diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'linguistics')
| -rw-r--r-- | linguistics/syntax.md | 105 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | linguistics/tense-ed.png | bin | 0 -> 13876 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | linguistics/tense-null.png | bin | 0 -> 12688 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | linguistics/tense-s.png | bin | 0 -> 14158 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | linguistics/tense-will.png | bin | 0 -> 12780 bytes |
5 files changed, 102 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/linguistics/syntax.md b/linguistics/syntax.md index bf0d278..d5d88a6 100644 --- a/linguistics/syntax.md +++ b/linguistics/syntax.md @@ -244,6 +244,106 @@ Merge is *the* fundamental underlying aspect of syntax and arguably language as ### head movement +So far, we have not dealt with tense. We have diagrammed sentences with verbs in present and past forms by entirely ignoring their *-s* and *-ed* affixes. But tense is an aspect of grammar just like anything else, and writing it off as purely semantic does no good to anyone. Indeed, the English future having its tense marker *will* as a free-standing morpheme strongly suggests that we have to treat tense as a category in its own right, and not just as an inflectional property of verbs. + +A tense needs a *subject*. This is evident in our tree structure below, but is motivated by... +For now, we'll consider the verb to no longer be in charge of selecting the subject. This is not in fact accurate - as we will see at the end of this section - but it is a simplification we shall make for the time being. + + +<details markdown="block"> +<summary>LaTeX</summary> + +```forest +\begin{forest} +[$T$ + [$D$ [I, roof]] + [$T_D$ + [$T_{D,V}$ [will]] + [$V$ + [$V_P$ [walk]] + [$P$ + [$P_D$ [to]] + [$D$ + [$D_N$ [the]] + [$N$ [school]]]]]]] +\end{forest} +``` + +</details> + +... + + +<details markdown="block"> +<summary>LaTeX</summary> + +```forest +\begin{forest} +[$T$ + [$D$ [I, roof]] + [$T_D$ + [$T_{D,V}$ [(-ed), name=tense]] + [$V$ + [$V_P$ [walked, name=walk]] + [$P$ + [$P_D$ [to]] + [$D$ + [$D_N$ [the]] + [$N$ [school]]]]]]] + \draw[->,dotted] (tense) to[out=south,in=west] (walk); +\end{forest} +``` + +</details> + + +<details markdown="block"> +<summary>LaTeX</summary> + +```forest +\begin{forest} +[$T$ + [$D$ [I, roof]] + [$T_D$ + [$T_{D,V}$ [∅, name=tense]] + [$V$ + [$V_P$ [walk, name=walk]] + [$P$ + [$P_D$ [to]] + [$D$ + [$D_N$ [the]] + [$N$ [school]]]]]]] + \draw[->,dotted] (tense) to[out=south,in=west] (walk); +\end{forest} +``` + +</details> + +... + + +<details markdown="block"> +<summary>LaTeX</summary> + +```forest +\begin{forest} +[$T$ + [$D$ [Alice, roof]] + [$T_D$ + [$T_{D,V}$ [(-s), name=tense]] + [$V$ + [$V_P$ [walk, name=walk]] + [$P$ + [$P_D$ [to]] + [$D$ + [$D_N$ [the]] + [$N$ [school]]]]]]] + \draw[->,dotted] (tense) to[out=south,in=west] (walk); +\end{forest} +``` + +</details> + ### wh-movement ### vP shells @@ -276,7 +376,7 @@ The $D$ *Alice* here is the subject. While replacing it with some $D$s produces Observe, however, that our tree structure suggests that $T$ - and only $T$ - is involved in the selection of $Alice$ as the subject, given locality of selection. But this can't be quite right. Plenty of other sentences involving the $T$ *will* are just fine with inanimate subjects: *Time will pass*, *Knowledge will be passed on*, etc. (Notice that *Alice will pass* and *Alice will be passed on* are similarly ungrammatical). How do we reconcile this? -We now introduce the idea of $vP$ shells and V-to-T movement. Our observations above point towards the $V$ of the sentence rather than the $T$ selecting for the subject $D$ - somehow. This selection would break our guiding principle of locality of selection. But this behavior *does* occur. Can we extend our model to explain this, *without* modifying the locality of selection that has been so useful thus far? We can, indeed, and illustrate so in the following tree. +We now introduce the idea of $vP$ shells and V-to-T movement. Our observations above point towards the $V$ of the sentence rather than the $T$ selecting for the subject $D$ - somehow. This selection would break our guiding principle of locality of selection. But this behavior *does* occur. Can we extend our model to explain this, *without* modifying the locality of selection that has been so useful thus far? We can, indeed, with movement, and illustrate so in the following tree. ![`[T [D Alice] [T_D [T_{D,V} will] [V [D (subj)] [V_D [V_{D,P} speak] [P [P_D to] [D [D_N the] [N assembly]]]]]]]`](subject-movement.png) <details markdown="block"> @@ -287,7 +387,7 @@ We now introduce the idea of $vP$ shells and V-to-T movement. Our observations a [$T$ [$D$ [Alice, roof, name=Alice]] [$T_D$ - [$T_{D,V}$ [will, roof]] + [$T_{D,V}$ [will]] [$V$ [$D$ [(subj), roof, name=subj]] [$V_D$ @@ -340,4 +440,3 @@ Our principles imply various things. Principle A implies that: - ✨ [An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory](https://annas-archive.org/md5/11bbf70ff9259025bc6985ba3fa4083b) - MIT 24.902: [2017](https://web.mit.edu/norvin/www/24.902/24902.html), [2015](https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/24-902-language-and-its-structure-ii-syntax-fall-2015/), [2003](https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/24-902-language-and-its-structure-ii-syntax-fall-2003/) - diff --git a/linguistics/tense-ed.png b/linguistics/tense-ed.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..cac54d6 --- /dev/null +++ b/linguistics/tense-ed.png diff --git a/linguistics/tense-null.png b/linguistics/tense-null.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..f5cbf37 --- /dev/null +++ b/linguistics/tense-null.png diff --git a/linguistics/tense-s.png b/linguistics/tense-s.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9f8120f --- /dev/null +++ b/linguistics/tense-s.png diff --git a/linguistics/tense-will.png b/linguistics/tense-will.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..0d10a69 --- /dev/null +++ b/linguistics/tense-will.png |
