Download Assignment 4 - Introduction to Transformational Grammar - Fall 2006 | LINGUIST 601 and more Assignments Linguistics in PDF only on Docsity! LINGUIST 601 October 19, 2006 Due on October 26, 2006 Assignment 4 1 Do Support 1a. Explain the following patterns of grammaticality. (1) a. i. Chunghye is talking to Makoto. ii. Chunghye might be talking to Makoto. iii. *Chunghye does be talking to Makoto. iv. Chunghye is not talking to Makoto. v. *Chunghye not is talking to Makoto. vi. *Chunghye did not be talking to Makoto. b. i. Chunghye talked to Makoto. ii. Chunghye might talk to Makoto. iii. Chunghye does talk to Makoto. iv. *Chunghye talked not to Makoto. v. *Chunghye not talked to Makoto. vi. Chunghye did not talk to Makoto. Your explanation should illustrate the last resort nature of the phenomenon at hand, explain why (1b.iii) is only a putative counterexample to giving the above phenomenon a last resort character- ization, and address why āemphaticā do-support as in (1b.iii) is not an option with auxiliaries (see 1a.iii). 1b. Consider the following minimal pairs. (2) a. i. Charlene is not meeting with Minjoo. ii. Charlene isnāt meeting with Minjoo. iii. Isnāt Charlene meeting with Minjoo? b. i. Charlene has not met with Minjoo. ii. Charlene hasnāt met with Minjoo. iii. Hasnāt Charlene met with Minjoo? A common analysis of these facts assumes that have/be are generated below NegP. They pick up the head nāt on their way to T0 by passing through Neg0. The cases in (2a/b.iii) are taken to be generated by further movement into C0. Provide an explanation for the ungrammaticality of (3). (3) a. *Is not Charlene meeting with Minjoo? b. *Has not Charlene meet with Minjoo? 1c. Discuss the implications of the following facts for your analysis of the English auxiliary system, in particular where modals are generated and when/where auxiliary do enters into the derivations. (4) a. Modals: i. Angela shouldnāt invite Tom. ii. Shouldnāt Angela invite Tom? b. do-support: i. Angela didnāt invite Tom. ii. Didnāt Angela invite Tom? The last section of Embick and Noyer (2001) might be relevant here. 1d. In addition to being triggered by a Ī£P that intervenes between a finite T0 and an associated VP, do-support also takes place if we try to elide or topicalize a tensed VP headed by a main verb. If the VP is not tensed, we do not get do-support. (5) a. VP-ellipsis: i. Bill [likes David]. Maria does, too. ii. Bill should [like David]. Maria should, too. b. VP-topicalization: i. I was convinced that Bill [liked David], and [like David], he does. ii. I am convinced that Bill will [like David], and [like David], he will. Extend your proposal for do-support to handle the cases in (5). 1e. Based on the following parallel, one could think that (6a) involves do-support. (6) a. What Roumi and Dave did in the kitchen was soak their feet. b. I thought that Roumi and Dave soaked their feet in the kitchen and [soak their feet], they did in the kitchen. But does (6a) really involve do-support? Give arguments to support your conclusion. 2
