Advanced Syntax
lecture course
handout 4
Instructor: Szécsényi, Krisztina
Office hours: by appointment (send me an email if you would like to come)
Email address: kszecsenyi@gmail.com
The structure of the Inflectional Phrase
1
Summary of what we have discussed so far:
 head of IP: inflection understood in a broader sense based on complementary
distribution facts (inflectional endings (-ed, -s, zero inflection in simple present),
modal auxiliaries and infinitival to).
 specifier of IP: the subject of the clause appearing there for Case reasons. Nominative
Case can be assigned to the subject of the sentence (only!) by finite I.
 complement of IP: vP or VP.
Head-like properties of inflections:
 they project their properties to the whole construction, the relevant property being
finiteness. If the inflectional head is finite the clause if finite, if the inflectional head is
non-finite, the clause is non-finite.
 they impose restrictions on their complements. The complement of an inflection is
always a verbal phrase, vP or VP (depending ont he lexical properties of the verb
itself).
The lexical entry of inflections:
category:
[+F, -N, +V]
subcat:
[(-F), -N, +V]
 they impose restrictions on their specifiers in terms of Case: finite I has a Nominative
DP, non-finite I a zero form or an Accusative DP.
 specifier-head agreement: what determines the agreement form of the inflection is the
person and number properties of the subject.
The syntax of inflection:
 when the I head is free, nothing happens to it in a neutral sentence.
 when the I head is bound, it needs a constituent to move to the I position to support it.
this element can be
1. the lexical verb itself in affirmative sentences in simple tenses: Peter likes/liked
tea.
2. the dummy auxilary do in non-affimative sentences in simple tenses: Peter
does/did not like tea. Does/Did Peter like tea?
3. the aspectual auxiliaries have or be in complex tenses: Peter has arrived./Peter
hasn’t arrived./Has Peter arrived? Peter is reading./Peter isn’t reading./Is
Peter reading?
 the insertion of dummy auxiliaries is dictated by
1. the Head Movement Constraint (HMC) in the case of do-insertion (but see
question-formation later)
2. the restriction that English verbs can take only one visible inflectional ending
in the Case of aspectual dummies.
Movement to Spec,IP: Case-motivated movement. Nominative Case assigned by finite I only,
light verbs (only thematic light verbs!) can assign only Accusative Case. Case assignment:
nominative by specifier-head agreement, accusative by government where a head governs
its sister and everything inside its sister up to a certain point (called the bounding node,
typically but not exclusive the beginning of another clause with its own Case-assigners, cf.
They think she will arrive soon)
2
Further refinements
Adjunction within IP: two patterns
She will certainly be offended.
It will probably never happen.
→ adjunct after the I, vP-adjunction.
He naturally could cook.
I regrettably have forgotten your name.
→ adjunct between subject and I, I-bar adjunction
Tense and agreement
Expectation: when there is no aspectual morpheme to be supported and no negation, we do
not need to insert an auxiliary.
You should have called her.
He will have left by then.
For you to be seen here would be disastrous.
She will be invited.
Why do these aspectual dummies appear in these sentences at all? What do they support?
The environment where they appear: after a free(!!!) inflection. So they must be supporting
some kind of a zero morpheme. Not possible with a bound morpheme: We had gone./*We did
have gone. They were going./*They did be going.
→ the zero morpheme is in complementary distribution with tense → it is tense
Modal auxiliaries are not tense. What are they? What are they in complementary distribution
with? Apart from tense, what else did we assume to appear in I? Agreement! Modals are in
complementary distribution with agreement. What can be misleading int he case of English is
that usually there are no separate visible tense and agree ment morphemes, buti n several
languages this is more straightforward (Megérkez-t-em).
→We have to separate the agreement morpheme appearing in I from the tense morpheme
(then a head within a tense vP, always bound in English). What about the agreement
morpheme? Is it free (like modals) or bound?
Similarities and differences between adverbs and the negative head:
I have quickly marked the essays.
I have not marked the essays.
*I quickly have marked the essays.
*I not have marked the essays.
→ the inflection is a bound morpheme needing support by a dummy, negation and adverbs
follow it.
I quickly marked the essays./*I did quickly mark the essays.
I did not mark the essays./*I not marked the essays.
→in simple tenses the lexical verb can support tense with an adverb but cannot do so in the
presence of negation. The two behave differently!
Negation: a projection of its own, the negative light verb after tense, dummy inserted into
tense (HMC), moving to I.
How do adverbs differ? They don’t have their own projection within the sentence, they are
adjunct adjoined to the projection line!
The position of negation is more rigidly fixed than the position of the adverb. The adverb,
similarly to negation „likes” to follow the finite tense and precede the verb. But when the verb
and the inflection are in one place it is impossible for the adverb to appear between them, so it
has to be adjoined higher (and it is possible with adjunction). This scenario cannot even arise
with negation, once negation is present, the lexical verb can simply not appear in the
inflectional head position (HMC again).