diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitignore | 5 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | homework-1.tex | 194 |
2 files changed, 199 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7254e5f --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitignore @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +*.aux +*.fdb_latexmk +*.fls +*.log +*.pdf diff --git a/homework-1.tex b/homework-1.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1d1e746 --- /dev/null +++ b/homework-1.tex @@ -0,0 +1,194 @@ +\documentclass[a4paper]{article} + +\usepackage[margin=2cm,bottom=3cm]{geometry} +\usepackage{csquotes} +\usepackage{tikz} +\usepackage{tikz-qtree} +\usepackage{expex} +\usepackage{tipa} + +\title{Syntax 2: Homework 1} +\author{Camil Staps} + +\begin{document} + +\maketitle + +\subsubsection*{1. Sentence structure} + +In the first sentence I am unsure here whether DP$_2$ moves into [Spec,CP]: + we do not need it to get to the right surface word order. +But with Wh-phrases in Dutch you can insert a C that shows that we do need to move it: + \enquote{Kon Peter weten wie \emph{dat} hem heeft verraden?} +(I am not sure if this works in English; the Dutch example seems informal and/or substandard as well.) + +\begin{center} + \begin{tikzpicture} + \Tree + [.CP + [.C + [.\node (T-1) {T$_1$}; could ] + [.C {[\sc q]} ] ] + [.TP + [.DP \edge[roof]; Peter ] + [.T' + [.\node (t-1) {t$_1$}; ] + [.VP + [.V know ] + [.CP + [.\node (DP-2) {DP$_2$}; \edge[roof]; who ] + [.C' + [.C {[\sc q]} ] + [.TP + [.\node (t-2) {t$_2$}; ] + [.T' + [.\node (t-3) {t$_3$}; ] + [.VP + [.V + [.V betray ] + [.\node (T-3) {T$_3$}; -ed ] ] + [.DP + [.DP \edge[roof]; {John} ] + [.D' + [.D 's ] + [.NP [.N brother ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] + \draw (t-1) edge[->,out=220,in=200,looseness=2] (T-1); + \draw (t-2) edge[->,out=220,in=210,looseness=1.5] (DP-2); + \draw (t-3) edge[->,bend right=20,->] (T-3); + \end{tikzpicture} +\end{center} + +\begin{center} + \begin{tikzpicture} + \Tree + [.CP + [.\node (DP-1) {DP$_1$}; \edge[roof]; {which course} ] + [.C' + [.C + [.T + [.V do ] + [.\node (T-2) {T$_2$}; -es ] ] + [.C {[\sc q]} ] ] + [.TP + [.DP \edge[roof]; Bart ] + [.T' + [.\node (t-2) {t$_2$}; ] + [.VP + [.V think ] + [.CP + [.\node (t-1b) {t$_1$}; ] + [.C' + [.C {[\sc q]} ] + [.TP + [.DP \edge[roof]; Ana ] + [.T' + [.T will ] + [.VP + [.V fail ] + [.\node (t-1a) {t$_1$}; ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] + \draw (t-1a) edge[->,out=260,in=270,looseness=1.5] (t-1b); + \draw (t-1b) edge[->,out=220,in=200,looseness=1.2] (DP-1); + \draw (t-2) edge[->,bend left=40] (T-2); + \end{tikzpicture} +\end{center} + +\subsubsection*{2. Shakespearean English} + +Shakespearean English has V-to-T movement instead of affix hopping. +This explains why the verb appears before the negation instead of after it. + +\begin{center} + \begin{tikzpicture} + \Tree + [.TP + [.DP [.D he ] ] + [.T' + [.T + [.\node (V-1) {V$_1$}; hear ] + [.T -d ] ] + [.VP + [.NegP [.Neg not ] ] + [.VP + [.\node (t-1) {t$_1$}; ] + [.DP [.D that ] ] ] ] ] ] + \draw (t-1) edge[->,out=270,in=230,looseness=2.2] (V-1); + \end{tikzpicture} +\end{center} + +\subsubsection*{3. English vs. Dutch} +These sentences do not have the same syntactic structures. +We know this because Dutch has V2 structure and English does not, + but we can also recognize this from the position an adverb would have: + +\pex +\a The elf always kisses the princess. +\a \judge* The elf kisses the princess always. +\a \judge* Het elfje altijd kust de prinses. +\a Het elfje kust de prinses altijd. +\xe + +If the sentences had the same structure, we would expect them to behave the same: + either (a) and (c) should both be accepted, or (b) and (d). +Their trees are: + +\begin{minipage}{.5\linewidth} + \centering + \begin{tikzpicture} + \Tree + [.CP + [.C {\O} ] + [.TP + [.DP \edge[roof]; {the elf} ] + [.T' + [.\node (t-1) {t$_1$}; ] + [.VP + [.V [.V kiss ] [.\node (T-1) {T$_1$}; -es ] ] + [.DP \edge[roof]; {the princess} ] ] ] ] ] + \draw (t-1) edge[bend right=100,->] (T-1); + \end{tikzpicture} +\end{minipage}% +\begin{minipage}{.5\linewidth} + \centering + \begin{tikzpicture} + \Tree + [.CP + [.\node (DP-1) {DP$_1$}; \edge[roof]; {het elfje} ] + [.C' + [.C + [.\node (T-3) {T$_3$}; + [.V$_2$ kust ] + [.T {[\sc pres]} ] ] + [.C ] ] + [.TP + [.\node (t-1) {t$_1$}; ] + [.T' + [.\node (t-3) {t$_3$}; ] + [.VP + [.\node (t-2) {t$_2$}; ] + [.DP \edge[roof]; {de prinses} ] ] ] ] ] ] + \draw (t-1) edge[bend right=40,->] (DP-1); + \draw (t-2) edge[bend left=20,->] (t-3); + \draw (t-3) edge[bend left=20,->] (T-3); + \end{tikzpicture} +\end{minipage} + +\subsubsection*{4. Ungrammaticality} + +We can explain this using the \texttheta{} criterion and the Extended Projection Principle (EPP), + which says that each clause must have a subject. + +The verb \textit{seem} c-selects a CP/TP/AP with the semantic role Theme. +In (6a), this role can be assigned to \textit{that Anastasiia will be teaching online this semester}. +\textit{It} is an expletive: it is inserted to satisfy the EPP but is not assigned a \texttheta{} role. +Because each argument is assigned a \texttheta{} role and all \texttheta{} roles are assigned, + this sentence is grammatical. + +In (6b), there are two arguments that need to receive a \texttheta{} role. +Since \textit{seem} selects only one argument, this violates the \texttheta{} criterion: + not all arguments can receive a \texttheta{} role, + causing the sentence to be rejected. + +In (6c), the EPP is violated, because the clause has no subject. +Therefore the sentence is rejected. + +\end{document} |