Overview

Hitherto, we have assumed a simple model of clause structure in which canonical clauses are CP+TP+VP structures. However, in §5.6 we suggested that it is necessary to ‘split’ TP into two different auxiliary-headed projections in sentences like He may be lying – namely a TP projection headed by the T constituent may and an AUXP projection headed by the AUX constituent be; and in §7.3 we suggested that it may be necessary to posit a further Asp (ect) head in clauses to house the preposed verb in quotative structures like ‘We hate syntax’, said the students. In this chapter, we go on to suggest that CPs, VPs and NPs should likewise be split into multiple projections – hence the title of the chapter. We begin by looking at arguments that the CP layer of clause structure should be split into a number of separate projections: Force Phrase, Topic Phrase, Focus Phrase and Finiteness Phrase. We then go on to explore the possibility of splitting verb phrases into two or more separate projections – an inner core headed by a lexical verb, and an outer shell headed by a light verb (with perhaps an additional projection between the two in transitive verb phrases). Finally we turn to look at evidence for a split projection analysis of NPs.

Overview

In this chapter, we take a look at the syntax of agreement. We begin by outlining the claim made by Chomsky in recent work that agreement involves a relation between a probe and a goal (though it should be noted that the term goal in this chapter is used in an entirely different way from the term goal which was used to denote the thematic role played by a particular kind of argument in relation to its predicate in §7.5). We look at the nature of agreement, and go on to show that nominative and null case-marking involve agreement with T. Finally, we explore the relationship between the [epp] feature carried by T and agreement, and look at the consequences of this for control infinitives on the one hand and raising infinitives on the other.

Agreement

In traditional grammars, finite auxiliaries are said to agree with their subjects. Since (within the framework used here) finite auxiliaries occupy the head T position of TP and their subjects are in spec-TP, in earlier work agreement was said to involve a specifier–head relationship (between T and its specifier). However, there are both theoretical and empirical reasons for doubting that agreement involves a spec–head relation. From a theoretical perspective (as we saw in §4.9), Minimalist considerations lead us to the conclusion that we should restrict the range of syntactic relations used in linguistic description, perhaps limiting it to the relation c-command created by merger.

Overview

In broad terms, this book is concerned with aspects of grammar. Grammar is traditionally subdivided into two different but interrelated areas of study – morphology and syntax. Morphology is the study of how words are formed out of smaller units (called morphemes), and so addresses questions such as ‘What are the component morphemes of a word like antidisestablishmentarianism, and what is the nature of the morphological operations by which they are combined together to form the overall word?’ Syntax is the study of the way in which phrases and sentences are structured out of words, and so addresses questions like ‘What is the structure of a sentence like What's the president doing? and what is the nature of the grammatical operations by which its component words are combined together to form the overall sentence structure?’ In this chapter, we begin (in §1.2) by taking a brief look at the approach to the study of syntax taken in traditional grammar: this also provides an opportunity to introduce some useful grammatical terminology. In the remainder of the chapter, we look at the approach to syntax adopted within the theory of Universal Grammar developed by Chomsky.

Traditional grammar

Within traditional grammar, the syntax of a language is described in terms of a taxonomy (i.e. classificatory list) of the range of different types of syntactic structures found in the language. The central assumption underpinning syntactic analysis in traditional grammar is that phrases and sentences are built up of a series of constituents (i.e.

Overview

In this chapter, we look at recent work by Chomsky suggesting that syntactic structure is built up in phases (with phases including CP and transitive vP). At the end of each phase, part of the syntactic structure already formed undergoes transfer to the phonological and semantic components, with the result that the relevant part of the structure is inaccessible to further syntactic operations from that point on. (An important point of detail to note is that since we are outlining Chomsky's ideas on phases here, we shall follow his assumptions about the structure of verb phrases and expletive structures.)

Phases

In §8.5, we outlined Chomsky's claim in recent work that all syntactic operations involve a relation between a probe P and a local goal G which is sufficiently ‘close’ to the probe (or, in the case of multiple agreement, a relation between a probe and more than one local goal). We noted Chomsky's (2001, p. 13) remark that ‘the P, G relation must be local’ in order ‘to minimise search’, because the Language Faculty can only hold a limited amount of structure in its ‘active memory’ (Chomsky 1999, p. 9). Accordingly, syntactic structures are built up one phase at a time. Chomsky suggests (1999, p. 9) that phases are ‘propositional’ in nature, and include CP and transitive vP (more specifically, vP with an external argument, which he denotes as v*P).

Aims

This book has two main aims, reflected in its title and subtitle. The first is to provide an intensive introduction to recent work in syntactic theory (more particularly to how the computational component operates within the model of grammar assumed in recent work within the framework of Chomsky's Minimalist Program). The second is to provide a description of a range of phenomena in English syntax, making use of minimalist concepts and assumptions wherever possible. The book can be seen as a successor to (or updated version of) my (1997a) book Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English. There is quite a lot of duplication of material between the earlier book and this one (particularly in the first few chapters), though the present book also contains substantial new material (e.g. on agreement, case, split projections and phases), and the analysis of many phenomena presented in this book differs from that in its predecessor (agreement being handled in terms of a feature-matching rather than a feature-checking framework, for example).

Key features

The book is intended to be suitable both for people with only minimal grammatical knowledge, and for people who have already done quite a bit of syntax but want to know something (more) about Minimalism. It is not historicist or comparative in orientation, and hence does not presuppose knowledge of earlier or alternative models of grammar. It is written in an approachable style, avoiding unnecessary complexity.