Transcript Slide 1

Linguistic Theory
Lecture 6
Generalisation
Recap: generalisation from 60s
to 70s
• The first generative model had rules and
phenomena virtually in a one to one
relation with each other:
– Phrase structure rules produced basic
sentences (kernel sentences)
– Transformations produced more complex
sentneces
Grammar
Language
PS
rules
kernel
sentences
T1
T2
T3
T4
…
sentence type 1
sentence type 2
sentence type 3
sentence type 4
…
• Developments in the 1960s allowed rules
to become more general:
– Phrase structure grammar did not produce a
specific set of sentences, but was applicable
to all sentences
– Transformations, by being constrained, were
not construction specific but applied to a
larger number of structures
Grammar
PS
Rules
constraints
T1
T2
T3
Language
• Advantages
– The grammar is simpler that the phenomena
that it accounts for: it is not just a reflection
of the facts and so helps us to understand the
phenomena
– Generality  explanation
– Helps to account for language acquisition
• Less to be learned
• More data to learn from
• Restricted hypothesis space
Transition to the 80s – the final
steps
• There were further generalisations made
from Extended Standard Theory at the
end of the 1970s
– In the phrase structure component
– In the transformational component
Complete generalisation of
phrase structure
• The structuralists had noted that some
phrases have heads (endocentric):
– A word which can replace a whole phrase:
• Poor John left
• John left
– On the basis of this evidence the noun was taken to be the
head and hence the phrase was a noun phrase
• But not all phrases are endocentric
– In particular sentences are exocentric
• Poor John left
=
sentence
• Poor John

sentence
• Left

sentence
• Chomsky’s phrase structure rules were
meant to formalise the structuralists
notion of constituent structure
• But they did not capture the notion of a
head:
– NP  Det N
– NP  P V
• As both of these are possible rules, the fact that
only the first is an actual rule has no explanation
• Thus the fact that phrases contain a word of the
same category is just accidental
• The X-bar notation, introduced in 1970,
solved this problem:
– XP  ... X ...
• But it was assumed that the structuralists
were right in that not all phrases are
endocentric
• Thus X-bar theory was only applied to
NP/N, VP/V and AP/A
• Soon after it was extended to PP/P
• S and S were seen as different
(exocentric)
• Also, Det, INFL and COMP were seen as
non-X-bar elements
S
COMP
S
NP
Det
INFL
VP
N’ may
V’
the N
man
V
leave
• Thus in 1970 the situation was assumed to be
thus:
X-bar elements
Non-X-bar
elements
words
N, V, A, P
Det, INFL, COMP
phrases
NP, VP, AP, PP
S, S
• In one way this is fine as the X-bar elements have
traditionally been seen as a separate class from
the non-X-bar elements
– major categories : minor categories
• But this distinction has tended to be made on
semantic grounds
– Major categories carry more semantic information
than minor categories
– Given that both the structuralists and generativists
claim that syntax and semantics are independent, this
should have been worrying
• Moreover, the status of X-bar theory was
taken to be a restriction on Phrase
Structure rules, rather than the basis of
the phrase structure component.
• This was because there were unexplained
peculiarities of certain phrases
– these were not lexical – too general
– therefore they were grammatical, but
restricted to certain categories
• E.g. V and P take NP complements, N and A do
not:
–
–
–
–
see [John]
after [John]
* a picture [John]
* fond [John]
• If phrase structure rules were as general as X-bar
rules, then all these would be predicted to be
grammatical
• So, we assume that there are category specific
rules:
– V’  V NP
– P’  P NP
• These rules are acceptable because they fit the
general X-bar template:
– X’  X YP
• Other rules are out because they don’t:
– V’  Det N
– V’  V’’ NP
• Yet other rules are out because they are not part
of the grammar (though they could be):
– N’  N NP
– A’  A NP
• But some rules are OK even though they
don’t conform to X-bar, because they are
exceptions:
– S  COMP S
– S  NP INFL VP
• So things are not entirely general
• Stowell 1981 argued that we can get rid of
the phrase structure part of the grammar
because category specific phenomena can
be explained by some other (more
general) part of the grammar:
– * picture John
– * fond John
• These can both be explained on the assumption
that the complement of a noun or an adjective are
not Case positions
• Hence these constructions violate the Case filter
– * NP, if NP is not in a Case position
• Thus the grammar went from:
• Lexicon
PS Rules
X-bar
Deep Structure
Transformations
Surface Structure
Constraints
• To:
• Lexicon
X-bar
Deep Structure
Transformations
Surface Structure
Constraints
Case Filter
• But the fact that X-bar rules are not
completely general is even more
suspicious now
• The head of the sentence
– During the 1970s, the idea that sentences
were not exocentric had been considered
– Jackendoff 1977 proposed that the head of
the sentence was V and so sentences were
really VPs:
•
V’’’
NP
V’’
John Aux
may
V’
V
NP
meet Mary
• Chomsky proposed that INFL was the
head of the clause
– if the inflection is finite the clause is finite
– If the inflection is non-finite the clause is nonfinite
– Thus sentences are IPs (first propose in
Stowell 1981)
–
IP
NP
I’
I
VP
– This has a certain appeal
• But, look what it does to our theory:
X-bar elements
Non-X-bar
elements
words
N, V, A, P, I
Det, COMP
phrases
NP, VP, AP, PP, IP
S
• This is worse than before as the set of Xbar elements do not form a natural class
(e.g. Major categories)
• Therefore the pressure is on to make Xbar completely general
• COMP and S
– X-bar can be generalised to the S and the
complementiser through the assumption that
the former is the head of the latter:
–
CP
whP
C’
C
IP
– Again, this has some appeal
• Recall that wh-phrases did not go in the same
position as the complementiser
• Also complementisers play a role in determining
the declarative or interrogative nature of the
clause
• Determiners and DP
– In 1986 it was first proposed that determiners
also fall within X-bar theory and are heads
•
NP
DP
Det
a

N’
N
PP
picture of John
D’
D
NP
a
N’
N
PP
picture of John
• This addresses an original problem with
the structuralist assumptions:
– Recall that the head was defined as a word
which can replace the phrase (has the same
distribution)
• Poor John left
• John left
– Thus the noun is the head of the phrase (= NP)
– But:
• That dog left
• * dog left
• That left
– Thus the determiner is the head of the phrase (= DP)
Completely generalising
transformations
• By the 1970s there were two
transformations:
– NP movement
– Wh-movement
• These could not be reduced as they
conformed to different principles:
– NP movement:
• Tensed S condition
• Specified Subject condition
– Wh-movement
• Crossover constraint
• But, with the introduction of trace theory,
a new approach to these phenomena
became possible
Getting rid of TSC and SSC
• Note the following similarities:
– John1 seems [ t1 to like Mary]
– * John1 seems [ t1 likes Mary]
– * John1 seems [Mary to like t1]
– John1 expects [himself1 to like Mary]
– * John1 expects [himself1 will like Mary]
– * John1 expects [Mary to like himself1]
• We can capture this similarity if we
assume that the trace of an NP has the
same properties as reflexive pronouns
• Whatever governs the behaviour of
pronouns (Binding theory) will govern the
behaviour of NP traces and we do not
need transformation specific constraints
• Note the following similarities:
– Who t1 thinks [he1 likes Mary]
– * who does he1 think [ t1 likes Mary]
– John1 thinks [he1 likes Mary]
– He1 thinks [John1 likes Mary]
• We account for this similarity by assuming
that wh-traces have similar properties to
referential phrases.
• Whatever governs the behaviour of
referential phrases (Binding theory) will
govern the behaviour of wh-traces and we
do not need transformation specific
constraints
• Thus if there are no transformation
specific constraints, we no longer need
specific transformations:
– NP movement:
• Move an NP to an NP position
– Wh-movement:
• Move a wh-phrase to a wh-position
– Move 
• Move any category to any position
X-bar Theory
Lexicon
D-structure
Move 
Constraints
S-structure
Case Theory
Binding Theory