TP

1/12/2021
 Our today’s aim
What we already know - English has:
• VP (verb phrase) with a V head.
• PP (prepositional phrase) with a P head.
• AP (adjective phrase) with an A head.
• NP (noun phrase) with a N head.

• We will see that English also has TP (tense phrase) with a

T head.
• We will see that morphemes can ‘move’ from one
position to another.
 VP
• What do we already know from syntactic
constituency tests? What does the do-so
phrase replace?

• Mary loves chocolate and so DO I.

• He says he will tell the truth and he WILL do
so.
 VP
• What do we already know from syntactic
constituency tests? What does the do-so
phrase replace?

• Mary loves chocolate and so DO I.

• He says he will tell the truth and he WILL do so.
• Subject and modals seem to be outside the VP.
• The whole sentence is not a VP but a TP (tense
phrase).
 Tense
• Tense is sometimes shown as a separate word.
• I will walk (future)
• I don’t walk (present with negation)
• I didn’t walk (past with negation)
• I do walk (present with emphasis)
• I did walk (past with emphasis)
• Did you walk (past question)
• Do you walk (present question)
 Tense
• Tense is sometimes shown on the main verb.
• I walk, he walks (present)
• I walked (past)
 Tense in T
• Future tense expressed by modal auxiliary verb will is in T.
It precedes the main verb and is a free morpheme.
(1) a. * We watch will that show.
b. We will watch that show.
c. (Will you watch that show?) We will.
• Past tense is expressed by a bound morpheme, ordinarily
the suffix -ed, which combines with the verb.
• (2) a. We watch-ed that show.
• b. * We -ed never watch that show.
• c. * (Did you watch that show?) We -ed.
Back to VP
 TP
• How do we get from VP to TP?
 Extended Projection Principle

• The specifier of T has to be present; every

sentence needs to have a subject in English.
• The closest NP moves up!
• What happens in case there is no NP?
 Extended Projection Principle

• The specifier of T has to be present; every

sentence needs to have a subject in English.
• The closest NP moves up!
• What happens in case there is no NP?
• HINT: think about verbs which do not have
semantic arguments
• Dummy it or there is inserted
 More on TP…
• A free morpheme tense and a bound morpheme tense make
similar semantic contribution to the meaning of sentences.
• Also, they are in complementary distribution.
• (4) * The children will danced.
⇒ Both bound and free morpheme tense are located in T.
• So, how do they end up in different places?
 Affix hopping
• Bound morphemes lower to the main verb. This
phenomenon is known as affix hopping.
• Affix hopping: when some constituent x contains an
affix, the affix is lowered to the head of the complement
of x (provided it is an appropriate host for the affix to be
attached to)
• How do we know this?
• There are some tests that prove it:
1. Adverb test
2. Negation test
Adverb test

•Adverbs adjoin at V’ level

•Morpheme is pronounced
on the verb
•If the grammatically correct
version of the sentence was
*She tricked almost him,
what would that show?
•V to T movement is present
in some languages (e.g.
French)
 Adverb test (the French case)
• A tensed main verb must precede these
adverbs.
Adverb tense (the French case)
Negation test
•Not is the head of Neg Phrase
•We see that it blocks affix
lowering
*She not tricked him.
•Tense lowering is subject to a
locality condition:
Tense cannot lower to V if
there is an intervening
projection of a distinct head
on the path of branches that
connects T and V.
•Do-support is triggered
instead.
 Negation test (the French case)
•French, on the other hand, shows V to T movement, as exemplified
 Movement
• Comes in two flavors:
1. Head movement (V to T movement in
French)
2. Phrasal movement (NP movement from spec
VP to spec TP)
 Pat had eaten lunch.
• The auxiliary verbs have and be are used in forming
the perfect and progressive, respectively, which are
additional forms that a verb can take on.
Pat has eaten lunch. Pat is eating lunch.
• We can’t have two modals, but we can have a modal
and an auxiliary:
Pat should have eaten lunch.
Pat might be eating lunch.

What does this tell us?

 Pat had eaten lunch.
• The auxiliary verbs have and be are used in forming
the perfect and progressive, respectively, which are
additional forms that a verb can take on.
Pat has eaten lunch. Pat is eating lunch.
• We can’t have two modals, but we can have a modal
and an auxiliary:
Pat should have eaten lunch.
Pat might be eating lunch.
• Conclusion: Auxiliaries aren’t T, they’re their own
thing. Let’s call have Perf and be Prog.
• Let’s draw these two sentences!
Pat had eaten lunch.
TP

NP T
Pat
T PerfP
[past]
Perf VP
had
<Pat> V’

V NP
eaten lunch
Pat was eating lunch.
TP

NP T
Pat
T ProgP
[past]
Prog VP
was
<Pat> V

V NP
eating lunch
 Hierarchy of Projections
• Both have and be (Perf and Prog) are possible, but
just in that order.
Pat had been eating lunch.
*Pat was having eaten lunch.

• But neither is obligatory. Thus:

Hierarchy of Projections
T > (Perf) > (Prog) > V
 Negation
Pat might not eat lunch.
• Given everything we have so far, it’s fairly clear where not must be in the
structure.
– might is a T
– Pat is in SpecTP
– eat lunch is a VP (with a trace of Pat in SpecVP)

• So, assuming not is a head (of category Neg), we have a NegP between
TP and VP.

• Pat might not have eaten lunch.

• Pat might not have been eating lunch.

• Hierarchy of Projections:
T > (Neg) > (Perf) > (Prog) > V
 Pat was not eating lunch.
TP
• Now suppose that we
tried to form Pat was NP T
not eating lunch. Pat
T NegP
• This is the result.
[tense:past]
• HoP says: Neg ProgP
T > (Neg) > (Perf) > not
(Prog) > V Prog VP
• But the words are be
not in the right order: <Pat> V
be (was) should be
before not. V NP
eat lunch
 Pat was not eating lunch.
TP
• It seems that be (Prog) NP T
moves up to T. Pat
Pat was not <was> T NegP
eating lunch. [tense:past]
• Same thing happens Neg ProgP
with Perf: not
Pat has not <has> Prog VP
eaten lunch. be
• Only the top one <Pat> V
moves over negation:
Pat has not been eating lunch. V NP
*Pat has been not eating lunch. eat lunch
 Pat was not eating lunch.

• What we will assume is that this generally happens

(the closest Prog or Perf moves to T. Having not in the
sentence only revealed that it happened.
 Auxiliaries moving to T
• So, we have observed that empirically, have and be seem to
move to T.
• However:
– Non-auxiliary verbs do not move to T.
– Auxiliaries should not have moved to T if there is already a
modal.
• This is something special regarding have and be.
• It turns out that this (moving verbal elements) to T is common
crosslinguistically, and is a point at which languages vary.
e.g. French raises all verbs and auxiliaries to T, Swedish
doesn’t raise either verbs or auxiliaries to T, English raises
auxiliaries but not verbs to T, etc.