From afe993a1e92b246672161c9cee3ad9b4ad66e2bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: JJ Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 14:28:30 -0700 Subject: meow --- linguistics/syntax.md | 105 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- linguistics/tense-ed.png | Bin 0 -> 13876 bytes linguistics/tense-null.png | Bin 0 -> 12688 bytes linguistics/tense-s.png | Bin 0 -> 14158 bytes linguistics/tense-will.png | Bin 0 -> 12780 bytes 5 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) create mode 100644 linguistics/tense-ed.png create mode 100644 linguistics/tense-null.png create mode 100644 linguistics/tense-s.png create mode 100644 linguistics/tense-will.png (limited to 'linguistics') 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. + +![will](tense-will.png) +
+LaTeX + +```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} +``` + +
+ +... + +![(-ed)](tense-ed.png) +
+LaTeX + +```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} +``` + +
+ +![()](tense-null.png) +
+LaTeX + +```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} +``` + +
+ +... + +![(-s)](tense-s.png) +
+LaTeX + +```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} +``` + +
+ ### 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)
@@ -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 new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cac54d6 Binary files /dev/null and b/linguistics/tense-ed.png differ diff --git a/linguistics/tense-null.png b/linguistics/tense-null.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f5cbf37 Binary files /dev/null and b/linguistics/tense-null.png differ diff --git a/linguistics/tense-s.png b/linguistics/tense-s.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9f8120f Binary files /dev/null and b/linguistics/tense-s.png differ diff --git a/linguistics/tense-will.png b/linguistics/tense-will.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0d10a69 Binary files /dev/null and b/linguistics/tense-will.png differ -- cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2