Hello, professor, thank you for the course, and I have two questions. 1. If the subject is introduced by the VoiceP instead of the VP, why do we still need the specifier of VP in the tree? 2. I wonder if there is any evidence of a VoiceP, such as the passive, banning the assignment of accusative case of its component VP?
Good afternoon, Professor. I would like to ask you about the V to T movement which is in the passives in this video. This wasn't spoken much about in the book nor here. Do all tensed auxiliaries move? Like are has, had, have, is, etc moved? And the ones that are not tensed like been, being, and the ones after modals are not moved?
It is discussed on page 304 of the 4th edition of the textbook. Tensed auxiliaries (but not auxiliaries that only bear aspect or voice and not tense) undergo head movement to T in English.
Hello, professor, thank you for the course, and I have two questions. 1. If the subject is introduced by the VoiceP instead of the VP, why do we still need the specifier of VP in the tree? 2. I wonder if there is any evidence of a VoiceP, such as the passive, banning the assignment of accusative case of its component VP?
Hi, The answers to both your questions are dealt with in Chapter 14.
Good afternoon, Professor. I would like to ask you about the V to T movement which is in the passives in this video. This wasn't spoken much about in the book nor here. Do all tensed auxiliaries move? Like are has, had, have, is, etc moved? And the ones that are not tensed like been, being, and the ones after modals are not moved?
It is discussed on page 304 of the 4th edition of the textbook. Tensed auxiliaries (but not auxiliaries that only bear aspect or voice and not tense) undergo head movement to T in English.