Linguistic Theory Lecture 3 Movement

A brief history of movement Movements as ‘special rules’ proposed to capture facts that phrase structure rules cannot Movements as ‘special rules’ proposed to capture facts that phrase structure rules cannot Movements catch on – anything you can do, I can do better (with a movement) Movements catch on – anything you can do, I can do better (with a movement) Too many movements – loss of explanation Too many movements – loss of explanation Restrictions on movements – fewer movements to account for the same amount of linguistic phenomena Restrictions on movements – fewer movements to account for the same amount of linguistic phenomena Movements become more general Movements become more general There is only one movement: move anything anywhere There is only one movement: move anything anywhere

Why do we need transformations? Q: what is the connection between the following two structures?: Q: what is the connection between the following two structures?: A: nothing A: nothing S NP VP John V NP loves Mary S NP Aux VP John may V NP read Det N a book

Q: what is the connection between the following two structures?: Q: what is the connection between the following two structures?: A: quite a lot A: quite a lot But if all these structures are produced by the same kinds of rules (PS rules) they should all be as unconnected as the first two But if all these structures are produced by the same kinds of rules (PS rules) they should all be as unconnected as the first two S NP Aux VP Mary was V loved S NP VP John V NP loves Mary

Therefore we need grammatical rules which are able to relate structures to each other Therefore we need grammatical rules which are able to relate structures to each other A transformation takes a structure and changes it to form another structure A transformation takes a structure and changes it to form another structure Thus transformations are capable of relating structures Thus transformations are capable of relating structures

E.g. a ‘passive’ transformation could take a structure such as: E.g. a ‘passive’ transformation could take a structure such as: and... and... S NP VP John V NP loves Mary

Delete its subject: Delete its subject: S NP VP V NP loves Mary

Move the object to subject position: Move the object to subject position: S NP VP Mary V loves

Insert the passive auxiliary: Insert the passive auxiliary: S NP Aux VP Mary was V loves

Insert the passive morpheme: Insert the passive morpheme: The passive structure is related to the active because it was formed from it The passive structure is related to the active because it was formed from it S NP Aux VP Mary was V loved

A technical problem: A technical problem: –which structures are basic and which are formed from transformations? There is no real reason to think of any structure as more basic than any other There is no real reason to think of any structure as more basic than any other So the relation between structures must be more indirect So the relation between structures must be more indirect

Suppose all structures start off with a more abstract underlying form which is then ‘transformed’ into the structure we actually see: Suppose all structures start off with a more abstract underlying form which is then ‘transformed’ into the structure we actually see: underlying form transformations surface form underlying form transformations surface form Originally these were called Deep Structure and Surface Structure Originally these were called Deep Structure and Surface Structure

We can relate different surface structures by transforming them from the same deep structures: We can relate different surface structures by transforming them from the same deep structures: Deep Structure active passivetransformations active passive Surface StructureSurface Structure

This also allows us to capture certain ambiguities: This also allows us to capture certain ambiguities: Two Deep Structures could be operated on by different transformations to produce the same Surface Structure Two Deep Structures could be operated on by different transformations to produce the same Surface Structure Deep Structure transformations transformations Surface Structure

E.g. E.g. –the bomber’s destruction the bomber destroyed something the bomber destroyed something something destroyed the bomber something destroyed the bomber the bomber destroyed destroyed the bomber nominalisation destruction the bomber movement the bomber destruction genitive insertion the bomber’s destruction

Things go wild with transformations! What you can do with a transformation: What you can do with a transformation: –move things about –insert new things –delete old things –change structure So what can’t you do? So what can’t you do? –In principle, any two structures could be related

Mathematically, a transformational grammar is equivalent to an Unrestricted Rewrite System Mathematically, a transformational grammar is equivalent to an Unrestricted Rewrite System –this is the most powerful kind of grammar which can generate any kind of language –so we can’t use it to explain why human languages are as they are

Transformations are specific to particular structures in particular languages – the passive transformation for English is not the same as the passive transformation for French Transformations are specific to particular structures in particular languages – the passive transformation for English is not the same as the passive transformation for French –so in principle languages could vary infinitely –this is the same as Linguistic Relativity

Children would have to learn the particulars of each transformation of their language Children would have to learn the particulars of each transformation of their language –they must guess which transformations are used from hearing surface forms –but if there is no limit to how a transformation might be, this would be impossible without direct instruction –no one directly instructs children in language learning –so they shouldn’t be able to learn language

Deletion transformations are particularly problematic: Deletion transformations are particularly problematic: –presumably, the hearers job is to recover the Deep Structure on hearing a surface form –this would seem to involve applying transformations backwards: putting moved items into their original positions and getting rid of inserted material –but it would also involve the recovery of deleted material, and it is not clear how that can be done

For example, suppose the underlying structure of a passive sentence were: For example, suppose the underlying structure of a passive sentence were: Applying the passive transformation we delete the subject, move the object and insert auxiliary and morpheme to get: Applying the passive transformation we delete the subject, move the object and insert auxiliary and morpheme to get: –Mary was loved It is easy to see how we can move the subject back into object position and remove the auxiliary and morpheme, but how do we know to insert ‘John’? It is easy to see how we can move the subject back into object position and remove the auxiliary and morpheme, but how do we know to insert ‘John’? S NP VP John V NP loves Mary

We might say that we do not need to recover the exact element that was deleted as this was something like ‘someone’ We might say that we do not need to recover the exact element that was deleted as this was something like ‘someone’ But in other cases, this is not how we recover missing information: But in other cases, this is not how we recover missing information: –John wants to go to the party but Mary doesn’t want to go to the party want to go to the party * do something * do something S NP VP someone V NP loves Mary

What syntacticians did next The solution to all these problems was to impose restrictions on transformations The solution to all these problems was to impose restrictions on transformations –the emphasis turned from what could be done with transformations to what they couldn’t do –for example, given that deletion causes so many problems, it was suggested that we should not make use of deletion rules

transformations + restrictions = generalisation Restricting transformations meant that more phenomena had to be handled with less grammatical devices Restricting transformations meant that more phenomena had to be handled with less grammatical devices So the remaining grammatical devices had to be more general than previously So the remaining grammatical devices had to be more general than previously A good example of how restrictions lead to generalisation is the passive A good example of how restrictions lead to generalisation is the passive

Having got rid of deletion, the D-structure for the passive could no longer be claimed to be the same as for the active as passives appear to have no underlying subjects: Active D-structure Active D-structure – S NP Aux VP John may V NP see Mary Passive D-structure Passive D-structure – S NP Aux VP --- may be V NP seen Mary

The active and passive are still related by what they share in common: ‘Mary’ is the object of ‘love’ The active and passive are still related by what they share in common: ‘Mary’ is the object of ‘love’ The only transformation needed now is to move the object to subject position The only transformation needed now is to move the object to subject position Passive S-structure Passive S-structure – S NP Aux VP Mary may be V NP seen

We can simply state the passive transformation thus: We can simply state the passive transformation thus: –move the object of a passive verb into the empty subject position

However, there are passives which do not involve the movement of an object: However, there are passives which do not involve the movement of an object: –John believed [Mary to be nice] –Mary was believed [--- to be nice] So we should not restrict the moved NP to the object position: So we should not restrict the moved NP to the object position: –Move an NP into the empty subject position of a passive verb

This seems too general as not all NPs can move to this position: This seems too general as not all NPs can move to this position: –John believes [Mary is nice] –* Mary was believed [--- is nice] However, it seems that no NP can move out of a finite clause, so this is an independent restriction: However, it seems that no NP can move out of a finite clause, so this is an independent restriction: –it seems [Mary is nice] –Mary seems [--- to be nice] –* Mary seems [ --- is nice]

In fact, the similarities between these observations indicate that we should extend the movement rule to constructions which are not even passives: In fact, the similarities between these observations indicate that we should extend the movement rule to constructions which are not even passives: –--- was believed [Mary to be nice] –Mary was believe [--- to be nice] –--- seems [Mary to be nice] –Mary seems [--- to be nice]

So the rule becomes: So the rule becomes: –move an NP into a vacant subject position

However: However: –the fact that the subject position has to be vacant follows from general principles: one position cannot be filled by two elements one position cannot be filled by two elements deletion is not allowed deletion is not allowed –the fact that the NP must move to a subject position also follows from general principles: the subject position has to be filled by something in all sentences: the subject position has to be filled by something in all sentences: –it seems [Mary is nice] –* seems [Mary is nice] this is not true of object position: this is not true of object position: –Mary smiled –* Mary smiled it

We can therefore generalise our rule to: We can therefore generalise our rule to: –Move an NP In other words, this simply states that it is possible for NPs to move In other words, this simply states that it is possible for NPs to move The details of actual movements fall out from general principles The details of actual movements fall out from general principles

There is no time to demonstrate it, but the same generalisation happened to all other movements There is no time to demonstrate it, but the same generalisation happened to all other movements In the end, all we needed was one movement rule: In the end, all we needed was one movement rule: –move anything anywhere This is not as chaotic as it sounds This is not as chaotic as it sounds –it is a statement that movements are possible –the details of actual movements all fall out from general principles independent of the movements themselves