View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
13
D‐Structure
S‐Structure
Given the full Aspects modification, this list of rules applies cyclically, first operating on the most deeply embedded clause, then the next most deeply embedded, and so on, working up the tree until they apply on the highest clause, the entire generalized P-marker
Thus, singulary transformations apply to constituent sentences as if 'before' they are embedded, and to matrix sentences as if 'after' embedding has taken place. "The ordering possibilities that are permitted by the theory of Transformation-markers but apparently never put to use are now excluded in principle." Chomsky (1965, p.135)
In passing, I note that the cyclic principle was one of two major syntactic innovations of the mid 1960s borrowed from phonology.
The principle was first formulated in Chomsky et al. (1956), and applied in the phonological analysis of a variety of languages from the early 1960s on, most notably in SPE (Chomsky and Halle (1968)).
14
"... it is natural to suppose that in general the phonetic shapeof a complex unit ... will be determined by the inherent properties of its parts and the manner in which these parts are combined, and that similar rules will apply to units of different levels of complexity. These observations suggest a general principle for the application of rules of the phonological component, namely, what we will call the principle of the 'transformational cycle.'" [SPE p.15]
15
Interestingly, it was almost three decades before it became clear that the absence of certain kinds of derivations was not a real argument against generalized transformations.
For it was not recursion in the base that excluded the unwanted derivations: It was the cyclic principle. And there are a variety of ways that a version of the cyclic principle could be grafted onto a theory with generalized transformations, as work of the last decade and a half has amply demonstrated.
16
Derivations and interfaces
In LSLT the T-marker is the interface with semantic interpretation, and the final derived syntactic representation is the interface with morphophonemics.
In Aspects, we have:
17
Already in Aspects, it was pointed out that some aspects of semantic interpretation (basically all except thematic relations) depend on derived structure. With the introduction of trace theory in the early 1970’s, D-structure was no longer crucial even for thematic relations.
That led to the ‘Extended Standard Theory’ and GB model:
18
BUT, there had already been suggestions in the late 1960’s and very early 1970’s for links to semantic and phonological interpretation not just at levels but internal to the derivation.
Particularly important were the work of Bresnan (1971) wrt phonology (specifically sentence intonation) and Jackendoff (1969, 1972) wrt semantics (specifically anaphora).
For both, the derivation-internal points were end of cycle structures.
The picture then would look like:
19
D‐Structure
S‐Structure
(Some) semantic interpretation
(Some) semantic and phonological interpretation(Some) semantic and phonological interpretation(Some) semantic and phonological interpretation(Some) semantic and phonological interpretation(Some) semantic and phonological interpretation
(Some) semantic and phonological interpretation
20
Going further back in time, recall the Aspects arguments against GTs.
The one based on non-occurring derivations turned out to miss the mark, as it was the cyclic principle, not recursion in the base that blocked those derivations.
The simplicity argument took for granted that PS rules exist, and that the Aspects modification thus reduced the class of basic operations from 3 to 2 (just singularyTs and PS rules).
But if there are no PS rules (as suggested by McCawley and again by Lasnikand Kupin) …
21
An early, or middle-aged, Minimalist model of structure building where everything is done by transformations.
GTs don’t just merge clausal structures with clausal structures, but even lexical items with lexical items. The derivation begins with a selection of lexical items (the ‘numeration’), which are then combined; these combinations are then combined with other lexical items or other combinations, and so on.
Meanwhile, interspersed with these instances of ‘external merge’ we also have ‘internal merge’, the classic singulary movement transformation. All theseoperations are constrained by some version of cyclicity (for example, alwaysmerge at the ‘root’ of the ‘tree’).
Eventually (the point of ‘spellout’), the derivation branches to PF and LF.
22
Numeration
Spellout
PF LF
23
There are, though, a number of reasons for thinking that Bresnan and Jackendoffwere fundamentally correct about the derivational nature of the interface relations. Among many examples, I could mention Barss (1986) on ‘reconstruction’ into intermediate psoitions; McCoskey (1991) and Torrego (1984) on intermediate footprints of wh-movement; Uriagereka (1999) on deriving certain island constraints; Fox and Pesetsky (2003) on forcing successive cyclic movement; and Merchant (2001), based on Perlmutter (1971), on distinctions between representational and derivational constraints.
Grafting Bresnan’s and Jackendoff’s ideas ideas onto the early minimalist model, we wind up with a ‘Mutiple Spellout’ (Uriagereka (1999)) or Derivation by Phase (Chomsky (2001)) picture.
24
Numeration
End of derivation
Semantic and phonological interpretationSemantic and phonological interpretationSemantic and phonological interpretationSemantic and phonological interpretationSemantic and phonological interpretation
25
What I find fascinating about all these developments is that the same ideas (and sometimes even arguments) keep coming back in slightly revised forms, and combining in slightly different ways. Does this mean these ideas must be right? Or is it just a poverty of imagination situation? I hope I’ll last long enough to find out. Maybe at the 100th anniversary?
B a rs s , A n d re w . 1 9 8 6 . C h a in s a n d a n a p h o r i c d e p e n d e n c e : O n r e c o n s tr u c tio n a n d itsim p lic a tio n s . D o c to ra l d is s er t a tio n , M IT , C a m b r id g e , M a ss .
B re s n a n , J o a n W . 1 9 7 1 . S e n te n ce s tr es s a n d s y n ta c tic tr a n s fo rm a tio n s . L a n g u a g e 4 7 : 2 5 7 -2 8 1 . C h o m sk y , N o a m . 1 9 5 5 . T h e lo g ic a l stru c tu re o f lin g u istic th e o ry . M s . H a rv a rd U n iv e r s it y ,
C a m b r id g e , M a ss . a n d M IT , C a m b r id g e, M a s s. , . [R e v is ed 1 9 5 6 v e r s io n p u b lis h e d in p a r t b yP le n u m , N ew Y o rk , 1 9 7 5 ; U n iv er s ity o f C h ic a g o P res s , C h ica g o , 1 9 8 5 ] .
C h o m sk y , N o a m . 1 9 6 5 . A s p e c ts o f t h e th e o r y o f s y n ta x . C a m b r id g e , M a s s. : M IT p re ss . C h o m sk y , N o a m . 2 0 0 1 . D e r iv a tio n b y p h a s e. In K e n H a le : A l ife in la n g u a g e , ed . M ic h a e l
K e n s to w ic z, 1 -5 2 . C a m b r id g e , M a ss . : M IT P res s. C h o m sk y , N o a m a n d M o r r is H a l le . 1 9 6 8 . T h e s o u n d p a tte r n o f E n g lis h . N ew Y o rk : H a rp e r a n d
R o w . C h o m sk y , N o a m , M o r r is H a lle a n d F red L u k o ff . 1 9 5 6 . O n a c ce n t a n d ju n c tu re in E n g lis h . In F o r
R o m a n J a k o b s o n , e d . M . H a lle , H . L u n t, a n d H . M a c L ea n , 6 5 -8 0 . T h e H a g u e : M o u to n &C o .
F illm o re , C h a r les J . 1 9 6 3 . T h e p o s itio n o f e m b ed d in g tr a n s fo rm a t io n s in a g ra m m a r . W o r d 1 9 : 2 0 8 -2 3 1 .
F o x , D a n n y a n d D a v id P es e tsk y . 2 0 0 3 . C y c lic lin e a r iz a tio n a n d th e t y p o lo g y o f m o v e m e n t. M s.M IT , C a m b r id g e, M a s s.
J a c k en d o ff, R a y . 1 9 6 9 . S o m e r u le s o f s e m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n fo r E n g lis h . D o cto ra l d is se r ta tio n ,M IT , C a m b r id g e, M a s s.
J a c k en d o ff, R a y . 1 9 7 2 . S e m a n tic in te r p r e ta tio n in g e n e r a t iv e g r a m m a r . C a m b r id g e , M a ss . : M ITP res s.
L a s n ik , H o w a rd a n d J o se p h J . K u p in . 1 9 7 7 . A re s tr ic t iv e th e o ry o f t r a n s fo rm a tio n a l g ra m m a r .T h e o r e t ic a l L in g u is t ic s 4 : 1 7 3 -1 9 6 . [R e p r in ted in E ss a y s o n r e str ic tiv e n e ss a n d le a rn a b lity ,H o w a rd L a s n ik , 1 7 -4 1 . D o rd re c h t: K lu w e r , 1 9 9 0 ]
M cC a w le y , J a m e s . 1 9 6 8 . C o n ce rn in g th e b a se c o m p o n e n t o f a tr a n s fo rm a tio n a l g ra m m a r .F o u n d a t io n s o f L a n g u a g e 4 : 2 4 3 -2 6 9 .
M cC lo sk e y , J a m e s . 1 9 9 1 . R e s u m p tiv e p ro n o u n s , A '-b in d in g , a n d le v e ls o f r ep res e n ta tio n in I r is h . InS y n ta x a n d S e m a n t ic s 2 3 : T h e S y n ta x o f th e M o d e r n C e ltic L a n g u a g e s , ed . R a n d a llH e n d r ic k , 1 9 9 -2 4 8 . N ew Y o rk : A c a d e m ic P res s.
M erc h a n t, J a so n . 2 0 0 1 . T h e s y n ta x o f s ile n c e : S lu ic in g , is la n d s , a n d t h e th e o r y o f e llip s i s . O x fo rd :O x fo rd U n iv e rs ity P re ss .
P er lm u tte r , D a v id . 1 9 7 1 . D e e p a n d s u r fa ce c o n s tr a in ts in s y n ta x . N e w Y o rk : H o lt, R in e h a r t a n dW in s to n .
T o r re g o , E s th e r . 1 9 8 4 . O n in v e r s io n in S p a n is h a n d s o m e o f its e ffe c ts. L in g u is tic In q u ir y 1 5 : 1 0 3 -1 2 9 .
U r ia g e rek a , J u a n . 1 9 9 9 . M u lt ip le s p e ll- o u t. In W o r k in g m in im a lis m , ed . S a m u e l D a v id E p s te in a n dN o rb e r t H o rn s te in , 2 5 1 -2 8 2 . C a m b r id g e , M a s s. : M IT P res s.
Recommended