Linguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

Lecture 6Lecture 6

GeneralisationGeneralisation

Recap: generalisation from Recap: generalisation from 60s to 70s60s to 70s

• The first generative model had rules The first generative model had rules and phenomena virtually in a one to and phenomena virtually in a one to one relation with each other:one relation with each other:– Phrase structure rules produced basic Phrase structure rules produced basic

sentences (kernel sentences)sentences (kernel sentences)– Transformations produced more Transformations produced more

complex sentnecescomplex sentneces

T1T2T3T4…

sentence type 1sentence type 2sentence type 3sentence type 4

…

PS rules

kernel sentences

Grammar Language

• Developments in the 1960s allowed Developments in the 1960s allowed rules to become more general:rules to become more general:– Phrase structure grammar did not Phrase structure grammar did not

produce a specific set of sentences, but produce a specific set of sentences, but was applicable to all sentenceswas applicable to all sentences

– Transformations, by being constrained, Transformations, by being constrained, were not construction specific but were not construction specific but applied to a larger number of structuresapplied to a larger number of structures

Grammar Language

PS Rules

constraintsT1T2T3

• AdvantagesAdvantages– The grammar is simpler that the The grammar is simpler that the

phenomena that it accounts for: it is not phenomena that it accounts for: it is not just a reflection of the facts and so helps just a reflection of the facts and so helps us to understand the phenomenaus to understand the phenomena

– Generality Generality explanation explanation– Helps to account for language Helps to account for language

acquisitionacquisition•Less to be learnedLess to be learned

•More data to learn fromMore data to learn from

•Restricted hypothesis spaceRestricted hypothesis space

Transition to the 80s – the Transition to the 80s – the final stepsfinal steps

• There were further generalisations There were further generalisations made from Extended Standard made from Extended Standard Theory at the end of the 1970sTheory at the end of the 1970s– In the phrase structure componentIn the phrase structure component– In the transformational componentIn the transformational component

Complete generalisation of Complete generalisation of phrase structurephrase structure• The structuralists had noted that some The structuralists had noted that some

phrases have heads (phrases have heads (endocentricendocentric))::– A word which can replace a whole phrase:A word which can replace a whole phrase:

•Poor John leftPoor John left• John leftJohn left

– On the basis of this evidence the noun was taken to On the basis of this evidence the noun was taken to be the head and hence the phrase was a noun be the head and hence the phrase was a noun phrasephrase

• But not all phrases are endocentricBut not all phrases are endocentric– In particular sentences are In particular sentences are exocentricexocentric

•Poor John leftPoor John left == sentencesentence•Poor JohnPoor John sentencesentence•LeftLeft sentencesentence

• Chomsky’s phrase structure rules Chomsky’s phrase structure rules were meant to formalise the were meant to formalise the structuralists notion of constituent structuralists notion of constituent structurestructure

• But they did not capture the notion But they did not capture the notion of a head:of a head:– NP NP Det N Det N– NP NP P V P V

•As both of these are possible rules, the fact As both of these are possible rules, the fact that only the first is an actual rule has no that only the first is an actual rule has no explanationexplanation

•Thus the fact that phrases contain a word of Thus the fact that phrases contain a word of the same category is just accidentalthe same category is just accidental

• The X-bar notation, introduced in The X-bar notation, introduced in 1970, solved this problem:1970, solved this problem:– XP XP ... X ... ... X ...

• But it was assumed that the But it was assumed that the structuralists were right in that not structuralists were right in that not all phrases are endocentricall phrases are endocentric

• Thus X-bar theory was only applied Thus X-bar theory was only applied to NP/N, VP/V and AP/Ato NP/N, VP/V and AP/A

• Soon after it was extended to PP/PSoon after it was extended to PP/P• S and S were seen as different S and S were seen as different

(exocentric)(exocentric)• Also, Det, INFL and COMP were seen Also, Det, INFL and COMP were seen

as non-X-bar elementsas non-X-bar elements

SS

COMP SCOMP S

NP INFL VPNP INFL VP

Det N’ may V’Det N’ may V’

the N Vthe N V

man leaveman leave

• Thus in 1970 the situation was assumed to be Thus in 1970 the situation was assumed to be thus:thus:

• In one way this is fine as the X-bar elements In one way this is fine as the X-bar elements have traditionally been seen as a separate have traditionally been seen as a separate class from the non-X-bar elementsclass from the non-X-bar elements– major categories : minor categoriesmajor categories : minor categories

• But this distinction has tended to be made on But this distinction has tended to be made on semantic groundssemantic grounds– Major categories carry more semantic information Major categories carry more semantic information

than minor categoriesthan minor categories– Given that both the structuralists and Given that both the structuralists and

generativists claim that syntax and semantics are generativists claim that syntax and semantics are independent, this should have been worryingindependent, this should have been worrying

X-bar elements

Non-X-bar elements

words N, V, A, P Det, INFL, COMP

phrases NP, VP, AP, PP S, S

• Moreover, the status of X-bar theory Moreover, the status of X-bar theory was taken to be a restriction on Phrase was taken to be a restriction on Phrase Structure rules, rather than the basis of Structure rules, rather than the basis of the phrase structure component.the phrase structure component.

• This was because there were This was because there were unexplained peculiarities of certain unexplained peculiarities of certain phrasesphrases– these were not lexical – too generalthese were not lexical – too general– therefore they were grammatical, but therefore they were grammatical, but

restricted to certain categoriesrestricted to certain categories•E.g. V and P take NP complements, N and A do E.g. V and P take NP complements, N and A do

not:not:– see [John]see [John]– after [John]after [John]– * a picture [John]* a picture [John]– * fond [John]* fond [John]

• If phrase structure rules were as general as If phrase structure rules were as general as X-bar rules, then all these would be X-bar rules, then all these would be predicted to be grammaticalpredicted to be grammatical

• So, we assume that there are category So, we assume that there are category specific rules:specific rules:– V’ V’ V NP V NP– P’ P’ P NP P NP

• These rules are acceptable because they fit These rules are acceptable because they fit the general X-bar template:the general X-bar template:– X’ X’ X YP X YP

• Other rules are out because they don’t:Other rules are out because they don’t:– V’ V’ Det N Det N– V’ V’ V’’ NP V’’ NP

• Yet other rules are out because they are not Yet other rules are out because they are not part of the grammar (though they could be):part of the grammar (though they could be):– N’ N’ N NP N NP– A’ A’ A NP A NP

• But some rules are OK even though But some rules are OK even though they don’t conform to X-bar, because they don’t conform to X-bar, because they are exceptions:they are exceptions:– S S COMP S COMP S– S S NP INFL VP NP INFL VP

• So things are not entirely generalSo things are not entirely general

• Stowell 1981 argued that we can get Stowell 1981 argued that we can get rid of the phrase structure part of the rid of the phrase structure part of the grammar because category specific grammar because category specific phenomena can be explained by phenomena can be explained by some other (more general) part of some other (more general) part of the grammar:the grammar:– * picture John* picture John– * fond John* fond John

•These can both be explained on the These can both be explained on the assumption that the complement of a noun assumption that the complement of a noun or an adjective are not Case positionsor an adjective are not Case positions

•Hence these constructions violate the Case Hence these constructions violate the Case filterfilter

– * NP, if NP is not in a Case position* NP, if NP is not in a Case position

• Thus the grammar went from:Thus the grammar went from:

• LexiconLexicon PS RulesPS Rules X-barX-bar

Deep Structure Deep Structure

Transformations TransformationsConstraintsConstraints

Surface Structure Surface Structure

• To:To:

• But the fact that X-bar rules are not But the fact that X-bar rules are not completely general is even more completely general is even more suspicious nowsuspicious now

• LexiconLexicon X-bar X-bar

Deep Structure Deep Structure

Transformations TransformationsConstraintsConstraints

Surface Structure Surface StructureCase Case FilterFilter

• The head of the sentenceThe head of the sentence– During the 1970s, the idea that During the 1970s, the idea that

sentences were not exocentric had been sentences were not exocentric had been consideredconsidered

– Jackendoff 1977 proposed that the head Jackendoff 1977 proposed that the head of the sentence was V and so sentences of the sentence was V and so sentences were really VPs:were really VPs:• V’’’V’’’

NP V’’ NP V’’

John Aux V’ John Aux V’

may V NP may V NP

meet Mary meet Mary

• Chomsky proposed that INFL was the Chomsky proposed that INFL was the head of the clause head of the clause – if the inflection is finite the clause is finiteif the inflection is finite the clause is finite– If the inflection is non-finite the clause is If the inflection is non-finite the clause is

non-finitenon-finite– Thus sentences are IPs (first propose in Thus sentences are IPs (first propose in

Stowell 1981)Stowell 1981)– IPIP

NP I’NP I’

I VP I VP– This has a certain appealThis has a certain appeal

• But, look what it does to our theory:But, look what it does to our theory:

• This is worse than before as the set This is worse than before as the set of X-bar elements do not form a of X-bar elements do not form a natural class (e.g. Major categories)natural class (e.g. Major categories)

• Therefore the pressure is on to make Therefore the pressure is on to make X-bar completely generalX-bar completely general

X-bar elements

Non-X-bar elements

words N, V, A, P, I Det, COMP

phrases NP, VP, AP, PP, IP

S

• COMP and SCOMP and S– X-bar can be generalised to the S and X-bar can be generalised to the S and

the complementiser through the the complementiser through the assumption that the former is the head assumption that the former is the head of the latter:of the latter:

– CPCP

whP C’whP C’

C IP C IP– Again, this has some appealAgain, this has some appeal

•Recall that wh-phrases did not go in the Recall that wh-phrases did not go in the same position as the complementisersame position as the complementiser

•Also complementisers play a role in Also complementisers play a role in determining the declarative or interrogative determining the declarative or interrogative nature of the clausenature of the clause

• Determiners and DPDeterminers and DP– In 1986 it was first proposed that In 1986 it was first proposed that

determiners also fall within X-bar theory determiners also fall within X-bar theory and are headsand are heads• NPNP DP DP

Det N’Det N’ D’ D’

a N PP a N PP D NPD NP

picture of John picture of John a N’a N’

N PP N PP

picture of picture of JohnJohn

• This addresses an original problem This addresses an original problem with the structuralist assumptions:with the structuralist assumptions:– Recall that the head was defined as a Recall that the head was defined as a

word which can replace the phrase (has word which can replace the phrase (has the same distribution)the same distribution)•Poor John leftPoor John left

• John leftJohn left– Thus the noun is the head of the phrase (= NP)Thus the noun is the head of the phrase (= NP)

– But:But:•That dog leftThat dog left

•* dog left* dog left

•That leftThat left– Thus the determiner is the head of the phrase (= Thus the determiner is the head of the phrase (=

DP)DP)

Completely generalising Completely generalising transformationstransformations• By the 1970s there were two By the 1970s there were two

transformations:transformations:– NP movementNP movement– Wh-movementWh-movement

• These could not be reduced as they These could not be reduced as they conformed to different principles:conformed to different principles:– NP movement:NP movement:

•Tensed S conditionTensed S condition•Specified Subject conditionSpecified Subject condition

– Wh-movementWh-movement•Crossover constraintCrossover constraint

• But, with the introduction of trace But, with the introduction of trace theory, a new approach to these theory, a new approach to these phenomena became possiblephenomena became possible

Getting rid of TSC and SSCGetting rid of TSC and SSC

• Note the following similarities:Note the following similarities:– JohnJohn11 seems [ t seems [ t11 to like Mary] to like Mary]

– * John* John11 seems [ t seems [ t11 likes Mary] likes Mary]

– * John* John11 seems [Mary to like t seems [Mary to like t11]]

– JohnJohn11 expects [himself expects [himself11 to like Mary] to like Mary]

– * John* John11 expects [himself expects [himself11 will like Mary] will like Mary]

– * John* John11 expects [Mary to like himself expects [Mary to like himself11]]

• We can capture this similarity if we We can capture this similarity if we assume that the trace of an NP has assume that the trace of an NP has the same properties as reflexive the same properties as reflexive pronounspronouns

• Whatever governs the behaviour of Whatever governs the behaviour of pronouns (Binding theory) will govern pronouns (Binding theory) will govern the behaviour of NP traces and we do the behaviour of NP traces and we do not need transformation specific not need transformation specific constraintsconstraints

• Note the following similarities:Note the following similarities:– Who tWho t11 thinks [he thinks [he11 likes Mary] likes Mary]

– * who does he* who does he11 think [ t think [ t11 likes Mary] likes Mary]

– JohnJohn11 thinks [he thinks [he11 likes Mary] likes Mary]

– HeHe11 thinks [John thinks [John11 likes Mary] likes Mary]

• We account for this similarity by We account for this similarity by assuming that wh-traces have similar assuming that wh-traces have similar properties to referential phrases.properties to referential phrases.

• Whatever governs the behaviour of Whatever governs the behaviour of referential phrases (Binding theory) referential phrases (Binding theory) will govern the behaviour of wh-will govern the behaviour of wh-traces and we do not need traces and we do not need transformation specific constraintstransformation specific constraints

• Thus if there are no transformation Thus if there are no transformation specific constraints, we no longer specific constraints, we no longer need specific transformations:need specific transformations:– NP movement:NP movement:

•Move an NP to an NP positionMove an NP to an NP position

– Wh-movement:Wh-movement:•Move a wh-phrase to a wh-positionMove a wh-phrase to a wh-position

– Move Move •Move any category to any positionMove any category to any position

X-bar Theory Lexicon

D-structure

Move Constraints

S-structure Case Theory

Binding Theory