the sentence:

(8) Women and [ α old men ] will receive a money reimbursement.

This is indeed the case: (8) retains the meaning where old just affects men.
We can also expect this structure to associate with certain continuations ((9)-a), but not with
others ((9)-b):

(9) [ α Old men ] and [ β women ] will receive a money reimbursement, so. . .
a. young men will be discriminated again.
b. #young women will be discriminated again.

Obviously, since old is not affecting women, the continuation in (9)-b is a blatant contradiction.
Since the predictions are correct, we could confirm that the hypothesis is on the right track,
namely that old men do form a constituent.
Consider now, the other meaning and its associated structure, namely the one where both men
and women are old:

(10) [ α Old [ β men and women] ] will receive a money reimbursement.

Here, rearranging the order of men and women will have no impact, and the same meaning will
be obtained:

(11) [ α Old [ β women and men] ] will receive a money reimbursement.

Let’s see now the possible continuations of this sentence:

(12) [ α Old [ β men and women] ] will receive a money reimbursement.

a. young men will be discriminated again.
b. young women will be discriminated again.

As predicted from the structure, since the adjective affects both nouns, we are excluding from
the reimbursement both young men and young women.
Moreover, note that the syntactic structure is a typical case of distributive relation:

(13) A × (B + C) = A × B + A × C

As a consequence, we can predict that the following two sentences will be synonymous:

(14) [ α Old [ β men and women] ] will receive a money reimbursement.

(15) [ α Old men ] and [ β old women] will receive a money reimbursement.

The prediction is borne out.

10 CHAPTER 1. CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE

Hence, since the predictions we made for this analysis are confirmed, we can confirm our
hypothesis that the constituent structure associated for this meaning is [α Old [β men and
women] ].

1.3.2 Case 2
Consider now another clear case:

(16) Mary hit the man with a hammer.

Again, we have two interpretations –Mary hit the man who was holding a hammer or Mary used
a hammer to hit the man–, each associated to a different dependency of the prepositional phrase
[=PP] with a hammer, on the noun man or on the verb hit:2

(17) a. Mary hit [ DP the man [ PP with a hammer ] ]

b. Mary hit [ DP the man ] [ PP with a hammer ]

Let test each proposal in turn. If (17)-a is correct, we expect it to be able to move (18) or
pronominalize (19) as a whole:

(18) a. [ DP The man [ PP with a hammer ] ] , Mary hit, not the one with a gun.
b. [ DP The man [ PP with a hammer ] ] was hit by Mary.
c. It was [ DP the man [ PP with a hammer ] ] that Mary hit.
(19) Mary hit him, namely [ DP the man [ PP with a hammer ] ] .

Hence, the predictions are fulfilled, so we can safely conclude that the man with a hammer forms
a constituent in the studied case.
Now, consider the other analysis, which takes the PP with a hammer to be a manner adverbial
depending on the verb, not on the noun:

(20) Mary hit [ DP the man ] [ PP with a hammer ]

We can predict that the DP and the PP will be affected by syntactic operations independently, as
for instance movement (topicalization, passivization and clefting, respectively):

(21) a. [ DP The man ] , Mary hit [ PP with a hammer ] , not the woman.
b. [ PP With a hammer ] , Mary hit [ DP the man ] , not with an umbrella.
(22) [ DP The man ] was hit [ PP with a hammer ] by Mary.
(23) a. It was [ PP with a hammer ] that Mary hit [ DP the man ] .
b. It was [ DP the man ] that Mary hit [ PP with a hammer ] .

2
DP stands for Determiner Phrase, namely a nominal constituent headed by a determiner. Determiners include
articles (the woman), possessives (her book), and demonstratives (that woman).
1.3. TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS 11

Moreover, we can pronominalize just the man:3

(24) Mary hit [ DP him ] [ PP with a hammer ] .

Obviously, since pronouns cannot be modified (*I talked to him tall, *She with a dress was
Italian), we can safely conclude that the PP must depend on the verb, just as in the case of a
proper name:

(25) Mary hit [ DP John ] [ PP with a hammer ] .

This sentence is not ambiguous: the PP can only depend on the verb.
In conclusion, if two units form a constituent, we expect them to be affected as a whole
by standard syntactic operations (movement, pronominalization, ellipsis). If the can be affected
independently, then they form two different constituents.

1.3.3 Case 3
Consider the following ambiguous sentence in Spanish:

(26) María dejó los zapatos relucientes.

Mary left the shoes shiny.PL
a. ‘Mary shined the shoes.’
b. ‘Mary left the shining shoes.’

As in the previous cases, the ambiguity stems from the dependency of the last unit, in this case the
adjective phrase (=AP) relucientes ‘shiny’. Let’s consider the first meaning, where the adjective
is a predicative related to the verb, and it is not dependent on the noun zapatos ‘shoes’:4

(27) María dejó [ DP los zapatos ] [ AP relucientes ]

As expected, they can be affected independently by movement rules or pronominalization:5

3
In many Romance languages, like Catalan, we can pronominalize both constituents, one by the pronoun el ‘him’
and the other by the locative pronoun hi lit. ‘there’:

(i) La Maria va colpejar l’home amb un martell.

the.F Mary PAST.3 SG hit the-man with a hammer

(ii) a. La Maria el va colpejar amb un martell.

b. La Maria hi va colpejar l’home.
c. La Maria l’hi va colpejar.

4
Note that Spanish allows changing the order of the two units under this reading:

(i) María dejó [ AP relucientes ] [ DP los zapatos ]

5
Again, Catalan can pronominalize both constituents:
12 CHAPTER 1. CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE

(28) a. [ DP Los zapatos ] , dejó María [ AP relucientes ] .

the shoes left.3 SG Mary shiny.PL
b. Fueron [ DP los zapatos ] lo que María dejó [ AP reluciente ]
were.PL the shoes the that Mary left.3 SG shiny
(29) a. [ AP Relucientes ] , dejó María [ DP los zapatos ] .
shiny.PL left.3 SG Mary the shoes
b. Fue [ AP relucientes ] como dejó María [ DP los zapatos ]
was shiny.PL how left.3 SG Mary the.PL shoes
(30) [ DP Los zapatos ] , María los dejó [ AP relucientes ] the shoes Mary them left.3 SG
shiny.PL

We can, thus, confirm the analysis proposing two independent constituents.

Now, let us consider the meaning where the adjective is a modifier of the noun zapatos
‘shoes’:

(31) María dejó [ DP los zapatos relucientes ]

We can predict that they won’t move independently, but as a block:

(32) a. [ DP Los zapatos relucientes ] , dejó María.

the shoes shiny.PL left.3 SG Mary
b. Fueron [ DP los zapatos relucientes ] lo que María dejó
were.PL the shoes shiny.PL the that Mary left.3 SG
Also pronominalization would affect the whole constituent only:

(33) [ DP Los zapatos relucientes ] , María los dejó

the shoes shiny.PL Mary them left.3 SG

Hence, we can confirm this analysis for the second meaning.

1.4 Taking stock

We have seen that constituent structure is a necessary tool for dealing with syntactic ambiguity
and that we must test our analyses under the assumption that if units α and β are independent

(i) La Maria va deixar les sabates lluents.

the.F Mary PAST.3 SG left the shoes shiny.PL
a. La Maria les va deixar lluents.
b. La Maria hi va deixar les sabates.
c. La Maria les hi va deixar.
1.5. BEYOND SYNTACTIC AMBIGUITY 13

units, they can be affected by syntactic operations separately. In turn, if they are forming a
constituent, they will be affected as a block.

1.5 Beyond syntactic ambiguity

1.5.1 Lexical ambiguity
He have just considered cases of syntactic (i.e. structural) ambiguity. Obviously language shows
other instances of ambiguity which have no import on syntax. The most evident case is lexical
ambiguity, which stems from the polysemous nature of some lexical items:

(34) The bank burned.

Since the noun bank can have several meanings, the utterance in (34) is ambiguous, for instance
between a ‘finantial institution’ and a ‘sitting piece of furniture’. However, note that we are
not saying that the source of the ambiguity is the existence of several syntactic structures:
independently of the lexical meaning of bank, we will assign the very same structure to (34).

(35) TenseP

DP Tense’

D’ Tense VP
D NP + PAST /3 SG V
the N burned
bank

Note that this structure is identical to the one assigned to the non ambiguous sentence in (36):

(36) a. The bank opened.

b. TenseP

DP Tense’

D’ Tense VP
D NP + PAST /3 SG V
the N opened
bank
14 CHAPTER 1. CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE

It is the semantic combination of open with its subject what forces us to select, or at least strongly
favors, the meaning of ‘finantial institution’.

1.5.2 Vagueness
A different source of difficulties comes from VAGUENESS, namely from lexical items with just
one meaning, but a very unspecified one. One typical case is polar adjectives like hot, tall,
big, and their opposites. The crucial problem here is that it is unclear what counts as ‘tall’
in general, for its meaning seems variable depending on the particular context of use, as the
following definition from the Cambridge Dictionary shows: “being higher than most other people
or things.”
Obviously, in Catalonia, we would agree that a 2 meters tall person is tall, whereas a 1.5
meters isn’t. But what about 1.8, 1.83 or 1.79 meters? Moreover, if we where a tribe of pigmies
or a basketball team, would these values apply equally to define a tall person? Therefore, the
adjective tall is semantically vague, and its standard value must be fixed by the context of use.
This is why we can say (37) without contradicting ourselves:

(37) A small elephant is a big animal.

Namely, it is small for the standard of elephants, but it is still big for the standard of animals in
general.
This phenomenon of vagueness relaying on context-dependence is widespread. For example,
when we say It is raining, we implicitly restrict our assertion to the context of the utterance:
‘it is raining here now’. The same happens with the sentence Everybody was half sleep, where
the universal quantifier everybody is not taken literally as ‘all persons in the world’, but as ‘all
persons in the current relevant situation’. So then, if I utter this sentence in our Foundations’
class, everyone is intended as ‘everyone in the Foundations’ class.’

1.6 Exercises
E XERCISE 1 Are the following sentences ambiguous? Justify your answer applying standard
tests. Choose the language you prefer.

(38) Catalan
a. Hem parlat amb els estudiants de física.
b. Vam trobar els nens i les nenes molt bufones.
c. Quan et va explicar que havia fet aquella bestiesa?
d. Vam trobar les nenes i els nens molt bufons.
e. Quan et va oferir una explicació convincent del que havia fet?
(39) English
a. When did she tell you that she did such nonsense?
b. Old men and women are discriminated.
1.6. EXERCISES 15

c. When did she offer you an explanation that she did such nonsense?
d. Mary stabbed the man with the knife.
(40) Spanish
a. Hablamos con los alumnos de griego.
b. Necesitamos a los niños sanos.
c. Fueron a la reunión de espías.
d. Necesitamos mujeres y hombres valientes.
e. Puso los libros en la mesa.

E XERCISE 2 Are the following sentences ambiguous? Justify your answer.

(41) a. Where did she offer you the explanation that she had bought the car?
b. On et va donar l’explicació que havia comprat el cotxe?
c. ¿Dónde te dio la explicación de que había comprado el coche?
(42) a. She looked for good books and magazines.
b. Cercava bons llibres i revistes.
c. Buscaba buenos libros y revistas.
(43) a. Where shouldn’t you take a bath after having lunch?
b. On no t’has de banyar després de dinar?
c. ¿Dónde no te tienes que bañar después de comer?
16 CHAPTER 1. CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE
Chapter 2

X-bar Theory

2.1 Background
Once we have agreed on the necessity of constituent structure and the crucial role of the head
of the constituent, we must design a system for representing constituents relations that is both
theoretically and empirically motivated. Here are the relevant facts we must account for:1

• Structural similarities across categories.

• Differences between heads and other elements.

• Differences between the relation of heads with complements and with the adjuncts.

• Homogeneity: as a null hypothesis, we expect the same representation for all the categories.
If this is not the case, we must offer compelling evidence against.

• Simplicity: we must think of a system that is reasonably implemented as part of the innate
linguistic component (UG), and, hence, suitable for any natural language.

Chomsky (1970) reconsidered some amassed evidence on the close similarities across categorial
domains, which had been analyzed as instances of syntactic rules. He focused on examples like
the following:

(1) a. Scipio destroyed Carthage

b. Scipio’s destruction of Carthage
(2) a. Carthage was destroyed by Scipio
b. Carthage’s destruction by Scipio
(3) a. Mary is interested in linguistics
b. Mary’s interest in linguistics
1
On X-bar theory, you can consult ch. 7 of Carnie (2008), section 3.6 of Donati (2008) or sections 3.3, 4.1 and
4.2 of Bosque & Gutiérrez-Rexach (2009).

17
18 CHAPTER 2. X-BAR THEORY

(4) a. La Núria necessita diners.

the.F Núria needs money.PL
‘Núria needs money.’
b. la necessitat de diners de la Núria
the.F necessity of money.PL of the.F Núria
‘Núria’s need of money’

(5) a. Carmen tradujo Hamlet al catalán en los sesenta.

Carmen translated Hamlet to.the Catalan in the.PL sixties
‘Carmen translated Hamlet to Catalan in the sixties.’
b. su traducción de Hamlet al catalán en los sesenta
her translation of Hamlet to.the Catalan in the.PL sixties
‘her translation of Hamlet to Catalan in the sixties’

These examples suggest that (some of) the properties of the verbal head are inherited by the
nominal or adjectival derivative. Yet, instead of proposing syntactic rules for explaining these
similarities, Chomsky argued that they might follow from a common structural template to which
categories should conform uniformly, namely X-bar theory.

2.2 The bare bones of X-bar theory

X-bar theory builds phrases from heads in three levels: the head level (X-zero, X0 ) , the intermediate
level (X-bar, X’), under where we find the head and its complements, and the maximal or phrase
level (X-phrase, XP), under which we place material not required by the head, namely adjuncts
and specifiers:

(6) XP

specifier X’ adjunct

X0 complement

In more detailed proposals, a distinction is introduced between the specifier and adjuncts:2

2
Indeed, in generative syntax, the concept adjunct is a positional one: elements can move into a predefined
specifier position, or they can adjoin to a maximal projection. Hence, as a rule, phrases have just one specifier,
whereas they admit as many adjuncts as necessary.
2.2. THE BARE BONES OF X-BAR THEORY 19

(7) XP

XP adjunct

specifier X’

X0 complement

This schema allows us to express the parallelism between categories quite easily:

(8) a. Mary was very interested [complement in poker ].

b. AP

AdvP A’

very A PP

interested P’

P NP

in poker

(9) a. her interest [complement in poker ].

b. NP

NP N’

her N PP

interest P’

P NP

in poker

Besides assuming a uniform phrase structure for all lexical categories (and functional categories
in later developments, see below), the crucial innovation of the system is encoding in the structure
the traditional functional distinction between complements and adjuncts (Eng. adverbials, Catalan
circumstancials, Sp. circunstanciales). Hence, from its position in the structure, we can know
the function of any constituent:

(10) a. She buried [complement1 the corpse ] [adjunct in the garden]

20 CHAPTER 2. X-BAR THEORY

b. VP

V’ PP

V DP P’

buried D’ P DP

D NP in D’

the N D NP

corpse the N

garden
The DP the corpse is under X’, so it is the complement of buried, whereas the PP in the garden
is under XP, so it is an adjunct.

2.2.1 Complements vs. adjuncts: transparency to extraction phenomena

The empirical data discussed in class aimed at showing you that this hypothesis is correct from
two kinds of evidence. On the one hand, complement and adjuncts behave differently with
respect to a series of properties that can be associated to structural position. This is the case
of extraction, which is impossible from adjunct sentences, but it is generally possible from
complement sentences:

(11) complements
a. What do you think [ S that Mary bought t]?
b. Where do you think [ S that Mary bought the book t]?
(12) adjuncts
a. *What do you buy a book [ S while Mary bought t]?
b. *Who do you buy a book [ S while t bought a dress]?

Since the adjunct blocks any kind of extraction, it is called a STRONG ISLAND. Schematically:

2.2.2 Complements vs. adjuncts: extraction from weak islands

Consider now a more subtle case, where the complement/adjunct distinction does not concern the
sentence from where we extract, but the extracted element. Even though complement sentences
in general allow extraction, as in (11), some complement sentences are more restrictive: they
allow extraction of complements, but not of adjuncts.

(13) complements
2.2. THE BARE BONES OF X-BAR THEORY 21

Figure 2.1: Transparent vs. strong island configuration.

a. Which problem did John ask [ S how to phrase t ] ?

b. ?Avec qui ne sais-tu pas [ S comment te comporter t ] ? ‘With whom don’t you know
how to behave?’
(14) adjuncts
a. *How did John ask [ S which problem to phrase t ] ?
b. *Comment ne sais-tu pas [ S avec qui te comporter t ] ? ‘*How don’t you know with
whom to behave?’

Since these sentences are islands for adjuncts only, but allow extraction of complements, we
call them WEAK islands.

Figure 2.2: Weak island configuration.

2.2.3 Complements vs. adjuncts: word order

A similar conclusion follows from the fact that in languages like English (or Catalan) there is a
clear tendency to find complements closer to the head than adjuncts:

(15) a. Mary buried the corpse in the garden.

b. *Mary buried in the garden the corpse.
(16) a. Mary sent him a postcard from Paris yesterday.
22 CHAPTER 2. X-BAR THEORY

b. *Mary sent him from Paris a postcard yesterday.

c. *Mary sent him yesterday a postcard from Paris.
d. *Mary sent him yesterday from Paris a postcard.
e. *Mary sent him from Paris yesterday a postcard.

2.2.4 Complements vs. adjuncts: ellipsis phenomena

Finally, remind the case of verbal ellipsis with do so. This pro-verb can represent different parts
of the VP, with the exclusion of the verbal head (17)-a:

(17) Mary will put the dishes in the dishwasher this afternoon and. . .
a. *I will do so the glasses in the sink tonight.
b. I will do so in the sink tonight.
c. I will do so tonight.
d. I will do so too.

We are making the hypothesis that the structure of both coordinate sentence is the following (on
the iteration of the V’ projection, see section 2.3.1):

(18) a. Mary will put the dishes in the dishwasher this afternoon and. . .
b. VP

V’ DP

this afternoon
V’ PP

V DP in the dishwasher
put the dishes

Let’s see how do so ellipsis affects this VP structure. Firstly, we can appreciate that it doesn’t
target heads:

(19) *Mary will put the dishes in the dishwasher this afternoon and I will do so the glasses
in the sink tonight.
2.2. THE BARE BONES OF X-BAR THEORY 23

Now, we move to the higher constituent, the lower V’, and we can see that ellipsis may target
this intermediate projection, so that the verb and the lower complement can delete, leaving the
rest of the constituents in the VP unaffected:

(20) Mary will put the dishes in the dishwasher this afternoon and I will do so in the sink
tonight.

Now, we target the higher V’, hence we delete the verb and both complements, leaving the
adjunct hanging from VP unaffected:

(21) Mary will put the dishes in the dishwasher this afternoon and I will do so tonight.
24 CHAPTER 2. X-BAR THEORY

Finally, we target the VP, and as a consequence all the material is deleted:

(22) Mary will put the dishes in the dishwasher this afternoon and I will do so too.

Crucially, in all the good examples, the elided constituent is a verbal projection higher than
the verbal head. When we try to delete a non constituent, the result is bad. For example, we
cannot delete the verbal head and the higher complement in the dishwasher without deleting as
well the lower direct object:

(23) Mary will put the dishes in the dishwasher this afternoon and I will do so the glasses
tonight.
2.2. THE BARE BONES OF X-BAR THEORY 25

This is nicely predicted by our system: if you want to delete the higher V’, you must also
delete the lower one, but not conversely (20).

The same happens when we target the verb and the adjunct:

(24) *Mary will put the dishes in the dishwasher this afternoon and I will do so the glasses
in the sink.

(25)

Again, this follows from our system: if you want to delete the VP, you must also delete the V’,
but not conversely (20)-(21). Hence, if ellipsis with do so targets the verb and an adjunct, then it
necessarily affects the complement.
26 CHAPTER 2. X-BAR THEORY

2.3 Some refinements

2.3.1 Binary branching

The first refinement was limiting the branching possibilities to two. At the time, this was a
simplicity and elegance matter, for instead of clumsy structures like (26), we would obtain
recursive representations like (27):

(26) VP

V’ DP

this afternoon

V DP PP

put the dishes in the dishwasher

(27) VP

V’ DP

this afternoon
V’ PP

V DP in the dishwasher
put the dishes

The second structure fits much better with our current understanding of the way we build sentences,
namely bottom-up. We begin with the verbal head:

(28) V

put

Then we combine it with the first complement:

2.3. SOME REFINEMENTS 27

(29) V’

V DP

put the dishes

Then we combine the V’ with the second complement:

(30) V’

V’ PP

V DP in the dishwasher
put the dishes

Finally, we add the adjunct, and we obtain the VP:

(31) VP

V’ DP

this afternoon
V’ PP

V DP in the dishwasher
put the dishes

The same happens if we have more than one adjunct:

28 CHAPTER 2. X-BAR THEORY

(32) VP

VP DP

in the kitchen
VP DP

this afternoon
V’ PP

V DP by hand

washed the dishes

Obviously, this refinement is crucial for operations sensitive to c-command conditions, for while
we clearly have symmetric c-command between the two complements in the non-binary structure
in (26), it is open to discussion whether this is the case in (27). See chapter 3.

2.3.2 Functional categories

Besides the classical lexical categories (Noun, Adjective, Verb, Preposition, and Adverb), syntax
has included a range of categories without lexical content, but encoding grammatical information:
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES ; see Bosque & Gutiérrez-Rexach (2009, 3.1.3). The first proposal to
incorporate these elements to the X-bar schema was developed in the mid eighties, and affected
NPs. The proposal was that the determiner (article or demonstrative) was not the specifier of the
NP (33), but rather a head selecting the NP (34):

(33) NP

Det N’

the N

book
2.3. SOME REFINEMENTS 29

(34) DP

D’

Det NP

the N’

book
This allowed to account for predeterminers more easily:

(35) DP

all D’

Det NP

the N’

book
A similar proposal was applied to degree words (Degree Phrase or DegP) or quantifiers (Quantifier
Phrase or QP)

(36) many very nice books

(37) QP

Q’

Q NP

many DegP N’

Deg’ N

Deg AP books

very A’

nice
30 CHAPTER 2. X-BAR THEORY

We can discard such complications in our course.

2.3.3 Sentences
The next affected element was the sentence, which represented an anomaly in the system, for it
is a constituent without a head:

(38) S

DP VP

Mary V

sleeps
This was solved in the late nineties, when Jean-Yves Pollock Pollock (1989) proposed that
the agreement and tense properties of the sentence, which were commonly represented as a
node AUX(ILIARY) hanging from the S, were the head of the sentence and projected a phrase
structure under the guidelines of the X bar theory. Hence, the structure of the sentence was
redesigned from (39) to (40):3

(39) S

DP AUX VP

Mary present/3sg V

sleeps
(40) TenseP

DP Tense’

Mary Tense VP
present/3sg

sleeps
The same idea was applied to the left periphery of the sentence in subordinate clauses, which
became projections of the subordinator particle (COMPLEMENTIZER), which projected a Complementizer
3
Actually, Pollock’s proposal was a bit more complex, for he proposed two projections: Agree(ment)P and
TenseP, the former dominating the latter. Other authors represent the sentence as a projection of Inflection
(=agreement+tense), namely InflP or IP.
2.3. SOME REFINEMENTS 31

Phrase (CP):

(41) CP

C’

TenseP

DP Tense’

Mary Tense VP
present/3sg

sleeps

The head was typically occupied by subordinators like that:

(42) TenseP

DP Tense’

I
Tensepresent/1sg VP

V’

V CP

think C’

C TenseP

that
DP Tense’

Mary Tense VP
present/3sg

sleeps
32 CHAPTER 2. X-BAR THEORY

The specifier of CP is the place where interrogative words appear:4

(43) CP

DPi C’

what
V+T TenseP

did
DP Tense’

Mary Tense VP
past/3sg

V ti

buy

In the nineties, further developments of sentence structure have been proposed, leading to a
explosion of functional projections which were designed to encode several grammatical categories.
We will consider them briefly in chapter 7.

2.4 Conclusions
The main advantage of X-bar theory is proposing a very simple, yet powerful pattern for all
syntactic structures, so that we can build very complex sentences with very few structural positions
which repeat themselves as many times as necessary. From the point of view of computational
processing and cognitive effort this seems a welcome result.
Moreover, such recursive pattern seems widespread in the natural world, where it is studied
under the label of FRACTAL RECURSIVITY:
Just compare these cases with a recursive syntactic tree:

2.5 Exercises
E XERCISE 3 Given the restrictions on phrase structure following from Kayne (1994), what
would be the explanation for the impossibility of a tree like the following:

4
You can note that the head position of CP is typically occupied by a verbal head in interrogative sentences, be
it the first auxiliary present in the structure (Mary has bought a book: Has Mary bought the book? What has Mary
bought?) or by an inserted do auxiliary, as in the example.
2.5. EXERCISES 33

Figure 2.3: Example of simple fractal recursivity leading to increasing complexity.

E XERCISE 4 Given the restrictions on phrase structure following from Kayne (1994), why
should multiple adjuncts (in red in the tree) not be allowed?

*VP

XP VP

YP VP

V DP
34 CHAPTER 2. X-BAR THEORY

Figure 2.4: Example of a very complex fractal structure.

2.5. EXERCISES 35

Figure 2.5: Example of a simple recursive tree.

36 CHAPTER 2. X-BAR THEORY
Chapter 3

C-command

3.1 Beyond precedence

Generally, when we relate a pronoun to an antecedent, the general situation is the following,
where the antecedent (Peter) precedes the pronoun (him):

(1) a. [ S Peteri hates the woman [ S who rejected himi ]]

b. *[ S Hei hates the woman [ S who rejected Peteri ]]

As the subindex shows, we can understand that him=Peter in (1)-a, but not in (1)-b.1 On the
basis of this contrast, we can make the following generalization:

G ENERALIZATION 1 The antecedent of a pronoun must precede the reflexive.

This is the case in many other instances and languages:

(2) a. Maryi knows that shei is a genius.

b. *Shei knows that Maryi is a genius.
(3) a. The father of Maryi thinks that shei is a genius.
b. *Shei knows that the father of Maryi is a genius.
(4) Spanish
a. Maríai cree que los vecinos lai espían.
Mary believes that the neighbors her spy.3 PL
‘Mary believes that the neighbors spy her.’
1
Obviously, pronouns can have discourse antecedents, not present in the syntactic structure, but available in the
discourse context. Hence, him or he could refer to a person previously mentioned in the context, say James. Yet, this
is not part of syntax, but of discourse, and the relation between pronouns and discourse antecedents is a pragmatic
one, labeled COREFERENCE. This is the case in the following sequence:

(i) Johni arrived late. I was slept, but I am pretty sure that hei was drunk.

37
38 CHAPTER 3. C-COMMAND

b. *Ellai cree que los vecinos espían a Maríai .

Mary believes that the neighbors spy.3 PL to Mary
‘She believes that the neighbors spy Mary.’ [Also wrong in English if she=Mary]
(5) Catalan
a. La Mariai diu que ∅i té un cotxe nou.
the.F Mary says that has a car new
‘Mary says that she has a new car.’
b. *∅i diu que la Mariai té un cotxe nou.
says that the.F Mary has a car new
‘She says that Mary has a new car.’ [Also wrong in English if she=Mary]

These cases can be dealt with by means of the precedence condition.

However, Langacker 1969, 169 showed that this is not enough, for we have cases where the
antecedent is not preceding the pronoun, like (5)-b:

(6) a. [ S The woman [ S who rejected Peteri ] is hated by himi ]

b. [ S The woman [ S who rejected himi ] is hated by Peteri ]

Here, Peter can either precede or follow the pronoun, but the relation is possible in both cases.
Again, something similar happens in Romance languages:

(7) Spanish
a. La mujer que rechazó a Pedroi loi invitó a un café.
the-F woman that rejected to Peter him invited to a coffee
b. La mujer que loi rechazó invitó a Pedroi a un café.
the-F woman that rejected him invited to Peter to a coffee
(8) Catalan
a. Les coses que va dir la Joanai no lai van perjudicar.
the-F. PL things that PAST.3 SG say the Joana not her PAST.3 SG penalize
b. Les coses que ∅i va dir no van perjudicar la Joanai .
the-F. PL things that PAST.3 SG say not PAST.3 SG penalize the Joana
To account for these cases, (Langacker, 1969, 167) introduced a new relation regulating the
antecedent-pronoun link: COMMAND.2 However his formulation wasn’t accurate enough, and it
become substitued by c-command, where c stands for constituent or category:

Definition 1 C-command =def α c-commands β iff neither α nor β dominates the other, and the
first branching node γ that dominates α dominates β.

C-command can help us explain the above data by means of the following generalization:

G ENERALIZATION 2 A pronoun cannot c-command his antecedent.

2
A node A “commands” another node B if (1) neither A nor B dominates the other; and (2) the S(entence)-node
that most immediately dominates A also dominates B.
3.1. BEYOND PRECEDENCE 39

Let’s consider each case in detail.

(9) S1

NP VP

Peteri V’

V DP

hated
D NP

the
NP S2

N’ who hei rejected

woman

Here the pronoun does not c-command its antecedent, for the first branching node dominating he
is not dominating Peter. On the other hand, Peter c-commands the pronoun: the first branching
node immediately dominating Peter –namely S1– also dominates the pronoun.
Consider now, the situation when the position of the antecedent and the pronoun gets reversed:

(10) * S1

NP VP

Hei V’

V DP

hated
D NP

the
NP S2

N’
who Peteri rejected
woman

He commands Peter: the first branching node that immediately dominates he –namely S1– also
dominates Peter, hence the sentence violates Generalization 2.
Now consider the following case:
40 CHAPTER 3. C-COMMAND

(11) S1

DP VP

D NP is hated by himi

the
NP S2

N’
who rejected Peteri
woman
In this configuration, neither the pronoun nor Peter c-command each other: as a consequence,
Generalization 2 is satisfied.
Finally, take the same structure, but with the position of the pronoun and the antecedent
reversed:

(12) S1

DP VP

D NP is hated by Peteri

the
NP S2

N’ who rejected himi

woman
The reversal of their position does not affect c-command relations: neither the pronoun nor Peter
c-command each other. Henceforth, Generalization 2 is also satisfied.
To sum up, the previous data cannot be explained by means of linear precedence, but they
must involve c-command, which is sensitive to the level of embedding.
Now, let’s generalize this to the whole of referential relations.

3.2 Binding theory

We have three kinds of referential nominals:
3.2. BINDING THEORY 41

• reflexives and reciprocals (‘anaphors’): himself, herself, itself, themselves, myself, yourself,
ourselves, yourselves; each other, one another

• non-reflexive pronouns (‘pronominals’): he, she, it, him, her, I, us, you, me, his, your, my,
our

• full NPs including names (‘r(eferential)-expressions’): the baroness, Peter, this, a disinherited
Russian countess,. . .

The idea is that only lexical NPs have inherent reference, whereas anaphors and pronominals
must obtain their reference from an antecedent. The syntactic conditions regulating this process
is what we call BINDING THEORY Büring (2005); Reuland (2006); Sportiche (2013); Truswell
(2014), where binding entails c-command and a sharing referential index.
Let’s consider the simplest case, anaphors.

3.2.1 Anaphors
Anaphors need an antecedent to obtain reference, and the antecedent must bind them:3

(13) Binding principle A (for anaphors), first attempt

Anaphors must be bound (=be c-commanded and share a referential index) by an antecedent.

This can explain the following cases:

(14) a. Johni likes himselfi .

b. TP

NP T’

Johni Tense VP

V’

V DP

likes himselfi
(15) a. *Himselfi likes Johni .
3
The same happens with reciprocals:

(i) a. Mary and Sue liked each other.

b. *Each other likes Mary and Sue.
42 CHAPTER 3. C-COMMAND

b. TP

NP T’

Himselfi Tense VP

V’

V DP

likes Johni

Here, c-command and precedence go hand in hand: the antecedent precedes and c-commands
the anaphor in (14) but not in (15). So we need one critical case where the antecedent precedes,
but does not c-command, the anaphor. Consider now the following case:

(16) a. *Johni ’s mother likes himselfi .

b. TP

NP1 T’

NP2 NP1 Tense VP

Johni ’s N V’
mother V DP

likes himselfi

John precedes, but does not c-commands, himself : the first branching node dominating John is
NP1 , not TP, hence it is not c-commanding what TP dominates, but only what NP1 does. As a
consequence, our Binding principle A, based on c-command is doing a good job.
However, we must refine it a bit, for the antecedent of the anaphor cannot be too far:

(17) a. John said that Mary likes herself.

b. *John said that Mary likes himself.
(18) a. Mary and Sue told me that they liked each other.
b. *Mary and Sue told me that I liked each other.

So, the domain where the antecedent binds the anaphor is important.

(19) Binding principle A (for anaphors), Chomsky (1981)

Anaphors must be bound (=be c-commanded and share a referential index) by an antecedent
in a local domain [=generally, the same sentence].
3.2. BINDING THEORY 43

Note that we have generally assumed that the relevant domain for binding principles to apply is
the sentence, but consider the following case:

(20) John likes very much Mary’s book about *himself/herself.

If the domain for the application of principle A were the whole sentence, we would expect John to
be able to bind the anaphor himself within the object DP. However, the only possible antecedent
is the possessor Mary’s. This suggests that in this case, the relevant domain is the DP.

3.2.2 Pronouns
Let’s move now to pronouns. In general, pronouns are OK in the contexts where anaphors are
not, and are bad, where anaphors are fine.

(21) a. Maryi praised *heri /herselfi .

b. Shei /*Herselfi praised Maryi .
c. Maryi said that Peter praised heri /*herselfi

As a consequence, we can formulate the principle regulating the referential dependence of pronouns
as follow (‘cannot be bound’ = ‘must be free’):

(22) Principle B of binding Chomsky (1981)

A pronoun cannot be bound in the relevant domain [=generally, the sentence].

As mentioned in the case of anaphors (see 3.2.1), the relevant domain for binding may be a
DP:

(23) Johni likes very much Maryk ’s book about himi /*herk .

If the domain for the application of principle A were the whole sentence, we would expect John
to be unable to bind the pronoun him within the object DP. This suggests that in this case, the
relevant domain is the DP, and the pronoun him is free in this domain.

3.2.3 Referential expressions

Finally, note that DPs with inherent reference (r(eferential) expressions) cannot be bound anywhere:

(24) a. *Shei loves Rosei .

b. *Shei/j believes that Rosei loves Maryj .
c. *John convinced heri to buy Maryi a present.

Hence, we have the following principle:

(25) Principle C of binding Chomsky (1981)

A referential expression [=an NP or proper name] must be free.

In all the cases in (24) the referential expression is bound an antecedent, yielding a bad result.
44 CHAPTER 3. C-COMMAND

We can summarize the pattern obtained from the application of binding principles in the
following table:

configuration anaphor pronominal r-expression

no antecedent * OK OK
non-local antecedent * OK *
local antecedent OK * *

3.3 Adding binary branching to the picture

In the document Lesson on X-bar theory, we have discussed the proposal to impose binary
branching as the only option in the X-bar schema. As a consequence, in cases where a verb
selects two complements, we cannot assume (26), but rather (27):

(26) VP

V’

V XP YP

complement 1 complement2
(27) VP

V’

V’ YP

V XP complement2

complement 1

Take one particular case: ditransitive constructions in English (similar results obtain in Catalan
or Spanish):

(28) John introduced Mary to the boys.

(29) John introduced the girls to the boys.’

Since we are dealing with complements, we would assume structures like the following:
3.3. ADDING BINARY BRANCHING TO THE PICTURE 45

(30) V’

V’ PP

V DP to the boys

introduced Mary
(31) V’

V’ PP

V DP to the boys

introduced the girls

Yet, if we take our original definition of c-command, repeated here as (32), we must conclude
that the rightmost complement (to the boys) c-commands the leftmost one (Mary/to the girls):

(32) C-command =def α c-commands β iff α and β do not dominate each other, and the first
branching node γ that dominates α dominates β.

If we consider binding phenomena, the predictions would be the following:

• Since Mary does not c-command the PP in (30), we predict (33) to be wrong, for Mary
cannot bind the reflexive (but it is OK):
(33) V’

V’ PP

V DP to herselfi

introduced Maryi
• Since Mary does not c-command the PP in (30), we predict (34) to be possible, for Mary
is not binding the pronoun (but it is not):
(34) V’

V’ PP

V DP to heri

introduced Maryi
46 CHAPTER 3. C-COMMAND

• Since the girls does not c-command the PP in (31), we predict (35) to be wrong, for the
girls cannot bind the reciprocal (but it is OK):
(35) V’

V’ PP

V DP to each otheri

introduced the girlsi

• Since the girls does not c-command the PP in (31), we predict (36) to be possible, for Mary
is not binding the pronoun (but it is not):
(36) V’

V’ PP

V DP to themi

introduced the girlsi

Finally, we can also make some predictions concerning principle C: a pronoun in the lower
complement position would not c-command a referential expression in the second complement,
so that (37) and (38) should be OK (but they are not):

(37) V’

V’ PP

V DP to Maryi

introduced heri
(38) V’

V’ PP

V DP to the girlsi

introduced theyi
Henceforth, binding data suggest that the direct object c-commands the indirect object in these
structures (see Barss & Lasnik 1986; Larson 1988). One solution to this problem was modifying
3.4. EXERCISES 47

the definition of c-command, changing the ‘first branching node’ requirement by ‘the first maximal
projection’. This was labeled ‘m(aximal)-command’

(39) m-command =def α m-commands β iff α and β do not dominate each other, and the
first maximal node γ that dominates α dominates β.

Given this, in our case the direct object m-commands the indirect object (and any adjunct within
the VP), which would explain the data in (38)-(39), and (40):

(40) a. *Sarah hit himi when Johni came.

b. *Rosa won’t like himi any more, with Beni ’s mother hanging around all the time.
c. *I sent heri after Maryi ’s dog.

The object pronoun m-commands the referential expression within the adjunct, resulting in a
principle C violation.
Other scholars suggest a different line of analysis that introduces more structure in these
cases, so that the first complement is higher in the structure that the second, accounting for the
binding facts without modifying the definition of c-command. See Kayne (1984); Larson (1988).
These authors suggest structures like the following (irrelevant details omitted):

In this configuration, the direct object c-commands the PP, which explains the binding phenomena
just described.

3.4 Exercises

E XERCISE 5 Consider the following tree and choose the correct option:4

4
The definition of c-command is the following:
C-command =def α c-commands β iff the first branching node γ that dominates α dominates β.
48 CHAPTER 3. C-COMMAND

(41) TP

NP T’

Mary
T VP

NP VP

Mary
V’ PP

V NP P’

eats vegetables P NP

at home

• Mary c-commands Mary, and vegetables: TRUE / FALSE.

• vegetables c-commands Mary and at home: TRUE / FALSE.

• home c-commands vegetables: TRUE / FALSE.

• at home c-commands vegetables: TRUE / FALSE.

• at home c-commands Mary: TRUE / FALSE.

E XERCISE 6 Consider the following tree and choose the correct option:
3.4. EXERCISES 49

(42) TP

DP T’

A neighbor of Mary’s
T VP

NP VP

DP V’

A neighbor of Mary’s V NP

eats N’

N PP

vegetables P’

P NP

from home

• Mary’s c-commands a neighbor of Mary’s, and vegetables: TRUE / FALSE.

• a neighbor of Mary’s c-commands Mary’s and from home: TRUE / FALSE.

• home c-commands vegetables: TRUE / FALSE.

• from home c-commands vegetables: TRUE / FALSE.

• Mary’s c-commands home: TRUE / FALSE.

• eats c-commands vegetables and home: TRUE / FALSE.

50 CHAPTER 3. C-COMMAND

E XERCISE 7 Consider the following tree and choose the correct option:

CP

DP C’

which book about Lisa

C TP

did

DP T’

D’ T VP

D NP V’

the AP N’ V DP
elder N read
which book about Lisa
N PP

cousin P’

P NP

of Barnie’s

• which book about Lisa c-commands the elder cousing of Barnie’s, and read: TRUE /
FALSE.
• about Lisa c-commands the elder cousing of Barnie’s, and read: TRUE / FALSE.
• elder c-commands cousin and Barnie’s: TRUE / FALSE.
• elder c-commands read and Lisa’s: TRUE / FALSE.
• which book about Lisa c-commands Barnie’s: TRUE / FALSE.
• which book about Lisa c-commands about Lisa: TRUE / FALSE.
3.4. EXERCISES 51

E XERCISE 8 Consider the following tree. Can either Jane or Mary bind herself? Is there any
other antecedent available? Justify your answer.

CP

DP C’

which book about Jane

C TP

did

DP T’

D’
T VP
D NP

the AP N’ VP AdvP

elder N V’ yesterda

N PP V’ PP

cousin P’ V DP P’

P send t P NP

P NP to herself

of Mary
52 CHAPTER 3. C-COMMAND

E XERCISE 9 Consider the following tree. Can either Jane or Mary bind herself? Justify your
answer.

CP

DP C’

C TP
which book about herself
did NP T’

Jane
T VP

V’

V’ PP

V DP P’

send t P DP

to D’

D NP

the AP N’

elder N

N PP

cousin P’

P NP

of Mary
3.4. EXERCISES 53

E XERCISE 10 Consider the following tree. Can Jane and her have the same reference? What
about Mary? Justify your answer.

CP

DP C’

which book about her C TP

did NP T’

Jane
T VP

V’

V’ PP

V DP P’

send t P DP

to D’

D NP

the AP N’

elder N

N PP

cousin P’

P NP

of Mary
54 CHAPTER 3. C-COMMAND

E XERCISE 11 Consider the following tree. Can she refer to the fronted NP Mary? Justify your
answer.

CP ]

NP C’

Mary C TP

NP T’

she
T VP

VP PP

V’ P’

V’ DP P DP

saw t in her house

E XERCISE 12 Explain whether the following sentences satisfy Binding Principles under the
intended reading:

(43) Confidence in Billi , hei never had.

(44) Shei had confidence in Hillaryi .
(45) A friend of Billi ’s convinced himi to love Hillary.
(46) Hillaryi is convinced that Bill loves heri .
(47) Hillaryi regrets that shei loved Bill.
(48) Heri friends are convinced that Bill loves Hillaryi .
(49) Billi ’s friends convinced Hillary to love himselfi .
(50) Billi ’s friends were convinced to love himselfi .
(51) Bill convinced Hillaryi ’s parents to love herselfi .
(52) Hillaryi was convinced to love herselfi .
(53) Shei was convinced to love Hillaryi .
(54) Bill convinced Hillaryi to love herselfi .
(55) Bill convinced Hillaryi to love heri best friend.

E XERCISE 13 How do we deal with the following cases, according to the binding principles
just introduced?
3.4. EXERCISES 55

1. *Sue1 said that Mary2 liked each other1+2 .

2. If Sue1 arrives late, John will be angry at her1 .

3. After talking about herself1 for hours, Sue1 became silent.

4. His1 mother loves John1 .

5. *John1 ’s mother loves himself1 .

6. *She1 adores Mary1 ’s fathers.

E XERCISE 14 What will happen in the following sentences if we change the reciprocal/reflexive
by a pronoun?

1. *Sue1 said that Mary2 liked each other1+2 .

2. After talking about herself1 for hours, Sue1 became silent.

3. *John1 ’s mother loves himself1 .

E XERCISE 15 Adapted from (Büring, 2005, 5). In the following sentences, Φ designates an NP
with the index given. For each sentence, determine by intuition what Φ can/must be (there may
be more than one option in some cases). Then give the local clause and the antecedent for Φ and
demonstrate that the Binding Conditions are met.

1. Peter1 watches Φ1 in the mirror.

2. Masha2 believes that the swamp elks admire Φ2 .

3. Masha2 believes that [the swamp elks]3 admire Φ3 .

4. Masha2 introduced Φ1 to the swamp elks.

5. Hermann4 tried to be nice, and Gallia quite liked Φ4 . Now Φ4 and Gallia go out to see a
mud wrestling show.

6. Masha2 mentioned a swamp elk that was important to Φ2 .

7. Φ5 ’s manager takes care of Cecilia5 ’s business.

8. Φ5 takes care of Cecilia5 ’s business.

E XERCISE 16 Consider the following tree and describe the c-commanding domain of the elements
given:

C-command =def α c-commands β iff the first branching node γ that dominates α dominates β.
56 CHAPTER 3. C-COMMAND

(56) TP

DP T’

D’

D NP T VP

The N PP VP

books by James

V’ PP

P’
V DP
P NP
were-written D’
by him
D NP

the N PP

books by James

• the PP by James c-commands . . .

• the PP by him c-commands . . .

• the NP by James c-commands . . .

• the NP James complement of by c-commands . . .

E XERCISE 17 According to the results of the previous exercise, answer the following questions:

• Do James and him have the same reference?

• Does James bind the pronoun him?

• Could we replace him by himself ? Why?

3.4. EXERCISES 57

E XERCISE 18 Consider the following tree and answer the questions, justifying your response:

• Who is the antecedent of him?

• If we replaced him by himself, would the sentence be possible? Would the antecedent of
himself be the same as that of him?

TP

DP T’

D’

D NP
T VP
The N PP

books by James
VP PP

V’ P’

P NP

V’ PP by Peter

P’
V DP
P NP
were-send D’
to him
D NP

the N PP

books by James

E XERCISE 19 Consider the following tree and answer the questions, justifying your response:

• Who is the antecedent of herself ? How can we prove it?

• If we replaced herself by her, would the sentence be possible? Would the antecedent of
her be the same as that of herself ?
58 CHAPTER 3. C-COMMAND

CP

NP C’

herself
C TP

NP T’

Mary
T VP

V’

V’ PP

V NP P’

invited herself P NP

to POSS NP

Mary’s party
Chapter 4

Transformational rules

In the 50’s, syntax had been developed to a quite successful and complex system in America,
mainly by the work of Leonard Bloomfield (Bloomfield 1933). For Bloomfield, syntax was
based on a strict analysis in terms of constituent structure, and linguists where supposed to
construct grammars by analyzing the distributional properties of constituents. Namely, they
were interested in kind of elements that could alternate, say, in subject position, or the positions
that a constituents, say, an NP could fill. Crucially, this method was strictly formal, without any
resort to the meaning of sentences, for meaning was considered a very messy stuff not amenable
to formal analysis (Bloomfield 1943). The result, called DISTRIBUTIONALISM, was proven very
successful at building grammar for native American languages, where the main information
was obtained from informants by means of inquiries about combinations and distributions of
constituents without any reference to meaning. In a sense, it was a taxonomic approach, for it
just listed the sentences of a language, without caring too much about the processes leading to
forming these sentences beyond purely constituent structure. For distributionalists, languages
were sets of sentences recorded from corpora or by oral interviews and grammar was a set of
generalizations deduced from these sentences.

Yet, such a system was static, and based on formal superficial differences, and quite different
from the European comparative grammar tradition, which focused on the evolution and derivation
of forms from more abstract underlying forms. Note, for example, the common assumption that
the forms sing, sings, sang and sung are different realization of a common morpheme to sing.
Or the different realizations of the consonant b in Spanish burro ‘donkey’ ([’buro]) and abuelo
‘grandfather’ ([a’Bwelo]), which were linked to a common abstract form (PHONEME) /b/.

These different approaches were already discussed by the American syntactician Zelig Harris
(Harris 1957, 2013), who was Noam Chomsky’s professor and mentor:

59
60 CHAPTER 4. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

Harris notes the different perspective we can take when studying language: a more static one,
concentrating on descriptions at different layers (phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax),
or a more dynamic one, concentrating on the processes linking different steps of a derivation.
This second line of research was pursued by Noam Chomsky in his TRANSFORMATIONAL
GRAMMAR .
The main tenet of Transformational Grammar is considering languages as generative devices,
namely a system of rules capable of generating the sentences of a given language. Here, the
emphasis is placed on the mechanisms underlying sentences, not on the sentences themselves.
The reason for this change of perspective was twofold. On the one hand, Chomsky remarked that
languages could create an infinite number of sentences, and people could understand sentences
that they have not heard before. Namely, the language faculty is CREATIVE. Obviously, it makes
little sense describe language as a set of sentences if this set is infinite. It makes more sense
assuming that the crucial part is the mechanism allowing us to create these sentences.
On the other hand, even though we could create an infinite number of sentences, we can do
it with finite means. We have a limited number of categories, of sounds, of positions in a tree.
Language is, thus, GENERATIVE.

4.1 Classical transformational grammar

A transformational grammar involved the following components (Chomsky 1957, 1965):
4.1. CLASSICAL TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR 61

• a lexicon, which provided syntax with units,

• a phrase structure grammar, namely a set of rules building syntactic constituents;

• a transformational component, which took the syntactic constituents created by the phrase
structure grammar as an input and created new syntactic constituents,

• a phonetic component that converted syntactic structures into oral utterances, and

• a semantic component that converted syntactic structures into semantically interpretable

expressions (mainly first-order logical expressions).

In the seminal book Syntactic Structures, Chomsky proposed the following architecture,
where Deep Structure was the output of the phrase-structure grammar and the input to semantics,
and Surface Structure was the output of transformational component and the input to phonetics:

Let’s consider each component briefly.

4.1.1 Phrase structure grammar

Phrase structure grammars (PSGs) generate structures by means of rewriting rules like the following:

1. S → DP VP

2. DP → D NP

3. NP → A N

4. VP → V

5. VP → V DP
62 CHAPTER 4. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

Moreover, they also have lexical insertion rules that assign a lexical item to any head:

1. D → a, the, this, that

2. N → girl, boy, man, woman

3. V → loves, likes, sleeps, smokes

4. A → tall, fat, intelligent, sad

This toy grammar generates sentences like the following:

(1) a. A sad girl sleeps.

b. This intelligent girl likes a fat boy.
c. The tall woman smokes.
d. A sad man loves that fat woman.

Consider just one simple case:

1. S

2. DP VP

3. D NP VP

4. D A N VP

5. D A N V

6. a A N V

7. a sad N V

8. a sad girl V

9. a sad girl sleeps

However, PSGs where soon considered problematic. First of all, they generate ungrammatical
sentences (i.e. they OVERGENERATE). For example, our toy grammar generates:

(2) a. *A girl likes.

b. *The girl sleeps a boy.
c. *The woman loves.

Namely, as it stands, the grammar cannot distinguish intransitive and transitive verbs. In order to
solve this problem, Chomsky was forced to include rules sensitive to the context, namely to the
presence of certain features (Chomsky, 1965, ch.2):
4.1. CLASSICAL TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR 63

These rules avoid the generation of the illformed sentences above, but are still unable to
express the following contrast:

(3) a. Mary asked what time it was/the time/*that it was ten o’clock.
b. Mary said what time it was/the time/that it was ten o’clock.
c. Mary changed *what time it was/the time/*that it was ten o’clock on her clock.

Namely, the restrictions that verbs impose on their complements go beyond categorial selection
(subcategorization), but call for a semantic restriction as well. Hence, PSG must be also enriched
to encode this information.
The second problem of our PSG is that it cannot express the infinite capacity of human
language. Therefore, we must incorporate RECURSIVITY to solve the problem:

1. S → DP AUX VP

2. S’ → COMP S

3. NP → A N

4. NP → N S

5. VP → V S

6. V → love, like, sleep, smoke, think, believe, say

7. AUX → will, would, have, be

Now we can generate subordinate recursive structures like

(4) This intelligent girl will believe that the man would like a tall woman.

However, even though PSG can be enriched to avoid overgeneration and express recursivity, they
still have a problem of UNDERGENERATION, namely they are unable to generate grammatical
sentences. One case is auxiliary inversion in interrogatives:

(5) a. Will John see Bill tomorrow?

b. Would you have helped me this afternoon?
c. Has he flied out today?
d. Was the woman singing in the bath?

One could try to enrich the PSG with the following rule:

(6) S’ → AUX S
64 CHAPTER 4. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

This would allow us to generate the sentences in (5):

However, introducing the rule in (5) is at the cost of overgenerating the following ungrammatical
sentences, where the fronted AUX is also appearing within the sentence:

(7) a. *Will John will see Bill tomorrow?

b. *Would you would have helped me this afternoon?
c. *Has he has flied out today?
d. *Was the woman was singing in the bath?

Obviously, the problem is that we have two rules generating AUX:

R1. S → DP AUX VP
R2. S’ → AUX S
While the fronted auxiliary is generated by R2, the internal auxiliary is generated by R1. Here
you would need a mechanism to ensure that the application of R1 and R2 is mutually exclusive:
if you apply one you cannot apply the other. However, PSGs do not have a way to connect the
application of one rule with the application of another.

4.1.2 Deep Structure

The application of PSG generates a series of structures typically represented by means of trees
(PHRASE MARKERS), which are called Deep structure (D-structure). At this point, these structures
are sent to semantic interpretation. However, this would imply that transformations are semantically
vacuous, for they cannot affect semantic interpretation. In other terms, we could capture semantic
synonymy between active and passive sentences, for they are similar at D-structure, only differing
when transformations apply.
However, as we will discuss shortly, this hypothesis proved to be incorrect.

4.1.3 Transformational component

D-structure serves as the input to the transformational component, which is composed of a series
of rules operating on trees. Take one classical example: passive.

(8) a. Brutus killed Caesar

b. Caesar was willed (by Brutus).

The basic idea is that at D-structure both active and passive sentences are identical (Brutus killed
Caesar), and differences arise in the transformational component, where a transformation rule of
passive applies, which affects the transitive sentence in three different ways:

• The subject is deleted.

• The passive morphology is inserted.

• The object becomes the subject.

4.1. CLASSICAL TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAMMAR 65

• The old subject is realized optionally as a by-phrase.

Formally:

In AUX we can have either an auxiliary verb or tense features. We have the following
derivation, where -ed stands for past tense, and -en for past participle:

(9) a. D-structure: [ NP1 Brutus] [ AUX -ed] [ V kill-] [ NP2 Caesar]

b. aplication of the passive rule
c. S-Structure: [ NP2 Caesar] [ AUX -ed ] be+-en [ V kill-] by [ NP1 Brutus]
d. morphonological rules
e. Caesar was killed by Brutus

As you can easily appreciate, transformations in early TG where a very powerful mechanism to
generate new syntactic structures from the output provided by phrase structure rules. Note that
the passive transformation involves reordering, deletion , and insertion of constituents. As it will
become obvious in class discussion, this was positive for overcoming the limitations of phrase
structure rules (DESCRIPTIVE ADEQUACY), but it had a negative downside: transformations
like the one just discussed were too powerful (and baroque) to be a real explanatory solution.
Indeed, after Chomsky’s initial work, almost any complex syntactic phenomenon was assigned
a transformation rule, leading to a very complex grammar, which could correctly generate the
sentences of the language, but at the cost of very ad hoc rules. Hence, after the explosion of
transformation rules in the sixties, it became clear that they should be constrained by general
principles if we wanted TG to offer a real explanation of human language faculty.

4.1.4 Surface Structure

After all transformations have applied, we obtain the last syntactic level of representation: S-
structure. This level represents the visible syntax, for it is the input to phonetics. At S-structure
we can see the differences between the derivation of an active and a passive sentence:
active
D-structure [N P 1 Brutus] [AU X -ed] [V kill-] [N P 2 Caesar]
passive rule no
S-Structure [N P 1 Brutus] [AU X -ed] [V kill-] [N P 2 Caesar]
morphonological rules yes
output Brutus killed Caesar
66 CHAPTER 4. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

passive
D-structure [N P 1 Brutus] [AU X -ed] [V kill-] [N P 2 Caesar]
passive rule yes
S-Structure [N P 2 Caesar] [AU X -ed] be+-en [V kill-] by [N P 1 Brutus]
morphonological rules yes
output Caesar was killed by Brutus

4.2 Revising the framework

As we have mentioned, even though very successful in offering a detailed description of the
grammar of many languages, in the 70’s several authors, leaded by Chomsky, showed the necessity
to revise important aspects of the transformational framework. Let’s comment them in some
detail.

4.2.1 Phrase structure grammar

As we discussed in class, X-bar theory was a major way to constrain the form of syntactic
structures. In its origins, it was a kind of template that the output of the PSG component must
conform to, but it would become also a way to constrain transformations.
Remember that reducing the power of PSG to a small set of structures build around a head
was important to explain some regular patterns that existed beyond categories, for example in the
verbal and the nominal domain.

4.2.2 Deep structure

Remember that in the classical system, D-structure was the input to semantic interpretation. This
entailed that all meaning effects took place before transformations. However, this was soon
discarded on empirical grounds. Chomsky offered semantic contrasts between an active and a
passive sentence like the following:

(10) a. All students speak a Romance language.

b. A Romance language is spoken by all students.

The active sentence is ambiguous between the following two interpretations, where Alice, John,
Candice, Peter, and Andreas are all the students in the context:

• Alice and John speak Italian, Candice and Peter, French, Andreas, Catalan.

• There is a Romance language, say Catalan, that Alice, John, Candice, Peter, and Andreas
speak.

However, in the passive sentence, the ambiguity disappears and only one reading survives,
namely:
4.2. REVISING THE FRAMEWORK 67

• There is a Romance language, say Catalan, that Alice, John, Candice, Peter, and Andreas
speak.

Yet, this is not supposed to happen if transformations are meaning-neutral. The only way to
explain this contrast is assuming that part of the interpretation takes place after the transformational
component, namely at S-structure.
This leads us to a major shift in the architecture of the system:

Now, D-structure no longer determines meaning.

4.2.3 Transformations

The first attempts to restrict the power of transformations where formal conditions on the formulation
of rules, but soon it was evident that a stronger approach was needed, and X-bar theory was
crucial. Even though it was conceived as a scheme restricting the output of the PSG component,
it could be applied at the output of transformations as well, so that all syntactic structures must
conform to the same X-bar pattern, regardless of the fact that they were base-generated or the
result of a transformation.
Hence, a transformation wasn’t allowed to move a head to the specifier of an phrase or to
adjoin a phrase to a head, for the output would not comply with the X-bar schema:
68 CHAPTER 4. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

(11) a. *XP

Y X’

X YP

Y’

Y
b. *XP

X’

X YP

ZP X Y’

Y ZP
As a consequence, the only allowed movement operations were the following:

• adjunction of a head to another head ((12)-a)

• adjunction of an XP to another XP ((12)-b)

• substitution of an XP in the specifier of another XP ((12)-c)

(12) a. XP

X’

X YP

Y X Y’

Y
b. XP

ZP XP

X’

X YP

X Y’

Y ZP
4.2. REVISING THE FRAMEWORK 69

c. XP

ZP X’

X YP

X Y’

Y ZP

Let us see some real examples. A typical case of head-adjunction is auxiliary inversion in
English, where the verbal adjoins to the complementizer:1

Typical cases of movement of an XP to a specifier are passive and wh-movement:2

1
Remember that there is a layer above TP where we find conjunctions, and wh-words (i.e. interrogatives,
exclamatives and relatives). The head of this projection is C(omplementizer), and, hence, we have a CP.
2
Even though both cases are formally identical, the nature of the landing site of the movement will prove
important. In the case of passive, the specifier of TP is a typical argumental position, in this case one associated
with subject properties (e.g. nominative case, agreement with the verb). This is why this kind of movement is
called Argument-movement (A-movement, for short). In the case of wh-movement, the specifier of CP is a typical
non-argumental position, totally unrelated to the properties of the arguments of the verb. This is why this kind of
movement is called non-Argument-movement (non-A-movement or A’-movement, for short).
70 CHAPTER 4. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

Movement to a specifier is typically limited to one instance, as in passive:3

(13) passive
a. John sent Mary a letter.
b. Mary was sent a letter.
c. A letter was sent to Mary.
d. *Mary a letter was sent.

This is generally the case also with wh-movement:

(14) a. Who did Matt kiss at school?

b. Where did Matt kiss Sally?
c. *Who where did Matt kiss?
3
Do not misanalyze the wrong double passivization in (i)-d by a topicalization plus passivization:

(i) Mary, a letter was sent.

Spanish: ‘A María, le fue enviada una carta.’
4.2. REVISING THE FRAMEWORK 71

d. Who did Matt kiss where?

Notwithstanding, some languages do allow having two wh-words in the initial position. Note the
case of Russian:

(15) a. Kto gde rabotaet?

who where works
‘Who works where?’
b. Kto kogo videl?
who-NOM who-ACC saw
‘Who saw whom?’

This has raised several proposals. Some scholars suggest that in languages like Russian wh-
movement is XP-adjunction to TP or CP (see below), which is typicaly recursive. Others have
suggested that languages like Russian allow more than one specifier. The issue is subject to
empirical and theoretical controversy.
Finally, let us consider a case of XP adjunction to a YP: adverbial fronting.

This adjunction movement is typically recursive:

(16) [ TP On the Idus of March, [ TP at the Senate, [ TP treacherously, [ TP Brutus killed Caesar
]]]] .

Deciding whether a movement is substitution into a specifier or adjunction is not always clear,
and some authors have even suggested that the distinction is nonexistent (e.g. Kayne 1994).
As you can appreciate, in this revised model, transformations where in fact reduced to a
simple movement rule, which was considered to apply freely. That is, it could move anything to
anywhere, but its output was filtered by several principles, like X-bar.

Islands Even though movement is ubiquitous in many languages, there are certain configurations
that block it completely. They are called STRONG ISLANDS. The classical research work on
islands is Ross (1967).
72 CHAPTER 4. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

Let us consider them briefly:

Definition 2 C OMPLEX NP CONSTRAINT: no rule can relate an element within a sentence

dominated by a noun with some element outside.

(17) *What did you see [ .NP the man [ .CP who baked what]] ?
(18) *What did you meet [ .NP people [ .CP owning what]] ?

Definition 3 C OORDINATE STRUCTURE CONSTRAINT: no rule can relate an element within a

coordinate sentence with some element outside the coordinate structure.

(19) What did [ S Bill cook] and what did [ S Peter wash] ?
(20) *What did [ S Bill cook what] and [ S Peter wash the dishes] ?
(21) *What did [ S Bill cook supper] and [ S Peter wash what] ?
(22) What did [ S Bill cook what] and [ S Peter wash what] ?

Definition 4 S ENTENTIAL SUBJECT CONSTRAINT: no rule can relate an element within a

sentence in subject position with some element outside.

(23) *What was [ O that the police would arrest what] a certainty?
(24) *What was [ O to read what in peace] all he wanted?
4.2. REVISING THE FRAMEWORK 73

Another classic island are adjuncts:

Condition on Extraction Domain (CED) Huang (1982):
a. Movement must not cross a barrier.
b. An XP is a barrier iff it is not a complement

(25) Which book do you believe [ XP that Mary brought you] ?

(26) Which book did you ask Mary [ XP to bring you] ?
(27) *Which book did you fall asleep [ XP while Mary read ] ?
(28) *Which book did you fall asleep [ XP because you read] ?

Parametrizing movement Many of the cases of movement clearly supported by Indo-European,

Bantu or Semitic languages do not necessarily have a counterpart in other languages. For
instance, neither Chinese nor Japanese display wh-movement Huang (1982):

(29) Lisi mai-le sheme (ne)

Lisi buy-PRF what Q
‘What did Lisi buy?’
(30) anata-ga dare-o mita ka
you-NOM who-ACC saw Q
‘Who did you see?’

We can make the hypothesis that some languages have movement rules, others lack them or we
can make the alternative one: All languages have movement rules, but they apply at different
levels of representation.
Crucial evidence: are in situ wh-elements in Japanese or Chinese affected by the same
restrictions, say islands, as wh-elements in English or Catalan? Evidende is quite ellusive.
As Watanabe (1992) shows, unlike English, Chinese seems insensitive to the Complex NP
constraint:

(31) a. *Who do you like books that criticize?

b. Who likes books that criticize who?
(32) ni xihuan [piping shei de shu]?
you like criticize who REL book
‘*Who do you like books that criticize?’

Japanese seems to be insensitive to islands, but Watanabe shows that the form of the wh-word
makes a difference:

(33) John-wa [nani-o katta hito]-o sagasite iru no?

John-TOP what-ACC bought person-ACC looking-for Q
‘*What is John looking for the person who bought?’
(34) *Mary-wa [John-ni [ittai nani-o] ageta hito]-ni atta no?
Mary-TOP John-DAT the-hell what-ACC gave person-DAT met Q
74 CHAPTER 4. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

‘*What the hell did Mary meet the person who gave to John?’

(34) suggests that Japanese may indeed be sensitive to islands. Moreover, even though the wh-
word is not moving in these languages, they are interpreted as if the had moved to the correct CP,
as in the following cases:

(35) a. Zhangsan yiwei [Lisi mai-le shenme]

Zhangsan thinks Lisi buy-PRF what
‘What does Zhangsan think that Lisi bought?’
b. Zhangsan xiang-zhidao [Lisi mai-le shenme]
Zhangsan wonders Lisi buy-PRF what
‘Zhangsan wonders what Lisi bought.’
c. Zhangsan jide [Lisi mai-le shenme]
Zhangsan remembers Lisi buy-PRF what
‘What does Zhangsan remember that Lisi bought?’/ ‘Zhangsan remembers what
Lisi bought.’

Hence, it seems that we have something like the following:

(36) [ CP shenme [ TP Zhangsan yiwei [ CP [ TP Lisi mai-le shenme ]]]]

(37) [ TP Zhangsan xiang-zhidao [ CP shenme [ TP Lisi mai-le shenme ]]]
(38) [ CP shenme [ TP Zhangsan jide [ CP [ TP Lisi mai-le shenme ]]]]
(39) [ TP Zhangsan jide [ CP shenme [ TP Lisi mai-le shenme ]]]

4.2.4 S-structure
As far as transformations affected meaning, it became clear that s-structure was the central
syntactic module, for it served as input to both semantic and phonetic interpretation. One
consequence of placing semantic interpretation after S-structure was the introduction of TRACE
THEORY , namely the hypothesis that the elements moved by a transformation leave a trace at
the original position. Since, as we discussed at class, some elements are not interpreted in its
position at S-structure, we need a register of the original position.

(40) Mary told John that she came for some reason.
a. Why did Mary tell John [ CP that she came t ] ?
b. Why did Mary tell John [ CP that she came ] t ?

In future work, traces are redefined as deleted copies of the moved element:

(41) Mary told John that she came for some reason.
a. Why did Mary tell John [ CP that she came why ] ?
b. Why did Mary tell John [ CP that she came ] why ?

We will consider traces in section 5.1, when discussing null elements.

4.3. THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM 75

4.3 The minimalist program

Syntax in the eighties was a very mature discipline, with a well-defined architecture: several
levels of representation (D-Structure, S-Structure, Logical Form, Phonetic Form) mediated by
transformations. This was called the Government and Binding (GB) framework after Chomsky’s
Lectures on Government and Binding (Chomsky, 1981) and more generally the Principles and
Parameters (P&P) theory (Chomsky & Lasnik, 1993).

Figure 4.1: Transformational grammar architecture in the eighties, apud Hornstein et al. (2005)

This was a golden age for generative grammar, which extended its coverage to an impressive
amount of languages and problems (Newmeyer, 1997, 2014; Harris, 1995; Culicover, 2014).
However, the empirical coverage was not paired with simplicity, elegance and economy,
and several authors, leaded by Chomsky raised concerns about the conceptual foundations of
the framework. The motivation for the Minimalist Program (MP) was trying to reduce the
computational system (syntax) to the bare minimum required to do the job and satisfy the needs
of the interfaces (LF and PF). This is a kind of intellectual exercise to build a more elegant and
simpler system. In Howard Lasnik’s words (Lasnik, 2002):
The Minimalist program maintains that the derivations and representations constituting
linguistic competence conform to an ‘economy’ criterion demanding that they be
minimal in a sense determined by the language faculty (ultimately by general properties
of organic systems): that is, there are no extra steps in derivations, no extra symbols
in representations, and no representations beyond those that are conceptually necessary.’
The inspiration is similar to the studies about optimal design in the natural sciences. For
examples, the hexagon is a recurrent form in nature, as you can appreciate in beehives or basalt
rocks.
What these different contexts have in common is the necessity for optimal packing under
pressure conditions, and, as Joseph Louis Lagrange showed in 1773, the densest packing of
circles is an hexagonal lattice:
In prose, the emergence of hexagonal structures in the natural world is the optimal result of
physical forces imposed on the original circular form. We can think of syntax in similar terms:
76 CHAPTER 4. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

Figure 4.2: Beehive.

Figure 4.3: Basalt rocks.

it is the optimal result of the conditions imposed by the two interfaces, the phonetic one and the
semantic one.

4.3.1 Basic components

The MP simplifies the architecture of the P&P Theory, and dispenses with any syntactic representation
level: neither D- nor S-structure are necessary. Instead, syntax is conceived as a purely derivational
system where the items from the lexicon are combined and eventually sent to the interfaces.
The lexicon provides the computational system (i.e. syntax) with the material for building
sentences. The computational system arranges lexical items to form pairs of sound and meaning,
which are then sent to Phonetic Form (PF), which is the interface to the Articulatory-Perception
System, and to Logical Form (LF), which is the interface to the Conceptual-Intentional System.
Since the output of syntax must be legible at the relevant interfaces, we hypothesize that they
are optimal realizations of the legibility conditions imposed by PF and LF (Principle of Full
Interpretation).
Syntax can create an infinite set of sentences, but they are not necessarily interpretable at the
interfaces. One typical example is the classical sentence by Chomsky Colorless green ideas sleep
furiously, which is syntactically well-built, but it cannot be interpreted at LF. Such a sentence
would be in the set D in Fig. 4.6. Obviously, we are interested in the subset of well-built
sentences that are interpretable at the interfaces, namely the subset C in Fig. 4.6. These are the
sentences that satisfy the conditions of legibility.
We will turn to the smaller subset A in Fig. 4.6 when taking about economy conditions in
4.3. THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM 77

Figure 4.4: Lagrange’s proof.

Figure 4.5: MP architecture, apud Hornstein et al. (2005)

section 4.3.5.

4.3.2 Lexicon
The conception of the lexicon in the MP didn’t change from previous frameworks. In mainstream
generative grammar, the lexicon is simply a repository of material for syntax. The only important
contribution of the MP is the restriction of access: syntax can only access the lexicon once, before
any operation takes place. The idea is that when building a sentence, we pick out all the lexical
items we need from the lexicon, and we carry them to syntax in a single step. The set of lexical
items is called a NUMERATION, and its the only possible source of building blocks for deriving
our sentence: once we have our numeration, we have no further access to the lexicon (this will
be important later, when discussing economy conditions in section 4.3.5).
For example, when we build the sentence John sleeps, we build the following numeration:

(42) Numeration: {hJohn, 1i, hT, 1i, hsleeps, 1i, }

From now on, syntax can only work with these pieces. The numbers indicates the times we pick
out a certain item. For instance, when building the sentence The girl kissed the other girl, the
78 CHAPTER 4. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

Figure 4.6: Subset relationship among derivations, apud Hornstein et al. (2005).

numeration would be the following:

(43) Numeration: {hthe, 2i, hgirl, 2i, hT, 1i, hkissed, 1i, hother, 1i, }

4.3.3 Operations
Select The operation SELECT picks lexical items from the numeration to be combined by
Merge. Every time that selects picks up a lexical item from the numeration, it reduces its value.

(44) Numeration: {hGirl, 1i, hBoy, 1i, hLove, 1i, hM any, 1i, hAll, 1i}

Merge The operation åmerge combines two items and creates a new one with a label.

(45) γ

α β
γ = α or γ = β
For example, to construct the sentence Mary likes linguistics, we begin with the following
numeration:

(46) Num0 : {hM ary, 1i, hT, 1i, hlike, 1i, hlinguistics, 1i}

Now we select like and linguistics, and we merge them, forming a new object headed by the
verbal item (a V’ or a VP in the P&P model):

(47) a. merge of like and linguistics: likes

likes linguistics
4.3. THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM 79

b. Num1 :{hM ary, 1i, hT, 1i, hlike, 0i, hlinguistics, 0i}

Now we select T and merge both objects:

(48) a. merge of T and {like, {like, linguistics}}: T

T likes

likes linguistics
2
b. Num : {hM ary, 1i, hT, 0i, hlike, 0i, hlinguistics, 0i}

Finally, we select Mary, and merge it:

(49) a. merge of Mary and {T, {like, {like, linguistics}}}: likes

Mary likes

likes linguistics
3
b. Num : {hM ary, 0i, hT, 0i, hlike, 0i, hlinguistics, 0i}

In this derivation, all merging operations involved selecting an element from the numeration:
this is labeled EXTERNAL MERGE. However, we can also merging two elements already in the
structure (also called INTERNAL MERGE):

(50) kissed was was

kissed Mary was kissed Mary was

kissed Mary
was kissed

kissed Mary

In other words, movement is just a variant of the basic operation merge. However, if we stick to
minimalist concerns, we are into trouble: syntax cannot create new entities, but just modify what
you have in the numeration. Obviously, traces are created in syntax, after movement applies.
The solution is Copy Theory, which we discuss in section 4.3.4.
Conditions on Merge
Extension condition Applications of Merge can only target root syntactic objects.
Num0 : {hJohn, 1i, hkiss, 1i, hM ary, 1i}

(51) OK kissed → kissed

kissed John Mary kissed

kissed John
80 CHAPTER 4. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

(52) * kissed → kissed

Mary kissed Mary kissed

kissed John
Extension condition Strict parallelism between syntactic and semantic composition:
kissed<e,t> → kissed<t>

kissed<e,<e,t>> John<e>
Mary<e> kissed<e,t>

kissed<e,<e,t>> John<e>
Minimality Good configuration:

(53) a. [ CP who [ TP who wondered [ CP how you fixed the car how]]]
b. [ CP who [ TP did you wonder [ CP how [ TP who fixed the car how]]]]

Bad configuration:

(54) [ CP how [ TP did you wonder [ CP who [ TP who fixed the car how]]]]

Minimality

(55) They could have left.

a. [ Could [ they could [ have left ]]] ?
b. *[ have [ they could [ have left ]]] ?

4.3.4 Copy theory of movement

Traces of movement are reanalyzed as copies of the original item which are deleted at the
phonetic component (in most cases). The idea is that copies are not different elements as traces
are, which complies with minimalist requirements. Let us consider an example with a passive
sentence:

(56) T

T was

was kissed

kissed Mary
The first step involves internal merge of a copy of the element in the final position (i.e. movement
of the former object to the subject position):
4.3. THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM 81

(57) T

Mary T

was

was kissed

kissed Mary

Now, the lower copy gets deleted at Phonetic Form:

(58) T

Mary T

was

was kissed

kissed Mary

Consider now a case of wh-movement. We begin with external merge of came and who:4

(59) [ came came who ]

Now we merge T:

(60) [ T T [ came came who ]]

Now, we apply internal merge of who, which counts as raising to subject:

(61) [ T who [ T T [ came came who ]]]

Now, we merge the complementizer C:

(62) [ C C [ T who [ T T [ came came who ]]]]

Now, we apply internal merge of who, which counts as wh-movement:

(63) [ C who [ C C [ T who [ T T [ came came who ]]]]]

Finally, lower copies are deleted:

(64) [ C who [ C C [ came who [ T who [ T T [ came came who ]]]]]

4
The verb to come is unaccusative, which means that its subject is generated in the object position, and later
moves to the subject position, in a similar way to passives.
82 CHAPTER 4. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

4.3.5 Economy
We have seen that syntax is principally an application of merge (internal and external) for
satisfying the conditions of the interfaces, but we haven’t considered if there is more than way to
reach such goal. Let’s a turn to the set of possible syntactic objects:

Figure 4.7: Subset relationship among derivations, apud Hornstein et al. (2005).

Syntax can create sentences which are not legible at the interfaces (set D; uninterpretable for
semantics and/or unpronounceable for phonetics), but we want a system ensuring that its output
can be read at the interfaces (set C). But we can impose still a harder condition on our sentences:
they must be legible at the interfaces, but they must involve the most economical derivation
(set A). That is, in cases where more than one derivation is possible, we must introduce a set
of conditions for choosing the optimal one. Hence, we introduce ECONOMY principles over
derivations.
Consider for instance, the superiority effect:

(65) a. Who bought what?

b. *What did who buy?

Informally, when two wh-elements compete for moving to the front of the sentence (i.e. the
specifier of CP), only the highest can move. Since who c-commands what, but not conversely,
only who can move.
If we think of the movement of wh-elements in terms of attraction, namely that the interrogative
C (C[+wh] ) must attract a wh-element to its specifier, the superiority effect reduces to an economy
condition minimizing the distance of movements:

(66) Shortest move: minimize the distance of your movement.

Consider the derivation once we merge the interrogative C:

4.3. THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM 83

(67) [ C C[+wh] [ T who [ bought bought what ] ] ]

It is clear that the distance between C and who is shorter than the distance between C and what.
Hence, under the economy condition S HORTEST MOVE we predict that only who would be able
to move:

(68) [ C who [ C C[+wh] [ T who [ bought bought what ] ] ] ]

(69) *[ C what [ C C[+wh] [ T who [ bought bought what ] ] ] ]

Note that this contrast is also at the roots of minimality contraints (Rizzi, 2001, 1990), which
forbid wh-elements to cross over other wh-elements.

Which candidates? The concept of economy conditions involves comparing different derivations,
so we must be certain that we compare the proper objects. For instance, we do not want to
compare the following two sentences:

(70) Someone is in the room.

(71) There is someone in the room.

It is clear that we cannot compare them, because they depart at the lexical level: they involve two
different numerations. Hence, we must make sure that only derivations from the same numeration
compete.
Let us consider a different case, were the same numeration is involved:

(72) *Arrived Mary.

(73) Mary arrived.

If these two derivations compete, should not (72) be most economical than (73) since it involves
less operations (it does not move Mary)? The answer is that only CONVERGENT [=well-formed]
derivations compete. In this case, the derivation in (72) is not convergent, for it violates a
grammatical principle of English, namely the requirement that the subject position be filled.
Hence, the conditions for two derivations to enter into economy evaluations are the following:

1. they must have the same numeration (lexical items picked up from the lexicon)

2. they must converge, namely they must be properly derived following all principles of
grammar, economy aside. That does not mean they are grammatical: convergent+most
economical=grammatical.

Consider one classical example (there are very few, indeed). With the numeration in (74)-a
we can build two convergent derivations, but we will show that only derivation A is optimal, for
it satisfies economy conditions:

(74) a. Num0 = {there, T, seem, to, be, someone, here}

b. There seems to be someone here. derivation A
84 CHAPTER 4. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

c. *There seems someone to be here. derivation B

We operate bottom-up, and the first steps are common to both derivations: we select someone
and here and merge them.

(75) a. Num1 = {there, T, seem, to, be}

b. [ here someone here ]

Now we select the verb and apply merge:

(76) a. Num2 = {there, T, seem, to}

b. [ be be [ here someone here ]]

Now we select to (=Tense) and apply merge:

(77) a. Num3 = {there, T, seem}

b. [ to to [ be be [ here someone here ]]]

At this point, we have two possibilities for filling the subject position of the embedded sentence:
external merge of there or internal merge of someone.

(78) derivation A
a. Num4 = {T, seem}
b. [ to there [ to to [ be be [ here someone here ]]]]
(79) Derivation B
a. Num4 = {there, T, seem}
b. [ to someone [ to to [ be be [ here someone here ]]]]

From now on, derivations A and B follow without choice:

• Derivation A

(80) Selection and merge of seem5

a. Num5 = {T }
b. [ seem seem [ to there [ to to [ be be [ here someone here ]]]]]
(81) Selection and merge of T
a. Num6 = {}
b. [ T T [ seem seem [ to there [ to to [ be be [ here someone here ]]]]]]
(82) Movement of there to the subject position (and deletion of the copy)6
a. Num6 = {}
b. [ T there [ T T [ seem seems [ to there [ to to [ be be [ here someone here ]]]]]]]
5
The verb is still uninflected: agreement will take place latter.
6
Movement of someone to the main subject position would be a violation of Shortest move: there is closer to the
position than someone, so then the former must move.
4.3. THE MINIMALIST PROGRAM 85

• Derivation B

(83) Selection and merge of seem

a. Num5 = {there, T }
b. [ seem seem [ to someone [ to to [ be be [ here someone here ]]]]]
(84) Selection and merge of T
a. Num6 = {there}
b. [ T T [ seem seem [ to someone [ to to [ be be [ here someone here ]]]]]]
(85) Selection and merge of there7
a. Num7 = {}
b. [ T there [ T T [ seem seems [ to someone [ to to [ be be [ here someone here ]]]]]]]

It is clear that both derivations are well-formed (= they are convergent, in Chomsky’s terms), so
the difference must lie in the step where one derivation selects and merges of there while the
other resorts to internal merge of someone:

(86) Derivation A: [ to there [ to to [ be be [ here someone here ]]]]

(87) Derivation B: [ to someone [ to to [ be be [ here someone here ]]]]

The economy condition is quite intuitive: since movement is merge+copy, it is a more complex
operation than simple merge. Hence, at this point it is more economical derivation A than
derivation B, hence it is the only grammatical derivation.
This economy condition is very problematic and debated on theoretical and empirical grounds
(see Collins 2008; Motut 2010). Just to note the major point of discussion, note that it is quite
a complex condition to apply. On the one hand, it involves global post-hoc evaluation of full
derivations: we must be sure that the derivations are convergent, for being comparable. On the
other hand, we evaluate economy locally: we consider a particular choice in one particular step
of the derivation. Note that if we just count the final number of uses of movement and merge,
both derivations fare equally.
Just to close the discussion on economy conditions, consider the following pair:

(88) a. John loves Mary.

b. Mary loves John.

Since both sentences are grammatical, we have two hypothesis:

• H1: These two sentences do not compete for economy evaluation.

• H2: These two sentences do compete for economy evaluation, but they are equally economical.
7
Movement of someone would be an option, but then we would not exhaust the numeration, namely we would
leave there unusued, and, as we will see in a moment, selecting and merging there is more economical than moving
someone.
86 CHAPTER 4. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

For H1 to be correct, these sentence should involve different numerations, but if we consider
the lexical items involved, this seems very difficult to maintain. We are thus confronted to
H2: they involve equally economical derivations. Indeed, we can easily see that the operations
involved are identical, only differing in the initial choice of the object to merge with the verb:
love+Mary in the former, and love+John in the latter. From this initial step, all the operations
would follow in a strict parallel fashion until the merge of the subject, which will be the remaining
noun in the numeration: John in the former, and Mary in the latter. In sum, since we do not have
any contrast in terms of movement, economy considerations are irrelevant.

4.4 Conclusions
In this chapter we have seen that movement transformations are a powerful tool to express
relations between sentences which cannot be (easily) expressed by phrase-structure grammars.
Moreover, movement transformations cannot extract constituents from strong islands, and they
display cross-linguistic variation. Finally, we have stressed that the Minimalist Program is an
attempt to simplify syntax to its minimum, as an optimal derivational system to connect the
lexical material with the two interfaces (LF and PF). As a consequence, syntax is reduced to a
combination of lexical items by means of Merge, which are driven by the legibility requirements
of the interfaces, and constrained by economy considerations.

4.5 Exercises
E XERCISE 20 According to what you know about extracting elements from within different
positions in the sentence structure, indicate which sentences will be fine and which will be
ungrammatical, and explain the reason for the illformedness of ungrammatical ones. Choose
the language you prefer.
(89) a. What did you insist on buying?
b. What did you ask Mary not to insist on buying?
c. What did you make a proposal not to buy?
d. What did you make the proposal that nobody should buy?
e. What do you think that buying is useless?
f. What do you think that Mary left without buying?
g. What do you need that she be calm and buy?
(90) a. Què vas insistir a comprar?
‘What did you insist on buying?’
b. Què vas demanar a la Maria que no insistís a comprar?
‘What did you ask Mary not to insist on buying?’
c. Què vas fer una proposta de no comprar.
‘What did you make a proposal not to buy?’
d. Què vas fer la proposta que ningú comprés?
‘What did you make the proposal that nobody should buy?’
4.5. EXERCISES 87

e. Què penses que comprar és inútil?

‘What do you think that buying is useless?’
f. Què penses que va marxar sense comprar?
‘What do you think that she left without buying?’
g. Què necessites que estigui tranquil·la i compri?
‘What do you need that she be calm and buy?’
(91) a. ¿Qué insististe en comprar?
‘What did you insist on buying?’
b. ¿Qué pediste a María que no insistiese en comprar?
‘What did you ask Mary not to insist on buying?’
c. ¿Qué hiciste una propuesta de no comprar.
‘What did you make a proposal not to buy?’
d. ¿Qué hiciste una propuesta de que nadie comprase?
‘What did you make the proposal that nobody should buy?’
e. ¿Qué piensas que comprar es inútil?
‘What do you think that buying is useless?’
f. ¿Qué piensas que se fue sin comprar?
‘What do you think that she left without buying?’
g. ¿Qué necesitas que esté tranquila y compre?
‘What do you need that she be calm and buy?’

E XERCISE 21 Indicate whether the following movements are affected by an island. Be very
specific about the exact configuration involved.

1. What was Mary convinced that eating wasn’t a good idea?

2. What did Jane insist that every child should learn at school?

3. Where did Jane had the belief that Peter hide the money?

4. Which knife does Mary knows that Jane stabbed his husband with?

5. What did Jane make the assumption that everybody wanted to know?

6. Whom did Mary confess to Bill her belief that aliens had abducted?

7. What did Mary want John to buy in the store?

8. What did Mary asked who brought to the party?

E XERCISE 22 Explain the following contrasts:

(92) a. What do you think that Mary was given?

b. *What do you think that was given to Mary?
(93) a. We were curious about who bought what.
88 CHAPTER 4. TRANSFORMATIONAL RULES

b. *We were curious about what who bought.

(94) a. What did Mary bring you from London and you accepted?
b. *What did Mary bring you a present from London and you accepted?
(95) [*Which book does she thinks that reading would help you?]
a. Quin llibre pensa que t’ajudaria llegir?
b. *Quin llibre pensa que llegir t’ajudaria ?
c. ¿Qué libro piensa que te ayudaría leer?
d. *¿Qué libro piensa que te leer ayudaría?

E XERCISE 23 Indicate which sentences will be fine and which will be ungrammatical, and
explain the reason for the illformedness of ungrammatical ones. Choose the language you prefer.

(96) a. Which book did they phone you while reading?

b. Who are they saying that will be killed?
c. How many hours are you required to work after lunch?
(97) a. Quin llibre et van trucar mentre llegies?
b. Qui diuen que serà assassinat?
c. Quantes hores has de treballar després de dinar?
(98) a. ¿Qué libro te llamaron mientras leías?
b. ¿Quién estan diciendo que será asesinado?
c. ¿Cuántas horas has de trabajar después de comer?
Chapter 5

Empty categories

5.1 Traces
Crucially, if we interpret sentences after movement transformations, we need some device to
mark the original position for interpreting certain elements:

(1) When did you explain that Peter arrived?

a. when depends on explain
b. when depends on arrived

The solution was proposed by Robert Fiengo Fiengo (1977), who argued that movement
leaves a TRACE at their original position:

(2) When did you explain that Peter arrived?

a. When did you explain t that Peter arrived?
b. When did you explain that Peter arrived t?

Traces are not just a notation device nor a theoretical entity, but they have syntactic reality. One
empirical argument for their existence is the problematic extraction of a subject of a sentence
introduced by that. Whereas object extraction is insensitive to the presence of that (3), subject
extraction is affected (4):1

(3) a. What do you think (that) Matt kissed t?

b. Who do you think (*that) kissed Matt?

Whereas the presence or absence of the complementizer that doesn’t affect the extraction of
what, the subject who cannot be extracted unless the complementizer is omitted.
This contrast was described as the that-trace effect Perlmutter (1971), and it is found with all
kinds of movements:
1
The notation (*that) means that the sentence is ungrammatical if we remove the parenthesis –with that–, but
grammatical otherwise –without that.

89
90 CHAPTER 5. EMPTY CATEGORIES

(4) a. This is the person who I thought (*that) met Sue. (relativization)
b. Mary we think (*that) t met Sue. (topicalization)
c. It is Mary that we think (*that) t met Sue. (cleft)
d. More people like Mahler than we think (*that) t like Bruckner. (comparative)

Moreover, it is attested in many different languages:2

(5) French Perlmutter (1971)

a. Qui a-t-il dit que Marie voulait voir t?
’Who did he say that Marie wanted to see?’
b. *Qui a-t-il dit que t voulait voir Marie?
’Who did he say wanted to see Marie?’
(6) Russian Pesetsky (1982)
a. Kogo ty xočeš’, čtoby Maša vstretila t?
who.ACC you.NOM want, that Ma?a.NOM meet.SBJ.F.SG
‘Who do you want Masha to meet?’
b. *Kto ty xočeš’, čtoby t vstretil Mašu?
who.NOM you.NOM want, that meet.SBJ.M.SG Ma?a.ACC
‘Who do you want to meet Masha?’
(7) Levantine Arabic Kenstowicz (1989)
a. ?ayy fustaan [Fariid kaal (innu) l-bint ištarat t ]
which dress Fariid said that the-girl bought
’Which dress did Fariid say that the girl bought?’
b. ?ayy bint Fariid kaal [(*innu) t ištarat l-fustaan]
which girl Fariid said that bought the dress
’Which girl did Fariid say bought the dress?’
(8) German: Featherston (2005)
a. Weni meint Doris, liebt Gerhard ti ?
whom thinks D. loves G.
‘Who does D. think Gerhard loves?’
b. Weni meint Doris, dass Gerhard ti liebt?
whom thinks D. that Gerhard loves
‘Who does D. think that Gerhard loves?’
c. Weri meint Doris, dass ti Gerhard liebt?
who thinks D. that Gerhard loves
‘Who does D. think that loves G.?
(9) a. John didn’t want Mary to buy herself/*himself a present.
2
French can skip the effect by means of a complementizer agreeing with the subject:

(i) Qui a-t-il dit qui t voulait voir Martin?

’Who did he say wanted to see Martin?’
5.1. TRACES 91

b. Mary wasn’t wanted to buy herself/*himself a present

5.1.1 The internal subject hypothesis

What’s the constituent structure of the coordination in (10) Burton & Grimshaw (1992); McNally
(1992)?

(10) They will sing and be acclaimed.

Since we interpreted the second coordinate in the future (“they will sing and will be acclaimed”),
we must assume that the coordination is under the level of the modal verb:

(11) They will [.VP sing ] and [.VP be acclaimed ]

But, crucially in the second coordinate we have a passive sentence, which must have a trace/copy
of the subject in object position:

(12) [ TP They will [ VP sing ] and [ VP be acclaimed they ]]

Yet, we know that (12) cannot be the correct structure, for it would involve a movement from
the object position of be acclaimed to the specifier of TP, violating the Coordinate Structure
Constraint, which forbids extraction from one part of a coordination. If both coordinates were
passives, we would have a standard case of across the board movement, that is movement from
both parts of the coordinations at the same time, which is unaffected by the Coordinate Structure
Constraint:

(13) [ TP They will [ VP be punished they ] and [ VP be acclaimed they ]]

The problem is that in (12) we don’t have a movement of they in the first coordinate.

The solution is arguing that we do have such a movement:

(14)
92 CHAPTER 5. EMPTY CATEGORIES

This is the Internal Subject Hypothesis Kitagawa (2018); Koopman & Sportiche (1991),
which generates subjects as adjuncts or specifiers of the VP:

(15) TP

T’

T VP

NP VP

Mary V’

sings

We have seen that this analysis was crucial for explaining the coordination case, but much more
evidence exists. Huang (1993) discussed the case of fronted elements which contain a reflexive.
In English, as we have discussed, the antecedent of the reflexive may vary in cases like the
following:

(16) Those pictures of himselfi/j , Johni thinks t Billj will buy t.

(17) a. Those pictures of himself, John thinks those pictures of himself Bill will buy those
pictures of himself.
b. Those pictures of himself, John thinks those pictures of himself Bill will buy those
pictures of himself.

However, Huang observed that this wasn’t the case with VP fronting:
5.1. TRACES 93

(18) Criticize himself∗i/j , Johni thinks Billj will not.

If we apply the analysis for DP fronting, as before, we would expect both Bill and John to be
possible antecedents for the reflexive: Bill would bind the reflexive in the lowest copy (19) and
John would bind it in the intermediate copy (20):

(19) criticize himself, John thinks criticize himself Bill will not criticize himself.

(20) criticize himself, John thinks criticize himself Bill will not criticize himself.

However, the expected reading in (20) is not found. Why? The answer, again, has to do with the
internal subject: when we move the VP, we also move the copy of the internal subject, which is
the only possible antecedent in all the positions:

The fronted VP (criticize himself ) will always contain a copy of the internal subject Bill (i.e.
[V P Bill criticize himself]), so only this name will count as the antecedent for the reflexive.
Interestingly, Huang shows that the same contrast is found in Chinese. DP fronting shows
the same ambiguous pattern as English:

(21) tazijii/j de shi, Zhangsanj xiwang Lisii neng guan-yi-guan.

himself’s CLASS matter Zhangsan hope Lisi can care-a-little
‘Hisi/j own business, Zhangsanj hopes Lisii will care for a bit.’

In contrast, the fronted VP (piping taziji) will contain a copy of the internal subject Lisi (i.e. [V P
Lisi piping taziji]), so only this name will count as the antecedent for the reflexive.

(22) piping tazijii/∗j , Zhangsanj zhidao Lisii juedui bu hui.

criticize himself Zhangsan knows Lisi definitely not will
‘Criticize himselfi/∗j , Zhangsanj knows Lisii definitely will not.’

Henceforth, the subject internal hypothesis seems firm on empirical grounds.

94 CHAPTER 5. EMPTY CATEGORIES

5.2 Null pronouns

A second major set of null categories in syntax concerns null pronouns.

5.2.1 Subjects of nonfinite verbs

Subjects of nonfinite verbs are typically null even in non-null subject languages like English:

(23) a. Talking about yourself for an hour won’t convince the council that you are not
egocentric.
b. Peter insisted on buying himself a present for his birthday.
c. Haunted by scary thoughts, Jane remained awake the whole night.

This subject position, which is syntactically active for binding or agreement purposes is typically
represented by the symbol PRO(NOUN):

(24) a. I don’t know [ CP where [ TP PRO to go ]]

b. [ CP [ TP PROi talking about yourselfi . . . ]] won’t convince. . .

5.2.2 Null subject languages

The pattern just described for nonfinite clauses doesn’t generally extend to finite clauses in
French or English:

(25) *(Elle) arrive demain. *(She) is arriving tomorrow.

However, it is the basic case in most Romance languages, like in the following examples from
Catalan and Spanish:

(26) (Ella) arriba demà. (Ella) llega mañana.

These languages are not required to express their subject, which can easily be identified by means
of the agreement markers on the verbal head. Indeed, whereas English or French must fill the
subject position with a lexical noun phrase or a lexical pronoun, Catalan or Spanish tend to omit
the subject Rigau (1988); Mayol (2010):

(27) I saw a suspect man. He was tall.

(28) Vaig veure un home sospitós. (#Ell) era alt.
PST.1 SG see a man suspect he was tall
In null-subject languages, the expression of the subject by means of a pronoun is a very marked
option, and it is only possible when a contrastive reading is intended. For example, imperative
sentences, which are in second person by default, do not express the subject:

(29) Menja (#tu)!

eat you
5.2. NULL PRONOUNS 95

‘You, eat!’

However, when a contrastive reading is necessary, the pronoun must be expressed:

(30) A: Passa. B: No, passa #(tu).

pass not pass you
‘A: Come in. B: No, YOU come in.’

In this case, we are building a contrast between I and you, which requires a full pronoun.
A typical property of null-subject languages is free inversion of the subject. Namely, depending
on the context, we can have preverbal or postverbal subjects:

(31) a. La Maria arriba demà. / Demà arriba la Maria.

b. María llega mañana. / Mañana llega María.

The position of the subject is related to the informational content: when preverbal, the subject
is typically a topic, encoding old information; in contrast, in postverbal position, the subject is
focus, namely new information. Hence, each structure is found in a different context:

(32) When will Mary arrive?

a. La Maria arriba demà.
b. #Demà arriba la Maria.
(33) Who will arrive tomorrow?
a. #La Maria arriba demà.
b. Demà arriba la Maria.

Non null-subject languages do not have such freedom:

(34) a. Marie arrive demain. / *Demain arrive Marie.

b. Mary is arriving tomorrow. / *Tomorrow is arriving Mary.

On the light of the discussion about the internal subject hypothesis, we can analyze inverted
subjects as in situ subjects:
TP

T’

T VP

V T NP VP

canta María V’

canta
96 CHAPTER 5. EMPTY CATEGORIES

The difference between English/French and Catalan/Spanish would reduce to the requirement
of filling the higher subject position:
TP

NP T’

Mary T VP

V T NP VP

sings Mary V’

sings
TP

T’

T VP

V T DP VP
canta la Maria V’

canta

5.3 Ellipsis
Ellipsis is another major phenomenon suggesting that syntactic structure is not always phonetically
realized:

(35) a. John kissed Mary and Sally too kissed Mary.

b. I saw Mary, but I can’t remember where I saw Mary.
c. Mary brought the wine, and John brought the beer.
d. John bought a dress, and Mary hired, a dress.

Interestingly, even though null, the site of VP-ellipsis is typically sensitive to islands. For
instance, in (36), cats is extracted from within a relative clause in the ellipsis, yielding a bad
result:

(36) *Abby knows five people who have dogs, but cats, she doesn’t know [NP five people [CP
5.4. EXERCISES 97

who have cats ]] .

The same problem arises in (37) with wh-movement:

(37) *Abby wants to hire someone who speaks a Balkan language, but I don’t remember which
(Balkan language) Ben does want to hire [NP someone [CP who speaks which (Balkan
language) ]]

Similar effects are found with gapping (38) and contrastive sluicing (39):

(38) *Some wanted to hire the woman who worked on Greek, and others wanted to hire the
woman who worked on Albanian.
(39) She knows a guy who has five dogs, but I don’t know how many cats.
a. = the guy who has the five dogs has how many cats
b. 6= she knows a guy who has how many cats

All these data suggest that the elliptical part has syntactic structure and is affected by the very
same syntactic effects as full pronounced material. This gives support to analyses of ellipsis as
instances of postsyntactic deletion at PF.

5.3.1 Identity problems

Even though identity is crucial for recovering the deleted material in the elliptical clause, some
particular problems arises, which support the assumption that syntactic structure is involved in
ellipsis. Consider the following case:

(40) Mary crashed her car, and Jim too.

The ellipsis site can have three different interpretations:

(41) a. Mary crashed Mary’s car, and Jim too crashed Mary’s car.
b. Mary crashed the car of a salient third person, and Jim too crashed the car of such
a salient third person.
c. Mary crashed Mary’s car, and Jim too crashed Jim’s car.

Readings (41)-a and (41)-b are, so-called, strict readings: the elided part is an exact copy of
the main sentence. However in (41)-c we have a modified copy, a sloppy reading. Obviously,
since the different readings are typically based on possible antecedents and c-command, it seems
plausible to assume that the deleted part contains syntactic structure.

5.4 Exercises
E XERCISE 24 Consider the following sentences. Does the wh-phrase leave an intermediate
trace? Can we prove it somehow?
98 CHAPTER 5. EMPTY CATEGORIES

(42) *Which books about Maryi did shei said that John had read?
a. *“Quins llibres sobre la Mariai proi va dir que en Joan havia llegit?”
b. *“¿Qué libros sobre Maríai proi dijo que Juan había leído?”
(43) Which manuscripts by himselfi did Caesari claim that Cleopatra had destroyed?
a. “Quins manuscrits de si mateixi Cèsari va afirmar que Cleòpatra havia destruït?”
b. “¿Qué manuscritos de sí mismo i Césari afirmó que Cleopatra había destruido?”

E XERCISE 25 Consider the following sentences. Does the wh-phrase leave an intermediate
trace? Can we prove it somehow?

(44) Which books about himi did she said that Johni had read?
a. “Quins llibres sobre elli va dir (ella) que en Joani havia llegit?”
b. “¿Qué libros sobre éli dijo (ella) que Juani había leído?”
Chapter 6

Sentence syntax

6.1 Intransitive verbs

Intransitive verbs are verbs typically lacking a direct object, however this feature creates a mixed
bag:

(1) a. cry, complain

b. arrive, come
c. rain, snow
d. dance, walk

Do they have the very same syntactic structure?

6.1.1 Unergatives and unaccusatives

Prototypical intransitives (UNERGATIVES) are typically verbs with the following features:

• Predicates describing willed or volitional acts: fight, pray, whistle, smile, dance.

• Manner of speaking verbs: whisper, shout, mumble, scream, yell.

• Predicates describing animal sounds: moo, bark, meow.

• Certain (normally involuntary) bodily processes: sneeze, cough, pee, burp, vomit.

The unaccusative class typically includes verbs with the following features:

• Intransitive predicates whose thematic role is a ‘patient’: burn, fall, drown, float.

• Intransitive inchoative verbs that involve a change of state: melt, die, perish, freeze,
evaporate.

• Intransitive predicates of existing and happening: happen, exist.

99
100 CHAPTER 6. SENTENCE SYNTAX

• Non-voluntary emission of stimuli that impinge on the senses (light, noise, smell, etc.):
glitter, shine, smell.

• Intransitive aspectual predicates: begin, end, continue, stop.

• Intransitive duratives: stay, last, continue, survive

Let’s review some empirical evidence separating these two classes.

There-sentences in English
(2) *There cried a beautiful girl at our house yesterday.
(3) There arrived a beautiful girl at our house yesterday.

However, note the case of there-sentences in Icelandic, which are not restricted:

(4)

Locative inversion
Locative inversion is possible with unaccusatives, but impossible with unergatives:

(5) a. *In the park jumped the squirrels.

b. *In the playground scream kids.
(6) a. Outside our house grow roses.
b. Here comes the mailman.

Past participle relatives

Past participle relatives are possible with unaccusatives (and transitives!), but impossible with
unergatives:

(7) unergative
6.1. INTRANSITIVE VERBS 101

a. Els nens del pati van xisclar.

‘The kids in the playground screamed.’
b. *Els nens xisclats eren al pati.
*‘The kids screamed were in the playground.’
(8) unaccusative
a. Van arribar molts turistes anglesos.
‘Many English visitors arrived.’
b. Els turistes arribats ahir eren anglesos.
’The visitors arrived yesterday were English.’

Resultative constructions

Resultative constructions in English are possible with objects but not with subjects:

(9) a. John hammered the metal flat.

b. *John hammered the metal sweaty. (* on the resultative reading, namely ’John get
sweaty as a result of hammering the metal’)

As expected, resultatives are impossible with unergatives:

(10) unergative
a. *John cried sick.
b. *Dora shouted hoarse.

However, they are possible with unaccusatives:

(11) unaccusative
a. The water froze solid.
b. The bottle broke open.

Absolute participle

Just as happened with past participle relatives, absolute participles are possible with unaccusatives,
but not with unergatives:

(12) unergatives
a. *Una vegada xisclats els nens, va començar la classe.
a time screamed the children PST.3 SG begin the class
‘Once the children ended screaming, the class began.’
b. *Amb els nens queixats, el dinar va ser un desastre.
with the children complained the lunch PST.3 SG be a disaster
‘With the children having complained, lunch was a disaster.’
(13) unaccusatives
102 CHAPTER 6. SENTENCE SYNTAX

a. Un cop arribats els turistes, van preparar el sopar.

a time arrived the visitors PST.3 PL fixed the dinner
‘Once the visitors arrived, they fixed the dinner.’
b. Amb els geranis florits, el balcó fa molt de goig.
with the geraniums bloomed the balcony makes very of joy
‘With blooming geraniums, the balcony is very enjoyable.’

Subject pronominalization

As a rule, subjects cannot pronominalize (unlike objects). However, unaccusatives can pronominalize
indefinite subjects by means of the partitive clitic in several Romance languages, but unergatives
cannot:

(14) Molts nens xisclen. ??En xisclen molts

many kids scream CL . PART scream many
‘Many kids scream.’ ‘Many of them scream.’
(15) Han arribat molts turistes. N’han arribat molts.
have arrived many visitors CL . PART-have arrived many
’Many visitors arrived.’ ’Many of them arrived.’

Impersonal with se

Unergatives can construct impersonal constructions with se, but unaccusatives cannot:

(16) a. En aquesta oficina es rondina a totes hores.

in this office SE complains at all hours
‘In this office, people complains constantly.’
b. *A Barcelona es floreix durant tot l’any.
in Barcelona SE blooms during all the-year
‘In Barcelona, blooming happens during the whole year.’

Cognate objects

Many unergative verbs may be constructed as transitives with a cognate object, namely an object
whose meaning is included in the lexical meaning of the verb:

(17) a. Malinda smiled her most enigmatic smile. Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995)
b. Last night the candidate slept a restless sleep. Macfarland (1995)

Such a possibility is excluded with unaccusatives:

(18) a. *The actress fainted a feigned faint. Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995)
b. *She arrived a glamorous arrival. Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995)
6.1. INTRANSITIVE VERBS 103

Auxiliary selection

In many languages, the unergative/unaccusative distinctions is associated to a different auxiliary

verb in complex tenses. As a rule, unergatives select have, whereas unaccusatives select be:

• it.: ha pianto/protestato/urlato/sorriso

• Fr.: Elle a pleuré/protesté/crié/souri

• Germ.: Sie hat geweint/beschwert/gelächelt/geschrien

• Dutch: Ze heeft gehuild/geklaagd/geglimlacht/geschreeuwd

• ‘She has cried/complained/smiled/screamed’

• It.: è andato/venuto/arrivato/caduto/nato

• Fr.: il est allé/venu/arrivé/tombé/né

• Germ.: Sie ist gegangen/gekommen/angekommen/gefallen/geboren

• Dutch: Ze is gegaan/gekomen/aangekomen/gevallen/geboren

• ‘She has gone/come/arrived/fallen/born’

Such a distinction has disappeared in English, Spanish and most Catalan dialects.

Passives of intransitive verbs

Dutch and German allow passives of intransitive verbs, however the verb must be unergative:

(19) a. De jongens werkten.

the young.PL worked
’The young people worked.’
b. Er werd (door de jongens) gewerkt.
there was by the young.PL worked
lit. ‘There was worked by the young people.’
(20) a. De jongens vielen.
the young.PL fell
’The young people fell.’
b. *Er werd (door de jongens) gevallen.
there was by the young.PL fallen
lit. ‘There was fallen by the young people.’
104 CHAPTER 6. SENTENCE SYNTAX

Noun incorporation: objects

Many languages of the world allow the incorporation of the nominal object into the verbal root:

Such an option is excluded for unergative subjects:

However, the subject of unaccusative verbs typically incorporate:

6.1.2 Formal proposal

To account for this difference, it has been proposed that whereas unergative verbs generate
their subjects in the normal internal subject position (21), the subject of unaccusative verbs is
generated in object position, and then moves to the internal subject position:
6.2. TRANSITIVES 105

(21) TP

T’

T VP

NP VP

Mary V’

complains
(22) TP

T’

T VP

NP VP

Mary V’

V NP

arrives Mary
In other words, the subject of unaccusative verbs is an object in many respects, but a formal
subject (it agrees with the verb).

6.2 Transitives
From a syntactic point of view, a transitive verb must express a direct object.

(23) a. Mary bought a new car.

b. John opened the door.
c. Chris hates football.

However, such a view is too simplistic. We find many transitive verbs selecting an internal
argument (direct object), even though this argument is not always expressed in syntax.

(24) a. Mary eats.

b. I am reading!

Note that these intransitive uses are typically associated to activities where the object is implicitly
106 CHAPTER 6. SENTENCE SYNTAX

entailed:

(25) activities
a. Mary eats.
b. I am reading!
(26) states
a. *Mary does not have.
b. *Peter hates.

One way to understand this alternation is the concept of FRAMES developed by Fillmore & Atkins
(1992). The idea is that situations are associated to typical frames of participants, which can be
syntactically realized in different ways. This is the case of the ’commercial transaction’ frame:

This frame can be realized as follows:

(27) a. John bought the apples from Mary for a pound.

b. Mary sold John the apples for a pound.
c. Mary charged John a pound for the apples.
d. John spent a pound on the apples.
e. John paid Mary a pound for the apples.
f. The apples costed John a pound.

Crucially, not all the verbs involved require the same participants nor they realize them always
as arguments. For instance, the money participant is realized as an optional adjunct with buy and
sell, but as an obligatory argument with charge, expend and cost (it is less clear with pay).

6.3 Class changes

The original nature of verbs can be altered. Some operations reduce the number of arguments
of the verb, like in the passive, the impersonal or the causative alternation. Others increase the
number of arguments, like the causative construction.
6.3. CLASS CHANGES 107

6.3.1 Passive
Passive is an intransitivizer operation: it takes a transitive verb and converts it into an intransitive
one:

(28) a. John opened the door.

b. The door was opened by John.
(29) a. Okno moetsja rabočim. Russian
window clean.REFL worker.INST
‘The window is cleaned by the worker.’
b. Ropas t’aqsa-ku-n mayu-pi. Quechua
clothes wash-REFL-3 SG. river-in
‘Clothes are washed in the river.’
c. Çocuk yika-n-di. Turkish
kid wash-PASS . PST
‘The kid washed himself.’

Passives can be construed by means of a particular auxiliary verb (morphological passive):

(30) a. Mary send him the book.

b. He was sent the book.
c. The book was sent to him.

In this case, the choice of the auxiliary may indicate a distinction between a dynamic and a stative
passive:

(31) Dutch
a. De deur wordt gesloten. dynamic
‘The door is closed.’ = The door is in the process of being closed.
b. De deur is gesloten. stative
‘The door is closed.’ = The door is in a closed state (result of the process).
(32) German
a. Die Reifen werden aufgepumpt. dynamic
the tires become inflated
b. Die Reifen sind aufgepumpt. stative
the tires are inflated
(33) Spanish
a. Los neumáticos són inflados. dynamic
the tires become inflated
b. Los neumáticos están inflados. stative
the tires are inflated

In some languages the passive is encoded lexically:

108 CHAPTER 6. SENTENCE SYNTAX

(34) Sre (Mon-Khmer): Keenan & Dryer (2007)

a. Cal paP mpon.
wind open door
‘The wind opened the door.’
b. Mpon g@-paP m@ cal.
door pass-open by wind
‘The door was opened by the wind.’
(35) Kiribatese (Micronesia): Keenan & Dryer (2007)
a. Ei kamate-aj te naetaj te moai.
it kill-it the snake the chicken
‘The chicken killed the snake.’
b. Ej kamate-aki te naetaj (iroun te moai).
it kill-pass the snake (by the chicken)
‘The snake was killed (by the chicken).’

In Romance languages we can build syntactic passives by means of the clitic se (impersonal
passives or reflexive passives):

(36) S’han iniciat les negociacions de pau.

SE-have.PL begin the.PL negotiations of peace
‘Peace talks began.’

6.3.2 Impersonals
Just as passive, impersonal sentences are an argument reduction operation: it takes a verb with a
subject and returns a subjectless verb:

(37) Enguany s’ha treballat molt per sortir de la crisi.

this.year SE-has worked much for leaving of the crisis
‘This year people worked hard for leaving back the crisis.’

Impersonals cannot express the agent complement (unlike passives), but they maintain an agentive
reading:

(38) a. *El crim es va descobrir pel majordom.

the crime SE PAST discovered by-the butler
b. El crim va ser descobert pel majordom.
the crime PAST.3 SG be discovered by-the butler
(39) a. Es va criticar el llibre per atacar-ne l’autora.
SE PAST criticized the book to atack-CL . PART the-author.F
b. El llibre va ser criticat per atacar-ne l’autora.
the book PAST be criticized to atack-CL . PART the-author.F
When the verb is transitive, the resultant impersonal doesn’t always allow pronominalization of
6.3. CLASS CHANGES 109

the direct object, particularly if it is inanimate:

(40) a. A la mare se la veu feliç.

to the mother SE her sees happy
b. *La muntanya, no se la veu des d’aquí.
the mountain not SE her sees from of-here

6.3.3 Causative alternation

In may languages we found a regular alternation between a unaccusative form (41) and a transitive
causative form (42):

(41) a. The window broke.

b. The house burned down.
(42) a. The sun/Mary burned down the house.
b. The wind/Mary broke the window.

In Romance languages, this alternation is typically marked by means of the clitic SE, as in the
following examples from Catalan:

(43) La porta s’ha obert pel *porter/vent.

‘The door opened by the doorkeeper/wind.’
(43) La porta s’ha obert tota sola.
‘The door opened alone.’
(44) a. La porta s’ha obert tota sola (*per a deixar passar l’aire).
‘The door opened alone for allowing the air in.’
b. La porta s’ha obert tota sola (*amb la clau).
‘The door opened alone with the key.’
(45) El vent/El porter ha obert la porta.
‘The wind/doorkeeper opened the door.’
(46) El porter/*El vent ha obert la porta per deixar passar l’aire.
‘The wind/doorkeeper opened the door to allow the air in.’
(46) El porter/*El vent ha obert la porta amb la clau.
‘The wind/doorkeeper opened the door with the key.’

Icelandic also marks the alternation with an affix:

(47) a. Trúðurinn opnaði hurðina.

clown.DEF. NOM opened door.DEF. AC
‘The clown opened the door.’
b. Hurðin opnaði-st.
door.DEF. NOM opened-ST
‘The door opened.’
110 CHAPTER 6. SENTENCE SYNTAX

(48) a. Jón hita-ði vatnið.

Jón.NOM heat-3SG . PST water.DEF. AC
‘Jón heated the water.’
b. Vatnið hit-na-ði.
water.DEF. NOM heat-NA -3 SG . PST
‘Water heated.’

6.3.4 Causative construction

Causative constructions increase the valency of predicates by means of a verb make: if it is
intransitive it becomes transitive, if it is transitive it becomes ditransitive.

(49) a. He left.
b. Mary made him leave.
(50) a. He opened the door.
b. Mary will make him open the door.
(51) a. Juan desayunó.
Juan ate.breakfast
b. María le hizo desayunar a Juan.
María to.him made ate.breakfast to Juan
‘María made Juan eat breakfast.’
(52) a. Juan leyó la carta.
Juan read the letter
b. María le hizo leer la carta a Juan.
María to.him made read the letter to Juan
‘María made Juan read the letter.’

In languages like Turkish or Basque the causative construction is encoded by means of an

affix on the verb:
6.4. SUMMARY 111

(53) Katua hil da.

cat.ABS die AUX .3 SG
‘The cat died.’
a. Haurrak katua hil du.
kid.ERG cat.ABS die AUX .3 SG .3 SG
‘The kid killed the cat.’
b. Haurrak katua hilarazi du.
kid.ERG cat.ABS die.CAUS AUX .3 SG .3 SG
‘The kid killed the cat.’/‘The kid had the cat killed.’

(54) Sagarra jan dut.

apple.ABS eat AUX .1 SG .3 SG
‘I ate the apple.’
a. *Sagarra jan didazu.
apple.ABS eat AUX .2 SG .3 SG .1 SG
‘You make me eat the apple.’
b. Sagarra janarazi didazu.
apple.ABS eat.CAUS AUX .2 SG .3 SG .1 SG
‘You make me eat the apple.’

6.4 Summary

The basic structure of the sentence of a transitive verb is displayed in (55):

(55) a. Mary eats vegetables.

112 CHAPTER 6. SENTENCE SYNTAX

b. TP

NP T’

Mary T VP

NP VP

Mary V’

V NP

eats vegetables

The subject is generated in an internal VP position and obligatorily moves to the preverbal
position in languages like English or French. In contrast, the subject can remain in the original
position in null subject languages, which combined with the movement of the verb to T yields
the typical subject-verb inversion pattern:

(56) a. María vendió el coche.

b. TP

NP T’

María
T VP

V T
NP VP
vendió T
María V’

V DP

vendió el coche

(57) a. Vendió María el coche.

6.5. EXERCISES 113

b. TP

T’

T VP

V T
NP VP
vendió T
María V’

V DP

vendió el coche

6.5 Exercises
114 CHAPTER 6. SENTENCE SYNTAX
Chapter 7

The periphery of sentence

7.1 Wh-movement
In many languages wh-elements must move to the periphery of sentence, usually forcing inversion:

(1) What is Mary doing?

We typically analyze these facts by means of a complementizer phrase CP, hosting the wh-word
and the verb:
CP

what C’

is TP

Mary T’

T VP

V VP

V’

V what

doing
The head C also host declarative complementizers, like that:

(2) I know [ CP [ C’ that [ TP Mary is outside ]]] .

Obviously, since that associates with declarative sentences, it is typically incompatible with wh-
words:

115
116 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE

(3) *I don’t know [ CP what [ C’ that [ TP Mary is doing ]]] .

(4) a. (You won’t believe) What a book Mary is reading!
b. (You won’t believe) The book that Mary is reading!

Note, however, the case of exclamative sentences in several Romance languages:

(5) a. Ma che bella che è la vita! Italian

but how beautiful that is the life
‘Boy, how beautiful life is!’
b. Che mmalungunije chi mme fa sta musiche! Abruzzese
what melancholy that CL .2 SG make.3 SG this.F music
‘What a melancholy this music produces to me!’

Combinations

Wh-elements are incompatible with focused constituents:

(6) Italian
a. A G IANNI dovresti dare questo libro, non a Piero.
‘T O G IANNI you should give this book, not to Piero.’
b. *A G IANNI che cosa dovresti dare, non a Piero?
‘T O G IANNI what you should give, not to Piero?’
c. *A G IANNI IL LIBRO dovresti dare, non a Piero il disco.
‘T O G IANNI THE BOOK you should give, not to Piero the record.’
(7) Sardinian
a. *A kie SU JOCÁTULU as datu?
to whom the toy have.2SG given
b. *S U JOCÁTULU a kie as datu?
the toy to whom have.2SG given
‘To whom did you give the toy?’

This suggests that both wh- and focused phrases compete for the same position.
Compare with the case of topic constituents, which can precede wh-elements:

(8) a. A book like this, to whom would you give?

b. To Terry, what did you give?
c. During the holidays, for which jobs do you go into the office?
(9) a. *To whom, a book like this, would you give?
b. *For what kind of jobs, during the holidays, do you go into the office?
(10) Els llibres on creus que els va comprar la Maria?
the books where believe.2 SG that them PST.2 SG buy.INF the Maria
‘The books, where do you believe that Maria bought?’
7.2. EVIDENCE FOR FURTHER STRUCTURE 117

(11) No recuerdo a María cómo la conociste.

not remember to María how her knew.2 SG
‘I don’t remember how did you know María?’

We can therefore conclude that

(12) topic > wh/focus

7.2 Evidence for further structure

7.2.1 PP fronting and negative inversion
Compare the difference in meaning between PP fronting (13) and negative inversion (14)

(13) With no job, Mary would be happy. = ‘If jobless, Mary would be happy.’
(14) With no job would Mary be happy. = ‘There is no job making Mary happy.’

Whereas PP fronting seems closer to topics, negative inversion seems closer to focus fronting
(inversion is required). As a consequence, we expect both constructions to be possible, but in a
rigid ordering:

(15) a. During my sabbatical, on no account will I read e-mail. PP fronting > neg-
inversion
b. *On no account, during my sabbatical will I read e-mail. neg-inversion > PP
fronting

Moreover, we only expect the PP fronting to be possible with wh-words:

(16) With no job, who would be happy? [PP fronting]

(17) *On no account, who would be happy? [negative inversion]

On conclusion:

(18) fronted PP/topic > negative preposing/wh

7.2.2 Multiple complementizers

Rizzi (1997) noted the different position of topics regarding finite (19) and nonfinite complementizers
(20):

(19) Ho deciso che, la macchina, la comprerò quest’anno.

‘I decided that, the car, I will buy it this year.’
(20) Ho deciso, la macchina, di comprarla quest’anno.
‘I decided, the car, of to buy it this year.’
118 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE

If we take topics to appear in a fixed position, one could conclude that two complementizer
positions may exist. Indeed, we find languages where two complementizers may coappear:

(21) Dywedais i mai fel arfer y dynion a fuasai’n gwerthu’r ci. Welsh:
said I that as usual the men that would-ASP sell-the dog
Rizzi & Cinque (2016)

‘I said that it’s as usual the men who would sell the dog.’
(22) María preguntó que el lunes si había periódicos. Spanish
María asked that the Monday whether there.were newspapers
‘Maria asked whether there were newspapers on Monday.’
(23) Taroo-wa Ziroo-ni [CP dare-ga kare-no ie-ni kuru ka to] tazuneta.
Taroo-TOP Ziroo-DAT who-NOM he-GEN house-to come ka to asked
Japanese: Saito (2012)

‘Taroo asked Ziroo that who is coming to his house.’

Hence, we can speculate that a second higher complementizer may appear above the topic
position:

(24) that > topic > that

One well-known proposal for the left periphery is due to Rizzi (1997):

(25) ForceP

Force TopP

Top FocP

Foc FinP

Fin TP

Force is a complementizer position associated with the modality of sentence (interrogative,

declarative), and associated to the verb selecting the subordinate sentence. In contrast, Fin(iteness)
is related to the finite/non finite nature of the clause, and closely related to Tense. Foc(us)P hosts
fronted foci and wh-interrogatives, whereas Top(ic)P hosts topics (i.e. left dislocates).
Leaving aside technical details, we can endorse the following conclusions:

• The structure of CP is richer than previously thought.

• The left periphery of sentence hosts elements with specific informational functions (topic,
focus).
7.3. EXERCISES 119

• Complementizers are sensitive both to the selectional requirements of the main clause, but
also to the tense and modality of the subordinate clause.

7.3 Exercises
120 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE
Key to the exercises

Constituent structure
K EY TO EXERCISE 1 Are the following sentences ambiguous? Justify your answer applying
standard tests. Choose the language you prefer.

C ATALAN
Hem parlat amb els estudiants de física. The sentence is ambiguous. On the one hand, the
PP de física may be a modifier of the noun estudiants, so that the bigger PP can be fronted: Amb
els estudiants de física, hi he parlat.

(26) Hem parlat [ PP amb [ DP els estudiants [ PP de física]]].

On the other hand, the PP can be a second complement of the verb, which allows us to predict it
will be independent of the PP amb els estudiants: De física, n’he parlat amb els estudiants. He
parlat de física amb els estudiants.

(27) Hem parlat [ PP amb [ DP els estudiants]] [ PP de física].

Vam trobar els nens i les nenes molt bufones. The sentence is not ambiguous, for the
feminine agreement on the adjective tells us that it is modifying les nenes only:

(28) Vam trobar [ DP els nens] i [ DP les nenes [ AP molt bufones]].

If the adjective had modified the coordination els nens i les nenes, it would be in masculine,
which is the unmarked gender: els nens i les nenes bufons.
Quan et va explicar que havia fet aquella bestiesa? The sentence is ambiguous. On the
one hand, the wh-word quan may be a modifier of the verb va explicar (e.g. M’ho va explicar
ahir):

(29) Quan et va explicar [ CP que havia fet aquella bestiesa] quan?

On the other hand, the wh-word quan may be a modifier of the lower verb havia fet, so it moves
from the subordinate clause (e.g. Em va explicar que l’havia feta ahir, aquella bestiesa):

(30) Quan et va explicar [ CP que havia fet aquella bestiesa quan ] ?

121
122 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE

Quan et va oferir una explicació convincent del que havia fet? The sentence is not ambiguous.
The wh-word quan may be a modifier of the verb va oferir, but it cannot modify the lower verb
havia fet, because it is within a nominal clause, which is a strong island forbidding extraction:

(31) Quan et va oferir [ DP una explicació convincent de [ CP el que havia fet]] quan?
(32) *Quan et va oferir [ DP una explicació convincent de [ CP el que havia fet quan]]?

E NGLISH
When did she tell you that she did such nonsense? The sentence is ambiguous. On the one
hand, the wh-word when may be a modifier of the verb tell (e.g. She told me that yesterday):

(33) When did she tell you [ CP that she did such nonsense] when?

On the other hand, the wh-word when may be a modifier of the lower verb did, so it moves from
the subordinate clause (e.g. She told me that yesterday she did such nonsense):

(34) When did she tell you [ CP that she did such nonsense when]?

Old men and women are discriminated. The sentence is ambiguous. On the one hand, the
adjective old may be a modifier of men only:

(35) [ NP [ NP Old men] and [ NP women]] are discriminated.

Reordering of the coordinates will disambiguate the sentence:

(36) [ NP [ NP Women] and [ NP old men]] are discriminated.

On the other hand, the adjective old may be a modifier of the coordination of both nouns:

(37) [ NP Old [ NP [ NP men] and [ NP women]]] are discriminated.

Under such a reading, reordering will change nothing:

(38) [ NP Old [ NP [ NP women] and [ NP men]]] are discriminated.

When did she offer you an explanation that she did such nonsense? The sentence is not
ambiguous. The wh-word when may be a modifier of the verb offer, but it cannot modify
the lower verb did, because it is within a nominal clause, which is a strong island forbidding
extraction:

(39) When did she offer you [ DP an explanation [ CP that she did such nonsense]] when?
(40) *When did she offer you [ DP an explanation [ CP that she did such nonsense when]] ?

Mary stabbed the man with the knife. The sentence is ambiguous. On the one hand, the PP
with the knife can be interpreted as an instrumental of the verb stabbed, so it will be independent
from the direct object the man: With the knife, Mary stabbed the man. On the other hand, the the
PP with the knife can be interpreted as a modifier of the noun man, so that the direct object must
7.3. EXERCISES 123

be fronted as a unit: The man with the knife, Mary stabbed.

S PANISH
Hablamos con los alumnos de griego. The sentence is ambiguous. On the one hand, the PP
de griego may be a modifier of the noun alumnos, so that the bigger PP can be fronted: Con los
alumnos de griego, hablamos.

(41) Hablamos [ PP con [ DP los alumnos [ PP de griego]]].

On the other hand, the PP can be a second complement of the verb, which allows us to predict it
will be independent of the PP con los alumnos: De griego, hablamos con los alumnos.

(42) Hem parlat [ PP amb [ DP els estudiants]] [ PP de física].

Necesitamos a los niños sanos. The sentence is ambiguous. On the one hand, the AP sanos
may be a modifier of the noun niños, so that the bigger PP can be fronted: A los niños sanos, los
necesitamos (a los enfermos no).1

(43) Necesitamos [ PP a [ DP los niños [ AP sanos]]].

On the other hand, the AP can be a predicative of the direct object, which is independent of the
PP a los alumnos: A los niños, los necesitamos sanos. Es sanos como necesitamos a los niños.
The analysis of predicatives is not evident. Most scholars argue that it involves a predicative
phrase (PredP):

(44) Necesitamos [ PredP [ PP a los niños] [ Pred’ Pred [ AP sanos]]]

Fueron a la reunión de espías. The sentence is ambiguous. On the one hand, the PP de
espías may be a modifier of the noun reunión, so that the bigger PP can be clefted: Fue a la
reunión de espías a donde fueron.

(45) Fueron [ PP a [ DP la reunión [ PP de espías]]].

On the other hand, the PP can be an adjunct of the verb (a manner adverbial: as spies), which
allows us to predict it will be independent of the locative PP a la reunión: Fue de espías, como
fueron a la reunión.

(46) Fueron [ PP a [ DP la reunión]] [ PP de espías].

Necesitamos mujeres y hombres valientes. The sentence is ambiguous. On one reading, the
adjective valientes modifies hombres only:

(47) Necesitamos [ NP mujeres] y [ NP hombres valientes].

On the other reading, the adjective will modify the result of coordinating both nouns:
1
Note that this a case of prepositional direct object, also known as Differential object marking, so the analysis as
a PP is probably inaccurate. However, this issue doesn’t affect the analysis in the text.
124 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE

(48) Necesitamos [ NP [ NP [ NP mujeres] y [ NP hombres]] valientes].

Puso los libros en la mesa. The sentence is not ambiguous: the PP en la mesa can only depend
on the verb as a locative complement. As a result, it will be able to move independently of the
direct object: En la mesa puso los libros. Los libros los puso en la mesa.

K EY TO EXERCISE 2 Are the following sentences ambiguous? Justify your answer.

(49) a. Where did she offer you the explanation that she had bought the car?
b. On et va donar l’explicació que havia comprat el cotxe?
c. ¿Dónde te dio la explicación de que había comprado el coche?

No. The interrogative word where/on/dónde can only be an adjunct of the VP headed by offer/va
donar/dio. Hence it moves from within the main clause to the specifier of CP.

(50) [ CP Where [ C’ did [ TP she [ VP offer you [ DP the explanation [ CP [ C’ that [ TP she had bought
the car]]]] where]]]]?

Where cannot be moving from the lower VP headed by bought, because that would imply
extraction from a strong island, in this case a Complex NP.

(51) [ CP Where [ C’ did [ TP she [ VP offer you [ DP the explanation [ CP [ C’ that [ TP she had bought
the car where]]]]]]]]?

Since this is forbidden, we don’t have this second interpretation, and the sentence is not ambiguous.
(52) a. She looked for good books and magazines.
b. Cercava bons llibres i revistes.
c. Buscaba buenos libros y revistas.

Yes. The adjective can modify either the NP books (53) or the coordinated NP books and
magazines (54):

(53) She looked for [ NP [ AP good] books] and [ NP magazines].

(54) She looked for [ NP [ AP good] [ NP [ NP books] and [ NP magazines]]].

(53) is synonymous of the unambiguous She looked for magazines and good books, and would
allow a modifier like bad to be inserted without contradiction:

(55) She looked for [ NP [ AP good] books] and [ NP [ AP bad] magazines].

Changing the ordering of the NPs in (54) would make no difference: She looked for [good
[magazines and books] ], and the insertion of bad would lead to a contradiction: “good books
and good bad magazines”.

(56) She looked for [ NP [ AP good] [ NP [ NP books] and [ NP [ AP bad] magazines]]].

7.3. EXERCISES 125

(57) a. Where shouldn’t you take a bath after having lunch?

b. On no t’has de banyar després de dinar?
c. ¿Dónde no te tienes que bañar después de comer?

The sentence is not ambiguous. We can only get the reading where the locative wh-word depends
on taking a bath:

(58) Where shouldn’t you take a bath where [ CP after having lunch]?

The reading where the locative wh-word depends on having lunch is not available for it would
entail extracting a wh-word from within an adjunct sentence, which we know is a strong island:

(59) *Where shouldn’t you take a bath [ CP after having lunch where ] ?

Hence, the sentence is not ambiguous.

X-bar Theory
K EY TO EXERCISE 3 Given the restrictions on phrase structure following from Kayne (1994),
what would be the explanation for the impossibility of a tree like the following:

We didn’t get into the details of the proposal by Kayne, but the
basic idea is that if an XP asymmetrically c-commands another YP,
then the heads dominated by XP must precede the heads dominated by
YP. Namely if XP is the subject DP The boy from Barcelona and YP
the VP eats an apple, it entails that the set of heads the, boy,
from, Barcelona must precede the set of heads eats, an, apple (we
say nothing about the respective order of these heads at this point).
Obviously, this is in contradiction with crossing configurations,
which would allow, for instance, from Barcelona to be dominated by
the subject DP, but appear, say, after the VP: The boy eats an apple
from Barcelona (where from Barcelona depends on boy, not on apple).

K EY TO EXERCISE 4 Given the restrictions on phrase structure following from Kayne (1994),
why should multiple adjuncts (in red in the tree) not be allowed?
126 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE

We didn’t get into the details of the proposal by Kayne, but the
basic idea is that when we have multiple adjuncts they c-command
each other symmetrically. However, since we need asymmetric c-command
for obtaining a proper linearization of the heads (see the previous
exercise), this configuration could not be disambiguated for linearizatio
resulting in a bad derivation.
*VP

XP VP

YP VP

V DP

C-command
K EY TO EXERCISE 5 Consider the following tree and choose the correct option:2

(60) TP

NP T’

Mary
T VP

NP VP

Mary
V’ PP

V NP P’

eats vegetables P NP

at home

• Mary c-commands Mary, and vegetables: TRUE.

• vegetables c-commands Mary and at home: FALSE.

• home c-commands vegetables: FALSE.

• at home c-commands vegetables: TRUE.

2
The definition of c-command is the following:
C-command =def α c-commands β iff the first branching node γ that dominates α dominates β.
7.3. EXERCISES 127

• at home c-commands Mary: FALSE.

128 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE

K EY TO EXERCISE 6 Consider the following tree and choose the correct option:

(61) TP

DP T’

A neighbor of Mary’s
T VP

NP VP

DP V’

A neighbor of Mary’s V NP

eats N’

N PP

vegetables P’

P NP

from home

• Mary’s c-commands a neighbor of Mary’s, and vegetables: FALSE.

• a neighbor of Mary’s c-commands Mary’s and from home: TRUE.

• home c-commands vegetables: FALSE.

• from home c-commands vegetables: TRUE.

• Mary’s c-commands home: FALSE.

• eats c-commands vegetables and home: TRUE.

7.3. EXERCISES 129

K EY TO EXERCISE 7 Consider the following tree and choose the correct option:

CP

DP C’

which book about Lisa

C TP

did

DP T’

D’ T VP

D NP V’

the AP N’ V DP
elder N read
which book about Lisa
N PP

cousin P’

P NP

of Barnie’s

• which book about Lisa c-commands the elder cousing of Barnie’s, and read: TRUE.

• about Lisa c-commands the elder cousing of Barnie’s, and read: FALSE.

• elder c-commands cousin and Barnie’s: TRUE.

• elder c-commands read and Lisa’s: FALSE.

• which book about Lisa c-commands Barnie’s: FALSE.

• which book about Lisa c-commands about Lisa: TRUE.

130 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE

K EY TO EXERCISE 8 Consider the following tree. Can either Jane or Mary binding herself?
Is there any other antecedent available? Justify your answer.

CP

DP C’

which book about Jane

C TP

did

DP T’

D’
T VP
D NP

the AP N’ VP AdvP

elder N V’ yesterda

N PP V’ PP

cousin P’ V DP P’

P send t P NP

P NP to herself

of Mary
Neither Jane nor Mary c-command the reflexive, hence they do not count as possible antecedents.
The only possibility is the DP the elder cousin of Mary.
7.3. EXERCISES 131

K EY TO EXERCISE 9 Consider the following tree. Can either Jane or Mary bind herself?
Justify your answer.

CP

DP C’

C TP
which book about herself
did NP T’

Jane
T VP

V’

V’ PP

V DP P’

send t P DP

to D’

D NP

the AP N’

elder N

N PP

cousin P’

P NP

of Mary
Mary does not c-command the reflexive, hence it does not count as a possible binder. However,
Jane does c-command the reflexive (in its original complement position), so it can bind the
reflexive.
132 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE

K EY TO EXERCISE 10 Consider the following tree. Can Jane and her have the same reference?
What about Mary? Justify your answer.

CP

DP C’

which book about her C TP

did NP T’

Jane
T VP

V’

V’ PP

V DP P’

send t P DP

to D’

D NP

the AP N’

elder N

N PP

cousin P’

P NP

of Mary
Since Mary does not c-command the pronoun, it may corefer. However, Jane cannot be a
proper antecedent, for it binds it in a local domain (violation of principle B).
7.3. EXERCISES 133

K EY TO EXERCISE 11 Consider the following tree. Can she refer to the fronted NP Mary?
Justify your answer.

CP ]

NP C’

Mary C TP

NP T’

she
T VP

VP PP

V’ P’

V’ DP P DP

saw t in her house

Since She c-commands the original position of the fronted NP Mary, they cannot be coreferent:
it would be a violation of Principle C.

K EY TO EXERCISE 12 Explain whether the following sentences satisfy Binding Principles under
the intended reading:

(62) Confidence in Billi , hei never had.

NO. He binds Bill in its the original position: Hei never had confidence in Billi . Hence, it is a
Principle C violation.

(63) Shei had confidence in Hillaryi .

NO. She binds Hillary. Hence, it is a Principle C violation.

(64) A friend of Billi ’s convinced himi to love Hillary.

YES. Bill does not c-command him, not conversely. Hence, they can corefer without violating
any binding principle.

(65) Hillaryi is convinced that Bill loves heri .

YES. Hillary binds her from outside the sentence, in accordance with Principle B.

(66) Hillaryi regrets that shei loved Bill.

YES. Hillary binds she from outside the sentence, in accordance with Principle B.
134 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE

(67) Heri friends are convinced that Bill loves Hillaryi .

YES. Neither her nor Hillary bind each other, so they can corefer, in accordance with binding
principles.

(68) Billi ’s friends convinced Hillary to love himselfi .

NO. Bill does not c-command himself in its local domain. Hence, we have a violation of Principle
A.

(69) Billi ’s friends were convinced to love himselfi .

NO. Bill does not c-command himself in its local domain. Hence, we have a violation of Principle
A.

(70) Bill convinced Hillaryi ’s parents to love herselfi .

NO. Hillary does not c-command herself in its local domain. Hence, we have a violation of
Principle A.

(71) Hillaryi was convinced to love herselfi .

YES. Hillary c-commands herself in its local domain (from its original object position).
Hence, we satisfy Principle A.

(72) Shei was convinced to love Hillaryi .

NO. She c-commands Hillary in its local domain (both from its original object position and
from the subject position). Hence, we have a violation of Principle C.

(73) Bill convinced Hillaryi to love herselfi .

YES. Hillary c-commands herself in its local domain. Hence, we satisfy Principle A.

(74) Billi convinced Hillary to love hisi best friend.

YES. Bill binds him from outside its local domain. Hence, we satisfy Principle B.

K EY TO EXERCISE 13 How do we deal with the following cases, according to the binding
principles just introduced?

1. *Sue1 said that Mary2 liked each other1+2 . This is a curious case. The antecedent
of the reciprocal must be in the same local domain (i.e. sentence),
but in this case, only Mary is: Sue is outside the local domain.
As a consequence, the sentence violates Principle A.

2. If Sue1 arrives late, John will be angry at her1 . Sue does not c-command her,
nor her, John. As a consequence, both Principle B (the pronoun
7.3. EXERCISES 135

is free in its local domain) and Principle C (the proper noun

is free) are respected. The relation between John and her is
not of binding, but coreference: the pronoun picks out an available
antecedent from discourse, in this case John.

3. After talking about herself1 for hours, Sue1 became silent. Sue cannot be the antecedent
of herself: it is in a different sentence, and it does not c-command
the reflexive. The only possibility is that the reflexive is
bound by the null subject of the gerund sentence: After PRO1
talking about herself1 for hours, Sue1 became silent. This null
subject corefers with Sue, resulting in a correct sentence: herself
gets bound in its local domain, and the pronoun is free in its
local domain.

4. His1 mother loves John1 . Since his is within the subject NP it cannot
c-command the object position, hence it doesn’t bind John (no
principle C violation). Obviously, John does not bind the pronoun
(no principle B violation). Then, the relation between John
and his is not of binding, but coreference: the pronoun picks
out an available antecedent from discourse, in this case John.

5. *John1 ’s mother loves himself1 . Since John’s is within the subject NP

it cannot c-command the object position (as in the case before),
hence it cannot bind himself, resulting in a Principle A violation.

6. *She1 adores Mary1 ’s fathers. The pronoun in subject position c-commands

the object position and anything within it. As a consequence,
in this configuration she binds Mary, yielding a Principle C
violation.

K EY TO EXERCISE 14 What will happen in the following sentences if we change the reciprocal/reflexive
by a pronoun?

1. *Sue1 said that Mary2 liked each other1+2 . The sentence is still bad: *Sue1
said that Mary2 liked them1+2 . However, it is not apparent what
the problem is. If the reciprocal was bad because it wasn’t
bound in its local domain, one would expect the pronoun to be
OK, for it would be free in its local domain. So, it seems that
both parts of the antecedent must be outside the local domain
(or within it for anaphors).

2. After talking about herself1 for hours, Sue1 became silent. The sentence will be
fine: After talking about her1 for hours, Sue1 became silent.
But crucially, the null subject of talking cannot be Sue: After
PRO2 talking about her1 for hours, Sue1 became silent. Since
136 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE

the null subject is not binding the pronoun we respect Principle

B, and her and Sue may corefer.

3. *John1 ’s mother loves himself1 . The sentence will be fine: John1 ’s mother
loves him1 . Since John does not c-command the pronoun, Principle
B is respected, and him and John may corefer.

K EY TO EXERCISE 15 Adapted from (Büring, 2005, 5). In the following sentences, Φ designates
an NP with the index given. For each sentence, determine by intuition what Φ can/must be (there
may be more than one option in some cases). Then give the local clause and the antecedent for
Φ and demonstrate that the Binding Conditions are met.

1. Peter1 watches Φ1 in the mirror. Φ1 =himself. The anaphor is bound in a

local domain (the same sentence) by Peter, in accordance with
Principle A.

2. Masha2 believes that the swamp elks admire Φ2 . Φ2 =her. The pronoun is bound
by Masha from outside its local domain (the antecedent is in
the higher sentence), in accordance with Principle B.

3. Masha2 believes that [the swamp elks]3 admire Φ3 . Φ3 =themselves. The anaphor
is bound in a local domain (the same sentence) by the swamp elks,
in accordance with Principle A.

4. Masha2 introduced Φ1 to the swamp elks. Φ1 =he(=Peter). The pronoun is

free in its local domain (it has no binder), in accordance with
Principle B.

5. Hermann4 tried to be nice, and Gallia quite liked Φ4 . Now Φ4 and Gallia go out to see
a mud wrestling show. Φ4 =him/he(=Hermann). The pronoun is free in
its local domain (it has no binder), in accordance with Principle
B. Hence, it can freely corefer with a previous discourse antecedent
(Hermann).

6. Masha2 mentioned a swamp elk that was important to Φ2 . Φ2 =her(=Masha). The

pronoun is free in its local domain (its binder is in the higher
sentence), in accordance with Principle B.

7. Φ5 ’s manager takes care of Cecilia5 ’s business. Φ5 =her(=Cecilia). The pronoun

is free in its local domain (it has no binder), in accordance
with Principle B. Hence, it can freely corefer with a discourse
antecedent (Cecilia).

8. Φ5 takes care of Cecilia5 ’s business. Φ5 =Cecilia. If Φ5 were herself, we

would have a Principle A violation: the reflexive would not
be bound. If Φ5 were she, we would have a Principle C violation,
7.3. EXERCISES 137

for the pronoun would bind a proper name. Hence, the only option
is assuming that we have Cecilia takes care of Cecilia’s business
and that each instance of the proper name is referentially independen
resulting in a marked sentence with a marked interpretation:
we generate the inference that Cecilia only cares about herself.
Note that this inference is lacking in the unmarked Cecilia takes
care of her own business.

K EY TO EXERCISE 16 Consider the following tree and describe the c-commanding domain of
the elements given:

C-command =def α c-commands β iff the first branching node γ that dominates α dominates β.

(75) TP

DP T’

D’

D NP T VP

The N PP

books by James V’ PP

P’
V DP
P NP
were-written D’
by him
D NP

the N PP

books by James

• the PP by James c-commands books.

• the PP by him c-commands were written and its complement the books by James.

• the PP by James c-commands books.

• the NP James complement of by c-commands by.

138 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE

K EY TO EXERCISE 17 According to the results of the previous exercise, answer the following
questions:

• Do James and him have the same reference? They may have the same reference.

• Does James bind the pronoun him? No, because James does not c-command him.

• Could we replace him by himself ? Why? No, because the reflexive would have no local
antecedent: neither James or its copy c-commanded him, hence they would not bind the
himself either. Therefore, the substitution would yield a Principle A violation.
7.3. EXERCISES 139

K EY TO EXERCISE 18 Consider the following tree and answer the questions, justifying your
response:

• Who is the antecedent of him? James. Since James does not bind him, they can corefer
without violating principle B (the pronoun is not bound). It cannot be Peter, because it
seems that c-commands the PP to him, as we will confirm in the next point.

• If we replaced him by himself, would the sentence be possible? Would the antecedent of
himself be the same as that of him? Since we saw that James is not c-commanding the PP
to him, we expect that James will not be able to bind himself in the very same position.
The only possibility will be Peter, even though we must somehow assume that it is the
whole PP who binds the reflexive (the NP cannot c-command outside its own PP).

TP

DP T’

D’

D NP
T VP
The N PP

books by James
VP PP

V’ P’

P NP

V’ PP by Peter

P’
V DP
P NP
were-send D’
to him
D NP

the N PP

books by James

K EY TO EXERCISE 19 Consider the following tree and answer the questions, justifying your
response:
140 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE

• Who is the antecedent of herself ? How can we prove it? It can only be Mary, who binds
the original position of the reflexive (herself). Mary is too low in the structure, so it cannot
c-command the object position. To see this, we can substitute John for Mary, and the
result should be wrong, for herself will have no antecedent at all. This is indeed the case:
*Herself, John invited to Mary’s party.

• If we replaced herself by her, would the sentence be possible? Would the antecedent of
her be the same as that of herself ? Once again, when we have a pronoun, things get more
complicated. First, Mary would bind the pronoun in the original position, but not in the
higher, so we could expect coreference to be possible in the second position (somewhat
strange). As for Mary, since no binding is involved, coreference should be possible (it is).

CP

NP C’

herself
C TP

NP T’

Mary
T VP

V’

V’ PP

V NP P’

invited herself P NP

to POSS NP

Mary’s party

Transformations
K EY TO EXERCISE 20 According to what you know about extracting elements from within
different positions in the sentence structure, indicate which sentences will be fine and which will
be ungrammatical, and explain the reason for the illformedness of ungrammatical ones. Choose
the language you prefer.

(76) a. What did you insist on buying? It is OK: what is extracted from a complement
sentence.
7.3. EXERCISES 141

b. What did you ask Mary not to insist on buying? It is OK: what is extracted from a
complement sentence.
c. What did you make a proposal not to buy? It is wrong: what is extracted from
within an island, a nominal sentence.
d. What did you make the proposal that nobody should buy? It is wrong: what is
extracted from within an island, a nominal sentence.
e. What do you think that buying is useless? It is wrong: what is extracted from
within an island, a subject sentence.
f. What do you think that Mary left without buying? It is wrong: what is extracted
from within an island, an adjunct sentence.
g. What do you need that she be calm and buy? It is wrong: what is extracted from
within an island, a coordinate structure.
(77) a. Què vas insistir a comprar?
‘What did you insist on buying?’ It is OK: Què is extracted from a complement
sentence.
b. Què vas demanar a la Maria que no insistís a comprar?
‘What did you ask Mary not to insist on buying?’ It is OK: Què is extracted from
a complement sentence.
c. Què vas fer una proposta de no comprar.
‘What did you make a proposal not to buy?’ It is wrong: what is extracted from
within an island, a nominal sentence.
d. Què vas fer la proposta que ningú comprés?
‘What did you make the proposal that nobody should buy?’ It is wrong: what is
extracted from within an island, a nominal sentence.
e. Què penses que comprar és inútil?
‘What do you think that buying is useless?’ It is wrong: what is extracted from
within an island, a subject sentence.
f. Què penses que va marxar sense comprar, la Maria?
‘What do you think that Mary left without buying?’ It is wrong: what is extracted
from within an island, an adjunct sentence.
g. Què necessites que estigui tranquil·la i compri?
‘What do you need that she be calm and buy?’ It is wrong: what is extracted from
within an island, a coordinate structure.
(78) a. ¿Qué insististe en comprar?
‘What did you insist on buying?’ It is OK: qué is extracted from a complement
sentence.
b. ¿Qué pediste a María que no insistiese en comprar?
‘What did you ask Mary not to insist on buying?’ It is OK: qué is extracted from a
complement sentence.
c. ¿Qué hiciste una propuesta de no comprar.
‘What did you make a proposal not to buy?’ It is wrong: what is extracted from
within an island, a nominal sentence.
142 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE

d. ¿Qué hiciste una propuesta de que nadie comprase?

‘What did you make the proposal that nobody should buy?’ It is wrong: what is
extracted from within an island, a nominal sentence.
e. ¿Qué piensas que comprar es inútil?
‘What do you think that buying is useless?’ It is wrong: what is extracted from
within an island, a subject sentence.
f. ¿Qué piensas que se fue María sin comprar?
‘What do you think that Mary left without buying?’ It is wrong: what is extracted
from within an island, an adjunct sentence.
g. ¿Qué necesitas que esté tranquila y compre?
‘What do you need that she be calm and buy?’ It is wrong: what is extracted from
within an island, a coordinate structure.

K EY TO EXERCISE 21 Indicate whether the following movements are affected by an island. Be

very specific about the exact configuration involved.

1. What was Mary convinced that eating wasn’t a good idea? It is wrong: what is extracted
from within an island, a subject sentence.

2. What did Jane insist that every child should learn at school? It is OK: what is extracted
from within a complement sentence.

3. Where did Jane had the belief that Peter hide the money? It is wrong: where is extracted
from within an island, a noun complement sentence.

4. Which knife does Mary knows that Jane stabbed his husband with? It is OK: which knife
is extracted from within a complement sentence.

5. What did Jane make the assumption that everybody wanted to know? It is wrong: what is
extracted from within an island, a noun complement sentence.

6. Whom did Mary confess to Bill her belief that aliens had abducted? It is wrong: whom is
extracted from within an island, a noun complement sentence.

7. What did Mary want John to buy in the store? It is OK: what is extracted from within a
complement sentence.

8. What did Mary asked who brought to the party? It is wrong: what is extracted from within
a wh-island.

K EY TO EXERCISE 22 Explain the following contrasts:

(79) a. What do you think that Mary was given?

b. *What do you think that was given to Mary?
7.3. EXERCISES 143

The first case is unproblematic: Mary moves to the subject position (it is a passive sentence), and
the object moves to the initial specifier of CP by means of the intermediate position in the lower
CP:

(80) [ CP What [ C’ do [ TP you think [ CP t that [ TP Mary [ VP was given Mary t ]]]]]] ?

The second case is a prototypical that-trace effect: the object what moves to the subject position
(it is a passive sentence), and then it moves to the initial specifier of CP by means of the
intermediate position in the lower CP. However, this leaves a trace in the preverbal subject
position (in red), yielding the that-trace effect:

(81) [ CP What [ C’ do [ TP you think [ CP t that [ TP t [ VP was given t to Mary ]]]]]] ?

If the analysis is correct, we expect the sentence in b to be OK if that is dropped: What do you
think was given to Mary? This is indeed the case.

(82) a. We were curious about who bought what.

b. *We were curious about what who bought.

In this pair, we have the following initial configuration:

(83) . . . [TP who [ VP bought what ]]

Since only one wh-element can move to the specifier of CP, we have two possibilities:

(84) a. We were curious about [ CP who [ TP who [ VP bought what]].

b. *We were curious about [ CP what [ TP who [ VP bought what]]].

The difference has to do with the distance involved in each movement: if we move the subject
the distance is shorter than if we move the object. In other terms, a wh-word cannot cross over
another wh-word. This phenomenon was originally labelled as the Superiority Effect.

(85) a. What did Mary bring you from London and you accepted?
b. *What did Mary bring you a present from London and you accepted?

This is a prototypical strong island effect, particularly the Coordinate Structure Constraint by
Ross. Whenever we have a coordination, extraction must take place from both coordinates at the
same time (across the board movement). This is what happens in (85)-a:

(86) What did [ TP Mary bring you what from London] and [ TP you accepted what]?

However, in (85)-b we extract from the second coordinate only, violating the condition:

(87) *What did [ TP Mary bring you a present from London] and [ TP you accepted what]?

(88) [*Which book does she thinks that reading would help you?]
a. Quin llibre pensa que t’ajudaria llegir?
144 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE

b. *Quin llibre pensa que llegir t’ajudaria ?

c. ¿Qué libro piensa que te ayudaría leer?
d. *¿Qué libro piensa que te leer ayudaría?

This is a case similar to the last one in exercise 1. Again, the wh-word cannot be extracted from
a PREVERBAL subject sentence, which is a strong island. However, if the subject clause appears
in postverbal position, this effect disappears and extraction from this position becomes much
better. Obviously, this second option is generally unavailable in English, where the preverbal
subject position must be filled.

K EY TO EXERCISE 23 Indicate which sentences will be fine and which will be ungrammatical,
and explain the reason for the illformedness of ungrammatical ones. Choose the language you
prefer.

(89) a. Which book did they phone you while reading? Wrong: which book is extracted
from within the adjunct sentence while reading, which is a strong island.
b. Who are they saying that will be killed? Wrong: who leaves a trace in the subject
position of the passive sentence, creating a that-trace effect.
c. How many hours are you required to work after lunch? OK: How many hours is
extracted from the main sentence.
(90) a. Quin llibre et van trucar mentre llegies? Wrong: quin llibre is extracted from within
the adjunct sentence mentre llegies, which is a strong island.
b. Qui diuen que serà assassinat? OK: quin llibre is extracted from the postverbal
subject position (i.e. the VP internal position), which avoids the that-trace effect.
c. Quantes hores has de treballar després de dinar? OK: Quantes hores is extracted
from the main sentence.
(91) a. ¿Qué libro te llamaron mientras leías? Wrong: de qué libro is extracted from within
the adjunct sentence mientras leías, which is a strong island.
b. ¿Quién estan diciendo que será asesinado? OK: quin llibre is extracted from the
postverbal subject position (i.e. the VP internal position), which avoids the that-
trace effect.
c. ¿Cuántas horas has de trabajar después de comer? OK: Cuántas horas is extracted
from the main sentence.

Empty categories
K EY TO EXERCISE 24 Consider the following sentences. Does the wh-phrase leave an intermediate
trace? Can we prove it somehow?

(92) *Which books about Maryi did shei said that John had read?
a. *“Quins llibres sobre la Mariai proi va dir que en Joan havia llegit?”
b. *“¿Qué libros sobre Maríai proi dijo que Juan había leído?”
7.3. EXERCISES 145

We have no way to confirm that we have an intermediate trace, for she would c-command and
bind Mary both in the original position of the wh-phrase and in an intermediate position, yielding
a violation of Principle C in both cases. The evidence would come for a contrast between the
original position and the intermediate one.

(93) Which manuscripts by himselfi did Caesari claim that Cleopatra had destroyed?
a. “Quins manuscrits de si mateixi Cèsari va afirmar que Cleòpatra havia destruït?”
b. “¿Qué manuscritos de sí mismo i Césari afirmó que Cleopatra había destruido?”

Here we do have a contrast. In the original position of the wh-phrase the reflexive is not bound by
Caesar, yielding a violation of Principle A. In contrast, in an intermediate position, Caesar does
bind the reflexive, in accordance with Principle A. Hence, we have evidence that the wh-phrase
stayed in an intermediate position from where binding was possible.
K EY TO EXERCISE 25 Consider the following sentences. Does the wh-phrase leave an intermediate
trace? Can we prove it somehow?
(94) Which books about himi did she said that Johni had read?
a. “Quins llibres sobre elli va dir (ella) que en Joani havia llegit?”
b. “¿Qué libros sobre éli dijo (ella) que Juani había leído?”

As far as the binding of the pronoun is concerned, the only problematic position is the original
one, where the pronoun would be bound in its local domain, violating the Principle B:

(95) did she said that Johni had read which books about himi ?

Once we move the wh-word over the subject John, the problem disappears, for John will no
longer bind the pronoun, as required. Hence, we don’t have any cue whether the movement is in
one step (96) or in two (97):

(96) [ CP which books about himi [ C’ did [ TP she said [ CP [ C’ that [ TP Johni had read which
books about himi ]]]]]]?
(97) [ CP which books about himi [ C’ did [ TP she said [ CP which books about himi [ C’ that [ TP
Johni had read which books about himi ]]]]]]?

In order to see the effect of the intermediate position, we could change him by herself. Then
the reflexive will create a principle A violation in original position (she binds it, but not in its
local domain), and in the final position (she does not bind it) (98). The only way for herself to
be bound by she is landing in the intermediate position, from where she will bind it, as required
(99):

(98) [ CP which books about herselfi [ C’ did [ TP she said [ CP [ C’ that [ TP Johni had read which
books about herselfi ]]]]]]?
(99) [ CP which books about herselfi [ C’ did [ TP she said [ CP which books about herselfi [ C’
that [ TP Johni had read which books about herselfi ]]]]]]?
146 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE
References

147
148 CHAPTER 7. THE PERIPHERY OF SENTENCE
Bibliography

Barss, Andrew & Howard Lasnik. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic
Inquiry 17. 347–354.

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1943. Meaning. Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht 35(3/4). 101–106.

Bosque, Ignacio & Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach. 2009. Fundamentos de sintaxis formal. Madrid ::
Akal. doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.

Büring, Daniel. 2005. Binding theory. Cambridge University Press.

Burton, Strang & Jane Grimshaw. 1992. Coordination and vp-internal subjects. Linguistic
Inquiry 305–313.

Carnie, Andrew. 2008. Constituent structure. Oxford :: Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. Mouton.

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T.
Press.

Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In R Jacobs & P Rosenbaum (eds.),

Readings in english transformational grammar, 184–221. Waltham, Massachusetts: Ginn and
Co.

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris
Publications.

Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik. 1993. The Theory of Principles and Parameters. In
Syntax: Ein internationales handbuch zeitgenossischer forschung. an international handbook
of contemporary research, vol. 1, 506–569. de Gruyter. doi:10.1515/9783110095869.1.9.506.

Collins, Chris. 2008. Economy Conditions in Syntax. In The handbook of contemporary

syntactic theory, 45–61. Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470756416.ch2.

Culicover, Peter W. 2014. The history of syntax. In The routledge handbook of syntax, 483–507.
Routledge.

149
150 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Donati, Caterina. 2008. La sintassi: Regole e strutture. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Featherston, Sam. 2005. That-trace in German. Lingua 115(9). 1277–1302. doi:

10.1016/j.lingua.2004.04.001.

Fiengo, Robert. 1977. On trace theory. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1). 35–61.

Fillmore, Charles J & Beryl T Atkins. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of
RISK and its neighbors. In Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical
organization, vol. 103, 75–102. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Harris, Randy Allen. 1995. The linguistics wars. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Harris, Zellig S. 1957. Co-occurrence and transformation in linguistic structure. Language 33(3).
283–340.

Harris, Zellig S. 2013. Papers in structural and transformational linguistics. Springer.

Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes & Kleanthes K Grohmann. 2005. Understanding minimalism.
Cambridge University Press.

Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar: MIT
dissertation.

Huang, C-T James. 1993. Reconstruction and the structure of VP: Some theoretical
consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 103–138.

Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: Mass.: MIT Press.

Kayne, Richard S. 1984. Predicates and Arguments, Nouns and Verbs. In Glow newsletter, Paris.

Keenan, Edward & Matthew S Dryer. 2007. Passive in the world’s languages. In Timothy
Shopen (ed.), Clause structure, language typology and syntactic description, vol. 1, 325–361.
Cambridge University Press.

Kenstowicz, Michael. 1989. The null subject parameter in modern arabic dialects. In The null
subject parameter, 263–275. Springer.

Kitagawa, Yoshihisa. 2018. Subjects in Japanese and English. Routledge.

Koopman, Hilda & Dominique Sportiche. 1991. The position of subjects. Lingua 85(2-3). 211–
258.

Langacker, Ronald W. 1969. On pronominalization and the chain of command. In Dan Reibel &
Sanford Schane (eds.), Modern studies in english, 160–186. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.

Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3). 335–391.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 151

Lasnik, Howard. 2002. The minimalist program in syntax. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(10).
432–437. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01977-0.

Levin, Beth & Malka. Rappaport Hovav. 1995. Unaccusativity:

At the syntax-lexical semantics interface, vol. 26. MIT press.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bNiPb7NlMSEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Unaccusativity&o

Macfarland, Talke. 1995. Cognate objects and the argument/adjunct distinction in English:
Northwestern University dissertation.

Mayol, Laia. 2010. Contrastive pronouns in null-subject Romance languages. Lingua 120(10).
2497–2514.

McNally, Louise. 1992. Vp coordination and the vp-internal subject hypothesis. Linguistic
Inquiry 336–341.

Motut, Alexandra. 2010. Merge over Move and the empirical force of economy in Minimalism.
Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 33. 1–54.

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1997. Generative linguistics: A historical perspective. Psychology

Press.

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2014. Linguistic theory in america. Elsevier.

Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface constraints in generative grammar. Holt, Rinehart
and W inston, New York.

Pesetsky, David. 1982. Paths and categories: Massachusetts Institute of Technology dissertation.

Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic
inquiry 20(3). 365–424.

Reuland, Eric. 2006. Binding theory: Terms and concepts. In Blackwell companion to syntax.
malden, ma: Blackwell, Wiley Online Library.

Rigau, Gemma. 1988. Strong Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 19(3). 503–511.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge (Massachussets): MIT Press.

Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The Fine-Structure of the Left Periphery. In Elements of grammar, 281–337.
Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-5420-8-7.

Rizzi, Luigi. 2001. Relativized minimality effects. The handbook of contemporary syntactic
theory 89–110.

Rizzi, Luigi & Guglielmo Cinque. 2016. Functional Categories and Syntactic Theory. Annual
Review of Linguistics 2(1). 139–163. doi:10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040827.
152 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax.: MIT dissertation.

Saito, Mamoru. 2012. Sentence types and the japanese right periphery. In Günther Grewendorf
& Thomas Ede Zimmermann (eds.), Discourse and grammar: From sentence types to lexical
categories, 147–175. Walter de Gruyter Berlin.

Sportiche, Dominique. 2013. Binding theory—Structure sensitivity of referential dependencies.

Lingua 130. 187–208.

Truswell, Robert. 2014. Binding theory. In The routledge handbook of syntax, vol. 1, 214–238.

Watanabe, Akira. 1992. Subjacency and S-structure movement of wh-in-situ. Journal of east
Asian linguistics 1(3). 255–291.