Lecture 2: Constraints on Movement

 Formal movement rules (called Transformations) were first introduced in the late 1950s  During the 1960s a lot of work was done to see what could be achieved by using transformations  Enthusiastic linguists used transformations to describe phenomena in:  SyntaxMorphology SemanticsPragmatics StylisticsPoetics Literary Analysis  By the end of the 1960s it was clear that you could do anything with a transformation!

 If transformations can do anything:  they can describe everything  but explain nothing  Suppose we observe some phrase X moving from position Y to position Z  Can we describe this?  Of course – transformations can describe anything  Can we explain why it happens?  NO! – Anything could have happened

 It therefore became clear that transformations were too powerful  At the same time linguists didn’t want to get rid of transformations altogether  The only way forward was to maintain transformations but attempt to limit their power  There must be things that you can’t do with a transformation

 The first observation of situations in which things couldn’t move concerned examples such as:  The train [ VP came [ PP out [ PP from [ DP Paris]]]]  [ PP out from where] 1 did the train [ VP come t 1 ]  [ DP where] 1 did the train come out [ PP from t 1 ]  * [ from where] 1 did the train come [ PP out t 1 ]  So:  A PP can move out of a VP  A DP can move out of a PP  But a PP cannot move out of a PP

 Similarly:  They [ VP liked [ DP [ DP John]’s picture]]  [ DP whose picture] 1 did they [ VP like t 1 ]  * [ DP whose] 1 did they like [ DP t 1 picture]  So:  A DP can move out of a VP  But a DP cannot move out of a DP

 Similarly:  They [ VP made [ VP the ice melt]]  I thought they would make the ice melt and [ VP make the ice melt] 1 [ IP they did t 1 ] *[ VP the ice melt] 1 they [ VP made t 1 ]  So:  A VP can move out of an IP  But a VP cannot move out of a VP

 It looks as though the movement of a phrase cannot be out of a phrase of the same category  An XP cannot move out of an XP

 There are cases where a phrase can move out of a phrase of the same category:  He painted [ DP a picture of [ DP a lake]]  [ DP what] 1 did he paint [ DP a picture of t 1 ]  A DP can move out of a DP

 Sometimes an XP cannot move out of a YP, where XP and YP are not the same category  John knows [ DP the woman you sold [ DP your car] to]  John likes [ DP the car you sold [ PP to Mary]]  * [ DP Which car] 1 does John know [ DP the woman you sold t 1 to]  * [ PP to whom] 1 does John like [ DP the car you sold t 1 ]

 Ross (1967) identified a number of constituents from which he claimed it was impossible to move anything  He called these constituents ‘Islands’

 No phrase can be moved out of a clause that begins with a wh-element  Who 1 can you guess [that Mary likes t 1 ]  * Who 1 can you guess [why Mary likes t 1 ]  This constraint also covers relative clauses as they begin with a wh-element  We like the present [ CP (which) Mary gave to Bill]  * who 1 do we like the present [ CP Mary gave to t 1 ]

 No phrase can be moved out of a clause which is contained inside a DP (also covers relative clauses!)  He denied [ DP the allegation [ CP that he murdered his wife]]  * Who 1 did he deny [ DP the allegation [ CP that he murdered t 1 ]]

 No phrase can be moved out of a CP that is the subject of another clause  [ CP that he hid the drugs] was proof of his guilt  * what 1 was [ CP that he hid t 1 ] proof of his guilt

 No phrase can move out of a phrase that is coordinated:  John [ VP likes beer] but [ VP hates wine]  * what 1 does John [ VP like t 1 ] but [ VP hates wine]  * what 1 does John [ VP like beer] but [ VP hates t 1 ]

 Islands constrain transformations and so increase their explanatory power  But what explains Islands?  Why are wh-clauses, complex DPs, sentential subjects and coordinated constituents Islands?  Just proposing that there are Islands does not give any clues to why there are islands or what constituents will be islands

 In response to this problem, Chomsky (1973) proposed one general restriction on movement  This restriction predicted most of the Islands and so offered an explanation for why certain constructions are Islands

 Subjacency works on the assumption that certain categories are hurdles that have to be jumped over by moving phrases  These hurdles were called Bounding Nodes  In English:  IP and DP are bounding nodes

 No single movement can cross more than one bounding node

 Consider the following  Who 1 did [ IP you think [ IP Mary thought [ IP Bill liked t 1 ]]]  It appears that three bounding nodes (IPs) are crossed by the wh-element  But, if we assume:  the wh-element doesn’t move in one go  it moves to each vacant specifier of CP in turn  then each movement crosses only one IP  Who 1 did [ IP you think [ CP t 1 [ IP Mary thought [ CP t 1 [ IP Bill liked t 1 ]]

 The wh-Island  Who 1 can [ IP you guess [ CP why [ IP Mary likes t 1 ]  Movement to the first CP specifier is blocked by the wh-element why  So only long distance movement is possible  This crosses two bounding nodes  So it violates subjacency

 The complex DP Island  Who 1 did [ IP he deny [ DP the allegation [ CP t 1 that [ IP he murdered t 1 ]]]  The first movement is fine as it only crosses one bounding node  The second movement however crosses both DP and IP and so violates subjacency

 Head movements are always short  They never cross clause boundaries  Therefore they never get anywhere near violating subjacency  So what makes sure they are short?

 V can move to I  John love 1 -s [ VP Mary t 1 ]  I can move to C  can 1 [ IP you t 1 make the tea]  V cannot move directly to C  * make 1 [ IP you can [ VP the tea t 1 ]]  V can move to C only if it first moves to I  [ CP who 2 made 1 [ IP t 2 t 1 [ VP the tea t 1 ]]]

 In other words:  Heads must move to the their closest head position

 Subjacency constrains phrase movement  The head movement constraint constrains head movement  But both constraints prevent long distance movement

 A wh-phrase can move to the specifier of CP  [ CP who 1 did [ IP you see t 1 ]]  It cannot move to the CP more than one clause away:  * [ CP who 1 did they ask [ CP why [ IP you can’t see t 1 ]]]  The only way a wh-phrase can get to the higher CP is if it goes through the lower CP:  [ CP who 1 did they think [ CP t 1 [ IP you can see t 1 ]]

 In other words:  A wh-phrase must move to its closest CP specifier  This is very similar to the head movement constraint

 A DP can move to the specifier of its own clause (subject)  [ IP he 1 was [ VP seen t 1 ]]  It cannot move directly to the subject position of the next clause up:  * [ IP he 1 seems [ IP it was [ VP seen t 1 ]]]  The only way it can get to this position is by going through the lower subject position:  [ IP he 1 seems [ IP t 1 to have been [ VP seen t 1 ]]]

 In other words:  A DP must move to its nearest subject position  Again, this is similar to the head movement constraint

 It seems that there is one main restriction on all movements:  Movements must be as short as possible  But what is ‘possible’ for a movement depends on what is moving:  A head can only move to a head position  A wh-phrase can only move to a specifier of CP  A DP can only move to a specifier of IP (subject)  Thus the constraint is:  An element must move to its nearest relevant position

 Constraints have developed from specific to general ideas  A-over-A and Islands  specific constructions are barriers to movement  Subjacency  specific nodes in a structure are barriers  Relativised Minimality  all movements are short Constraints