Labeling of Non-finite Clauses

⽇本英⽂学会関⻄⽀部第14回⼤会

奈良⼥⼦⼤学2019年12⽉8⽇

*SupportedbyJapanSocietyforthePromotionofScienceGrant-in-AidforScientificResearch#16K02769⽇本学術振興会：科学研究費補助⾦: 基盤研究（C) 課題番号 #16K02769

Thanks to Sandiway Fong and Hiroshi Terada for helpful comments. (All errors are my own.) 1

1. Background• Labeling theory• Problems/issues for labeling theory

2. Analysis – Computational Model• Actually modeled on a computer

3. Issues4. Conclusion

2

Background1. Labeling theory2. Non-finite clauses

3

Labeling theory

• Chomsky (2013, 2015)• Phrases need to be labeled for interpretation• Phrases can be labeled by shared features

Assume that A and B are XPsunlabeled Labeled by shared featuresLabeled if an XP moves out

4

• Chomsky (2013, 2015)• Phrases need to be labeled for interpretation

• Phrases can be labeled by “strong” heads

Head X is strong enough to label

Head X is too weak to label Head X is strengthened – now it can label

5

EPP (need for a clause to have a subject – in languages like English)

• results from the need for T (which is initially weak) to be labeled

set-Merge• Symmetric• XP and YP are

equally prominent

{XP, YP}

pair-Merge• AsymmetricYP is more prominent than XP• XP (adjunct) is essentially on a

separate plane• <XP, YP>

6

Problems/Issues for Labeling Theory

Finite T is strengthened by sharing features with a subject. Then T can label. (Chomsky 2015)Non-finite T doesn’t Agree with a subject, so how is it able to label? Does it make sense for non-finite T to be able to label, but finite T to not be able to label?

John expects you to win.

7

Mary thinks that Sue will buy the book. (Pesetsky & Torrego 2001:357, originally from Stowell 1981)

Verbal roots are strengthened via Agree with an object.• See buy in embedded clause

How do verbal roots that don’t Agree with an object label?• think is a root, so it should be too weak to label• There is no object to strengthen think

8

Who do you expect to win? (Chomsky 2015: 10)

• If the matrix v* is a phase, then who should be transferred in the embedded clause, predicting that this should be ill-formed.

• Chomsky (2015) – verbal root Merges with v* and v* is dephased, so who remains accessible

• What is the nature of this “head movement” of the root?

• This is a problem if you assume that edge of v* phase is not available.• Compare with who do you think that John saw

• (Sandiway Fong, p.c.)

9

2. Analysis - Computational ModelThe derivations presented here were automatically generated with a computer model. The model produces step-by-step derivations from an input stream of lexical items.

Latest version• http://www.osaka-kyoiku.ac.jp/~jginsbur/MMIndex.htmlOlder versions:

• http://www.osaka-kyoiku.ac.jp/~jginsbur/MinimalistModeling.htmlJoint work with Sandiway Fong• http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~sandiway/mpp/mm.html

See Fong & Ginsburg (2019), Ginsburg & Fong (2019), Ginsburg (2016)

Basic assumptions follow Ginsburg 2016, based on Chomsky (2013, 2015).• There are many problems…

10

Tom read a book (Chomsky 2015: 10)

Determiners are adjuncts (Chomsky 2007, Oishi 2015, Sandiway Fong, p.c.)• An adjunct is pair-Merged (indicated with dotted line)• Accounts for why verbal and tense elements Agree with n

and not with d

Verbal roots undergo internal pair-Merge with v* (cf. Epstein, Kitahara, Seely 2016, Kitahara 2019 notes)• Select v*• Pair-Merge: <read, v*>• uPhi of v* are transferred to root read

• Case assigning ability comes from <read, v*>• uPhi of v* are present on lower copy of read too• Set-Merge: <read, v*> and {read…}

• Not counter-cyclic

Feature transmission (Ginsburg 2016, based on Chomsky 2015)• A phase head passes its features to its complement• “uPhi from a phase head travel down a tree until they cannot

travel any farther (Ginsburg 2016: 27)”• There can be super-inheritance

Object remerges with verbal root (Chomsky 2015)• Enables feature sharing and strengthening

• Feature unification• “Feature inheritance leads to unified instances • of a feature on multiple SOs.” (Ginsburg 2016: 30, following Fong 2014, cf. Frampton & Gutman 2000, Pesetsky & Torrego 2007)• When a uF is checked, all unified instances of that

uF are checked.

Assumption: An NP re-Merges with the root of an unlabeled structure.

• Agree(<read, v*>, book)• uPhi on <read, v*> are checked• Unified uPhi on read are checked

Tom read a book (Chomsky 2015: 10)

• Labeling• <read, v*> labels• Shared phi-label• Strengthened read labels

12

• Features of C are inherited by Tpast• T and C have unified uPhi• Agree(C, Tom)• uPhi on C are checked• Case on Tom is checked• Unified uPhi on Tpast are checked

• Labeling• C labels (C is strong enough to label)• Shared phi label – Phi2• Strengthened Tpast labels - Tpast is strengthened via

checked uPhi

Tom read a book (Chomsky 2015: 10) 13

Multi-clausal statement

Mary thinks that Sue will buy the book. (Pesetsky & Torrego 2001:357, originally from Stowell 1981)

Epstein, Kitahara, & Seely (2016) propose that a bridge-verb like think externally pair-Merges with v* and then <think, v*> is Merged into the derivation. This cancels the phasehood of v*. • Phase cancellation is mysterious. Why not just

assume that there is a non-phase head v?

• Non-transitive vUnerg categorizes think• Assume that vUnerg is strong enough to label.

14

Assume pair-Merge of will and Tpres – T is affixal

Spell Out: C n Mary T(Pres,3rd,sg) v think that n Sue will(Pres,3rd,sg) T(Pres) buy v* the n book

PF Rules: Mary thinks that Sue will buy the book15

Non-finite Clause

John expects you to win

Feature transmission (Ginsburg 2016, based on Chomsky 2015)• A phase head passes its features to its complement• “uPhi from a phase head travel down a tree until they cannot

travel any farther (Ginsburg 2016: 27)”• There can be super-inheritance

• Feature unification• “Feature inheritance leads to unified instances • of a feature on multiple SOs.” (Ginsburg 2016: 30,

following Fong 2014, cf. Frampton & Gutman 2000, Pesetsky & Torrego 2007)

• When a uF is checked, all unified instances of that uFare checked.

• The roots expect and toT inherit uPhi from v*• uPhi on <expect, v*> are checked via Agree with you.• Checked uPhi strengthen toT, so it can label

16

Spell Out: C n john T(Pres,3rd,sg) expect v* n you toT v win

PF Rules: john expects you to win17

Non-finite clause with progressive

• toT inherits uPhi from <prefer, v*>• Agree between <prefer, v*> and {n, John} checks

uPhi on toT• Unified uPhi on toT are checked• Strengthened toT can label

Sue prefers John to be swimming 18

Spell Out: C n Sue T(Pres,3rd,sg) prefer v* n John toT be -ing v swim

PF Rules: Sue prefers John to be swimming19

Clausal GerundsSome properties of clausal gerunds

• NPs/DPs(a) Mary favored Bill taking care of her land(b) Susan worried about Mark being late for dinner(c) Sylvia wants to find a new house without Anna helping her (Pires 2007: 166)(d) Does her being a solicitor matter very much? –Ojea 2011: 170) – subject-aux inversion

• Clauses(e) Mary revising the book (Pires 2007: 167) – verb has a complement(f) Mary probably being responsible for the accident (Pires 2007: 168) – adverbial present(g) What did everyone imagine Fred singing (Pires 2007: 168) - wh-extraction

• Adjunct modifiers (h) Not knowing the answer, John felt at a loss. (i) Closing the door, he disappeared into the night. (Ojea 2011: 174)

• Permit overt and covert subjects(j) Susan preferred PRO being late for dinner. (k) Susan preferred John/him being late for dinner. (Pires 2007: 165)

20

Clausal GerundsPires 2007

(a) Susan preferred PRO being late for dinner. (b) Susan preferred John/him being late for dinner. (Pires 2007: 165)

Analysis:• A DP can get multiple theta-roles (cf. Hornstein 1999). In (a), Susan = PRO• T of clausal gerund has uCase. uCase needs to be checked before T can check Case of subject. • uCase must be checked by matrix v.

• (a) – After Susan moves to matrix clause, matrix v checks uCase on clausal gerund T. Susan is able to move before it gets Case.

• (b), John/him get Case after uCase of clausal gerund T is checked by matrix v.• Note how Case assignment occurs after matrix v is Merged (counter-cyclic?)

• Issues: • Do we really want a single nominal to be able to get more than 1 theta role?• Movement accounts of co-reference face problems for distinguishing copies from repetitions (see

recent Chomsky talks). • Clausal gerund T both has uCase and checks Case. 21

Clausal GerundsSato 2019

Follows Abney’s (1987) view that gerunds are DPs. (a) She always liked physical exercise and watching television shows. (b) Someone arranged for a new swimming pool and painting the house. (Sato 2019:54; per Emonds

2013, 26). (c) John preferred destroying an existing notion and creation of a new idea. (d) John preferred destruction of an existing notion and creating a new idea. (Sato 2019:54)

Proposes a labeling-based account (Sato 2019: 56)

• -ing is a nominalizer that Merges with a TP• The subject Mary and n share nominal features, which enable labeling.

Problems/issues• Sato assumes that {Mary, nP} can label because they are

both nominals, even though they don’t share features. • Although the clausal gerund subject and –ing are both

nominal, they don’t actually Agree. Can feature sharing really label?

22

Clausal Gerunds

23

Are clausal gerunds NPs/DPs?Note that coordination isn’t necessarily a perfect test. Even though clausal gerunds can be conjoined with NPs/DPs doesn’t necessarily mean that they are NPs/DPs

(a) Pat is either stupid or a liar.(b) Pat is a Republican and proud of it. (c) Pat is healthy and of a sound mind. (d) Pat is either asleep or at the office. (e) Pat became a Republican and quite conservative. (f) We walked slowly and with great care.(g) They wanted to leave tomorrow or on Thursday. (Bayer 1996: 580)

(h) John is sleepy and a liar. (Sandiway Fong, p.c.)

My analysis• Clausal gerund involves a non-finite T, which is pronounced as –ing: Ting• Subject of clausal gerund gets case from v* (or some other higher element)• The subject of a clausal gerund gives a clausal gerund nominal-like properties

(suggestion by Sandiway Fong, p.c.).

• But there are many issues/problems…

24

• Merge v*• uPhi are inherited by:• prefer• Ting

• John remerges with verbal root prefer

• An “object” remerges (Chomsky 2015)

• This strengthens prefer and enables labeling by shared phi-features

• uPhi on <prefer, v*> Agree with John• Unified uPhi on prefer are checked• Unified uPhi on Ting are checked• Ting is strengthened so that it can label

• Ting is a non-finite T that occurs in clausal gerunds

• vUnerg is strong enough to label

Sue prefers John swimming. (Pires 2007:182) 25

Spell Out: C n Sue T(Pres,3rd,sg) prefer v* n John -ing v swim

PF Rules: Sue prefers John swimming26

• Merge v*• uPhi are inherited by:• prefer• Ting

John prefers swimming. (Pires 2007: 182) 27

PRO can occur in a clause with Ting

• uPhi on v* Agree with PRO• Unified uPhi on prefer are

checked• Unified uPhi on Ting are checked• Ting is strengthened so that it can

label

Spell Out: C n John T(Pres,3rd,sg) prefer v* n PRO -ing v swimPF Rules: John prefers swimming

28

• Assume that PRO is subject of adjectival• It is possible that argument is internal

argument of late (Sandiway Fong, p.c.)

29Susan preferred being late for dinner. (Pires 2007: 165)

• Assume that v is not strong enough to label.

• uPhi of C are passed all they way down to v and be.

• Agree(<prefer, v*>, PRO) leads to strengthening

Spell Out: C n Susan T(Past,3rd,sg) prefer v* n PRO -ing v be adj late for n dinner

PF Rules: Susan preferred being late for dinner 30

Susan preferred him being late for dinner. (Pires 2007: 165) 31

• Assume that him is subject of adjectival

Spell Out: C n Susan T(Past,3rd,sg) prefer v* n him -ing v be adj late for n dinner

PF Rules: Susan preferred him being late for dinner32

John reading a book was preferred. (Pires 2007: 166) 33

Problem: Note that only the subject is predicted to be passivized.• This could be evidence that a clausal gerund is

an NP. • It could be evidence for pied-piping.

Spell Out: C n John be(Past,3rd,sg) -en T(Past) v prefer -ing read v* a n book

PF Rules: John was preferred reading a book34

This is ill-formed in standard English.“clausal gerunds cannot be licensed in the complement position of passive…verbs (Pires2007:166) “

But note the following:(a) I saw him leaving the building. (b) ?Him/He leaving the building was seen. (c) He was seen leaving the building.

He was seen leaving the building. 35

Passivization of the subject of a clausal gerund is okay if the main verb is see but not okay if the main verb is prefer.

Spell Out: C n he be(Past,3rd,sg) -en T(Past) v see -ing leave v* the n building

PF Rules: he was seen leaving the building

Mary favored Bill taking care of the land. (Pires 2007: 166) 37

Note: This might be ditransitive

(a) I preferred John to read a book. (b) *John was preferred to read a book.

(c) Bill was favored to take over the office(d) *Bill was favored taking over the office. (e) Bill taking over the office was favored.(Sandiway Fong, p.c.)

Spell Out: C n Mary T(Past,3rd,sg) favor v* n Bill -ing take v* n care of the n land

PF Rules: Mary favored Bill taking care of the land38

Susan worried about Mark being late for dinner. (Pires 2007: 166)

Agree(P, Mark) • Mark gets Case from

P• Agree(P, Mark)

enables strengthening and labeling

Spell Out: C n Susan T(Past,3rd,sg) v worry about n Mark -ing v be adj late for n dinner

PF Rules: Susan worried about Mark being late for dinner 40

Sylvia wants to find a new house without Anna helping her. (Pires 2007: 166) 41

Anna gets Case from P• Agree(P, Anna)

Spell Out: C n Sylvia T(Pres,3rd,sg) want v* n PRO toT find v* a adj new n house without n Anna -ing help v* n her

PF Rules: Sylvia wants to find a new house without Anna helping her42

3. Issues/Problems

43

• Passive• Problem 1:• If the subject of a clausal gerund requires Case (and the entire clausal gerund does not

require Case) then why is the entire clausal gerund, and not just the subject, passivized? (See slides 33-34)

(a) John reading a book was preferred.(b) *John was preferred reading a book.

But this could have something to do with the selectional requirements of the verb. (See slides 35-36)(c) I saw him leaving the building. (d) He was seen leaving the building.

44

• Problem 2:• If the subject of a clausal gerund typically gets accusative Case from v*, then what happens • when the clausal gerund functions as a subject? Why doesn’t the subject of the clausal

gerund get nominative case?• We could assume that the subject of a clausal gerund gets a default accusative case, but…

(a) Him swimming was preferred by Sue. (b) Him eating dinner quickly was a problem. (c) *He swimming was preferred by Sue. (d) *He eating dinner quickly was a problem.

• But note the following:(e) ?Him/He leaving the building was seen. (f) ?Him/he going to the store was a problem. (g) ?He/him eating dinner was preferred by Sue.

(h) She being now a Woman…induced him to entertain her often with Discourse of Marriage (Fanego 2016: 111)

45

• PRO• Assume that PRO appears in non-finite clauses• How does case assignment work. • I have assumed that PRO gets case like a regular NP, but this may be problematic.

• What is the nature of PRO?

• Assume that PRO occurs with v that doesn’t check Case. • If PRO doesn’t get Case, then labeling of clauses with PRO is a problem.

• John prefers PRO swimming. • How can labeling occur with PRO and swim?

• Also, can there be a T that doesn’t assign Case?• PRO swimming is preferred by John.

Assume an intransitive v• No Accusative case

How is this labeled?

46

Other related (?) examples. Why is there this variation?

(a) She prefers to go. (b) Sue prefers him to go. (c) Sue prefers going. (d) *Sue prefers him go.

(e) I want to go. (f) I want him to go. (g) *I want going. (h) *I want him go.

(i) *I saw to go. (j) *I saw him to go. (k) *I saw going.(l) I saw him go. (Sandiway Fong, p.c.)

I saw him go vs. *Sue prefers him go

I saw him go vs. *I want him go

47I saw him go.

Assume that there is a non-finite T, similar toTing but that isn’t pronounced.

Problem: The following examples are not ruled out:(a) *Sue prefers him go. (b) *I want him go.

Some type of non-finite T that isn’t pronounced

4. Conclusion

48

I have presented a model of some English clausal gerunds. This was implemented on a computer, so it’s consistency and accuracy were verified. l But just because it was implemented on a computer doesn’t mean that it is correct.

There are many remaining problems. l The clausal gerund data is very complex. l Are clausal gerunds NPs? Are they TPs? Are some of them NPs and some of them TPs?l Do clausal gerunds get Case (sometimes or always)?l Why is there variation in behavior of clausal gerunds?l Is there a connection with examples like the following?

(a) I watched the swimming contestants. (b) I watched the boring movie.

Selected References

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Bayer, Samuel. 1996. The coordination of unlike categories. Language 72: 579-616.

Chomsky, N. 2007. Approaching UG from below. In Uli Sauerland & Hans-Martin Gartner (eds.), Interfaces + Recursion = Language?, pp. 1-30. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33-49. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003

Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Elisa di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann & Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of

Adriana Belletti, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Epstein, Samuel D., Kitahara, Hisatsugu, & Daniel Seely. 2016. Phase cancellation by external pair-merge of heads. The Linguistic Review 33. 87-102. DOI 10.1515/tlr-2015-0015

Fong, Sandiway & Jason Ginsburg. 2019. Towards a Minimalist Machine. In Minimalist Parsing, ed. by Robert C. Berwick and Edward P. Stabler, 16-38. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.

Fong, Sandiway. 2014. Unification and efficient computation in the Minimalist Program. In Francis Lowenthal & Laurent Lefebvre (eds.), Language and recursion, 129–138. New York:

Springer. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9414-0_10

Frampton, John & Sam Gutmann. 2000. Agreement is feature sharing. MS, Northeastern University.

Ginsburg, Jason & Sandiway Fong. 2019. Combining linguistic theories in a Minimalist Machine. In Minimalist Parsing, ed. by Robert C. Berwick and Edward P. Stabler, 39-68.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ginsburg, Jason. Modeling of problems of projection: A non- countercyclic approach. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 1(1): 7. 1–46, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.22

Hornstein, Norbert. 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 69-96.

Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 2019. Lecture notes for 5/25/2019.

Oishi, Masayuki. 2015. The Hunt for a Label. In Egashira H. eta al. (eds.), In untiring pursuit of better alternatives, 222-334.

Ojea, Ana. 2011. Propositional gerunds in English and Spanish. Journal of English Studies 9. 165-182.

Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego. 2001. T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In Michael Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language, 355–426. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Pires, Acrisio. 2007. The derivation of clausal gerunds. Syntax 10. 162-203.

Sato, Ryosuke. 2019. Clausal gerunds and labeling. English Linguistics 36. 48-68.

Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

49

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Hiroshi Terada and Sandiway Fong.

50