tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post2597106506654774980..comments2024-03-28T04:04:55.806-07:00Comments on Faculty of Language: Guest Post: The [Spec,TP]-agreement fallacyNorberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-81292479312401543502015-07-02T09:17:33.500-07:002015-07-02T09:17:33.500-07:00If clitic doubling is analyzed as object agreement...If clitic doubling is analyzed as object agreement, it is incompatible with wh-movement in the languages I am familiar with. At least doubling of accusative objects is incompatible with wh-movmement. Patricia https://www.blogger.com/profile/18295501178013141466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-17926421174947510322014-07-12T13:16:32.276-07:002014-07-12T13:16:32.276-07:00I think this is the juncture where we declare we a...I think this is the juncture where we declare we agree to disagree.<br /><br />In my view, there is good reason to think there is no such thing as [-group] (your [+atomic]; I'm using McGinnis' 2005 labels, here), [-author], or [-participant] in the syntax (cf. in the morphology, for example, where there is reason to think that [-participant] can be made reference to). In my view, saying that a single feature bundle can exhibit overt agreement with two different targets, expressed in two different places, and still be thought of as a single feature bundle teeters on non-falsifiability. And in my view, a notion like "PF-adjacency that ignores adjuncts" is incoherent. (Not saying there aren't adjacency effects that ignore adjuncts, just that putting those at PF seems incoherent to me.)<br /><br /><i>[re-edited to clarify labeling of singular-plural distinguishing feature]</i>Omerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157677977442589563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-46828731949451455852014-07-12T10:28:55.698-07:002014-07-12T10:28:55.698-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Omerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157677977442589563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-84956378566145768652014-07-12T06:28:55.036-07:002014-07-12T06:28:55.036-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Omerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157677977442589563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-52426443350532102692014-07-12T01:22:12.904-07:002014-07-12T01:22:12.904-07:00yeah, but the argument doesn't quite go throug...yeah, but the argument doesn't quite go through. Again it depends on when phi is valued. So you could say that phi is on both C and T, but is valued at transfer under agree. phi on C agrees with the left conjunct (in their examples) and phi on T with the whole coordinate subject. On transfer, the relevant values are filled in and spelled out in the morphology. So in the syntax, it's the same unvalued phi bundle, but the values end up being important not in the syntax but in the morphological component (whatever that is). I think this actually makes sense, as syntax usually doesn't care about values of features (especially if, as I think, all features are actually just binary, so when we say phi we are talking about a set of features that give you person and number (+/- participant, +/-author +/-atomic etc)). Syntax certainly doesn't care about the plusses and minuses, just about the fact of the specification. Mind you, that approach does assume that there is a copy of phi on C and T, and that would be in conflict with Richards (Marc) proposal that the uphi has to really move to T, with no copy, to get phasal transfer timing to work out. Another approach to the Haegeman/van Koppen data would be to say that the C-agreement isn't really in the syntax at all, it's just a morphological copy rule applying under adjacency. I wasn't overwhelmed by their arguments against this view since we know that some adjuncts don't figure into the calculation of adjacency (cf Bobaljik's thesis on do-support and adjuncts). davidadgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00821774928618824698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-7824799034462167282014-07-11T05:03:13.447-07:002014-07-11T05:03:13.447-07:00But wait, the Haegeman-van Koppen work isn't a...But wait, the Haegeman-van Koppen work isn't about the position where features are spelled out, it's about the fact that C and T can agree with separate things (and thus, express contradictory phi values).Omerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157677977442589563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-11833236246377618452014-07-11T03:04:04.695-07:002014-07-11T03:04:04.695-07:00I don't think anyone really buys the idea that...I don't think anyone really buys the idea that the mirror principle applies to uninterpretable features. It appears to be related to the semantic scope of functional categories. I'm pretty sure that Chomsky would take the morphological spell out of phi to be independent of its syntactic position, so the Haegeman argument wouldn't go through. Not that I'm a big fan of feature inheritance myself, but think the system Chomsky presents is consistent with the phenomena you mention.davidadgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00821774928618824698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-12162829100716819012014-07-10T20:30:49.586-07:002014-07-10T20:30:49.586-07:00If the Mirror Principle still has currency, then t...If the Mirror Principle still has currency, then there are certainly languages where uphi can't be "inherited" from v to V, since obj-agreement occurs farther away from the root than transitivity/causativity morphemes.<br /><br />(Besides – and speaking of right thinking people – didn't Haegeman & van Koppen already demonstrate that this whole feature-inheritance idea is off-base, anyway...?)Omerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157677977442589563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-38419540199130452572014-07-10T13:00:25.066-07:002014-07-10T13:00:25.066-07:00:-), ok, but I think Chomsky would say that uphi o...:-), ok, but I think Chomsky would say that uphi on v is inherited by the root, so isn't at the edge! But maybe possessor raising might be a case. davidadgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00821774928618824698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-51503874818972022682014-07-10T12:37:58.933-07:002014-07-10T12:37:58.933-07:00Okay – last try for now: successive-cyclic wh-move...Okay – last try for now: successive-cyclic wh-movement out of vP in languages where v triggers object agreement? So, the counterpart of (4) in a lg. with object agreement:<br /><br />(4) Who did John persuade Mary Bill should fire?Omerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157677977442589563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-75524458433179571782014-07-10T12:34:20.448-07:002014-07-10T12:34:20.448-07:00Yes, I think Omer is right that Icelandic EPP isn&...Yes, I think Omer is right that Icelandic EPP isn't related to agreement between T and the subject, so unless there's something else going on, the argument seems good.davidadgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00821774928618824698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-34520596125260097522014-07-10T12:30:11.467-07:002014-07-10T12:30:11.467-07:00I think Chomsky thinks indefinite DPs aren't p...I think Chomsky thinks indefinite DPs aren't phases, so no edge here and no need to stop off. See discussion at the end of approaching ug from below.davidadgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00821774928618824698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-31147495790860915122014-07-10T12:14:39.504-07:002014-07-10T12:14:39.504-07:00Fair enough, David. How about successive-cyclic mo...Fair enough, David. How about successive-cyclic movement out of DPs –<br /><br />(3) What did you read an article about?<br /><br />Wouldn't the shared phi-features here between [what] and the DP [an article ...] incorrectly "freeze" (in the criterial sense) the wh-element in SpecDP?<br /><br />(I guess I'm not 100% how freezing works in this system, yet. For example, is the whole "Edge Features" thing still in play, or is this MLA-driven successive-cyclic movement supposed to replace that? If it's the latter, then I think (3) might be a problem.)Omerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157677977442589563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-68168366451138295502014-07-10T11:50:46.925-07:002014-07-10T11:50:46.925-07:00But actually it seems like an extra stipulation to...But actually it seems like an extra stipulation to have them match in value, especially if valuing takes place at transfer. The MLA just wants an unambiguous signal as to the label. The issue if the distribution of phi features on nominal predication structures is pretty unclear, I think, and of course all right thinking people assume a Pred in (1)!davidadgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00821774928618824698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-3512110378495139832014-07-10T11:45:47.092-07:002014-07-10T11:45:47.092-07:00Chomsky does insist that the phi features have the...Chomsky does insist that the phi features have the same value in virtue of being *assigned* the same value by an operation like Agree. Whther he needs this, I take it, is what you are questioning. But, if you do need this then do you agree that Omer's point is valid? Norberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-63611735162928484262014-07-10T11:39:28.893-07:002014-07-10T11:39:28.893-07:00I'm not sure. Norbert alluded earlier to the f...I'm not sure. Norbert alluded earlier to the fact that it's not enough that XP and YP have a feature (or set of features) in common in an {XP, YP} structure; they have to undergo <i>agreement</i> in that feature (or set of features). If memory serves, the reason is that you don't want "spuriously stable" structures – structures that the MLA is supposed to want to break up due to being unlabelable, but turn out to be labelable because the two terms happen to share some features. One example that occurs to me right now is:<br /><br />(1)<br />a. Obama is the president.<br />b. The president is Obama.<br /><br />(2) *There is Obama the president.<br /><i>(except as an item in a list, with "the president" as an appositive)</i><br /><br />The MLA is supposed to build on Moro's idea that [DP DP] structures are unstable; but both of these terms have phi features, and so if it is enough to have some features in common, the MLA shouldn't need to break up this object.Omerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157677977442589563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-88525479693424236892014-07-10T11:27:14.846-07:002014-07-10T11:27:14.846-07:00We are in agreement, Thomas (no pun intended). And...We are in agreement, Thomas (no pun intended). And I think the [-only SpecTP can agree, +null subject] cell, which is the only one we haven't yet discussed explicitly, is indeed instantiated – e.g. in certain Indo-Aryan languages where only absolutives determine agreement on finite verbs, but "subjecthood diagnostics" happily pick out the ergative external argument of a transitive (at least in the perfective aspect), and, crucially, subject pro-drop is available.Omerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06157677977442589563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-41163436922888994802014-07-10T11:23:36.994-07:002014-07-10T11:23:36.994-07:00Hmm. Isn't Omers argument an argument about wh...Hmm. Isn't Omers argument an argument about whether the DP in spec TP *agrees* with T. Imagine T bears phi and probes the lower nominative. But the Dative subject then raises to spec TP because it's higher. Both T and the dative bear phi (just not matching phi) and one could then say that the MLA sees both phi on DP and phi on TP, and is satisfied. Omer's argument is that spec head agreement cannot be what stops the DP in spec, but it could be the presence if phi on both. Now, I'm not sure if that's what Chomsky says, but I think there's an interpretation of the workings of the MLA that doesn't fall down here.davidadgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00821774928618824698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-16877124934654938242014-07-09T16:21:55.580-07:002014-07-09T16:21:55.580-07:00why is the equivalent of “arrived.PL some people.N...<i>why is the equivalent of “arrived.PL some people.NOM” (a VS-order unaccusative with no expletive) not grammatical in Icelandic?</i><br />From my point of view this is an interesting question only if there's a typological gap. There are four logical possiblities based on [+/- only Spec,TP agr] and [+/- null-subject] (under the simplifying assumption that null-subject configurations all have the same underlying structure, otherwise the number of descriptive parameters is higher). If each option is realized in some language (which I believe is the case, no?), then you can have two completely independent stories for these two parameters.<br /><br />You see, the Merge-MSO equivalence means that Merge by itself is already powerful enough to give rise to all agreement phenomena we see in natural language if you start out with the null assumption that there are no restrictions on what the lexicon may look like. The curious thing are not the phenomena we find, it's the phenomena we do not find (in the case of agreement only a few PCCs, which also show DO-IO asymmetries, and only a few types of resolved agreement).<br /><br />So if you look at it from this different point of view, interface vacuous movement does what you need in order to satisfy the MLA, and the availability of null-subjects is an independent issue (e.g. a parameter in the mapping from derivations to PFs). Not the most satisfying story, but a tenable story. Still, I agree with your conclusion that Spec,TP --> Subj Agreement is false and should not be an integral part of any formalism's architecture.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07629445838597321588noreply@blogger.com