Linguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

Lecture 3Lecture 3

MovementMovement

A brief history of movementA brief history of movement

• Movements as ‘special rules’ proposed to Movements as ‘special rules’ proposed to capture facts that phrase structure rules capture facts that phrase structure rules cannotcannot

• Movements catch on – anything you can do, Movements catch on – anything you can do, I can do better (with a movement)I can do better (with a movement)

• Too many movements – loss of explanationToo many movements – loss of explanation• Restrictions on movements – fewer Restrictions on movements – fewer

movements to account for the same amount movements to account for the same amount of linguistic phenomenaof linguistic phenomena

• Movements become more generalMovements become more general• There is only one movement: move There is only one movement: move

anything anywhereanything anywhere

Why do we need Why do we need transformations?transformations?• Q: what is the connection between the Q: what is the connection between the

following two structures?:following two structures?:

• A: nothingA: 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 Q: what is the connection between the following two structures?:following two structures?:

• A: quite a lotA: quite a lot

• But if all these structures are produced by But if all these structures are produced by the same kinds of rules (PS rules) they the same kinds of rules (PS rules) they should all be as unconnected as the first should all be as unconnected as the first twotwo

S

NP Aux VP

Mary was V

loved

S

NP VP

John V NP

loves Mary

• Therefore we need grammatical rules Therefore we need grammatical rules which are able to relate structures to which are able to relate structures to each othereach other

• A transformation takes a structure A transformation takes a structure and changes it to form another and changes it to form another structurestructure

• Thus transformations are capable of Thus transformations are capable of relating structuresrelating structures

• E.g. a ‘passive’ transformation could E.g. a ‘passive’ transformation could take a structure such as: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 passive structure is related to the active because it was formed the active because it was formed from itfrom it

S

NP Aux VP

Mary was V

loved

• A technical problem:A technical problem:– which structures are basic and which which structures are basic and which

are formed from transformations?are formed from transformations?

• There is no real reason to think of There is no real reason to think of any structure as more basic than any any structure as more basic than any otherother

• So the relation between structures So the relation between structures must be more indirectmust be more indirect

• Suppose all structures start off with a Suppose all structures start off with a more abstract underlying form which more abstract underlying form which is then ‘transformed’ into the is then ‘transformed’ into the structure we actually see:structure we actually see:

underlying formunderlying form

transformationstransformations

surface formsurface form

• Originally these were called Originally these were called Deep Deep StructureStructure and and Surface StructureSurface Structure

• We can relate different surface We can relate different surface structures by transforming them structures by transforming them from the same deep structures:from the same deep structures:

Deep Structure

active passivetransformations transformations

active passive Surface Structure Surface Structure

• This also allows us to capture certain This also allows us to capture certain ambiguities:ambiguities:

• Two Deep Structures could be Two Deep Structures could be operated on by different operated on by different transformations to produce the same transformations to produce the same Surface StructureSurface Structure

Deep Structure Deep Structure

transformations transformations

Surface Structure

• E.g.E.g.– the bomber’s destructionthe bomber’s destruction

•the bomber destroyed somethingthe bomber destroyed something

•something destroyed the bombersomething destroyed the bomber

the bomber destroyed --- --- destroyed the bomber

nominalisation nominalisation

destruction the bomber

movement

the bomber destruction

genitive insertion

the bomber’s destruction

Things go wild with Things go wild with transformations!transformations!• What you can do with a transformation:What you can do with a transformation:

– move things aboutmove things about– insert new thingsinsert new things– delete old thingsdelete old things– change structurechange structure

• So what can’t you do?So what can’t you do?– In principle, any two structures could be In principle, any two structures could be

relatedrelated

• Mathematically, a transformational Mathematically, a transformational grammar is equivalent to an grammar is equivalent to an Unrestricted Rewrite SystemUnrestricted Rewrite System– this is the most powerful kind of this is the most powerful kind of

grammar which can generate any kind grammar which can generate any kind of languageof language

– so we can’t use it to explain why human so we can’t use it to explain why human languages are as they arelanguages are as they are

• Transformations are specific to Transformations are specific to particular structures in particular particular structures in particular languages – the passive languages – the passive transformation for English is not the transformation for English is not the same as the passive transformation same as the passive transformation for Frenchfor French– so in principle languages could vary so in principle languages could vary

infinitelyinfinitely– this is the same as Linguistic Relativitythis is the same as Linguistic Relativity

• Children would have to learn the Children would have to learn the particulars of each transformation of particulars of each transformation of their languagetheir language– they must guess which transformations they must guess which transformations

are used from hearing surface formsare used from hearing surface forms– but if there is no limit to how a but if there is no limit to how a

transformation might be, this would be transformation might be, this would be impossible without direct instructionimpossible without direct instruction

– no one directly instructs children in no one directly instructs children in language learninglanguage learning

– so they shouldn’t be able to learn so they shouldn’t be able to learn languagelanguage

• Deletion transformations are Deletion transformations are particularly problematic:particularly problematic:– presumably, the hearers job is to presumably, the hearers job is to

recover the Deep Structure on hearing a recover the Deep Structure on hearing a surface formsurface form

– this would seem to involve applying this would seem to involve applying transformations backwards: putting transformations backwards: putting moved items into their original positions moved items into their original positions and getting rid of inserted materialand getting rid of inserted material

– but it would also involve the recovery of but it would also involve the recovery of deleted material, and it is not clear how deleted material, and it is not clear how that can be donethat can be done

• For example, suppose the underlying structure For example, suppose the underlying structure of a passive sentence were:of a passive sentence were:

• Applying the passive transformation we delete Applying the passive transformation we delete the subject, move the object and insert auxiliary the subject, move the object and insert auxiliary and morpheme to get:and morpheme to get:– Mary was lovedMary was loved

• It is easy to see how we can move the subject It is easy to see how we can move the subject back into object position and remove the back into object position and remove the auxiliary and morpheme, but how do we know to auxiliary and morpheme, but how do we know to insert ‘John’?insert ‘John’?

S

NP VP

John V NP

loves Mary

• We might say that we do not need to We might say that we do not need to recover the exact element that was recover the exact element that was deleted as this was something like deleted as this was something like ‘someone’‘someone’

• But in other cases, this is not how we But in other cases, this is not how we recover missing information:recover missing information:– John wants to go to the party but Mary doesn’tJohn wants to go to the party but Mary doesn’t

•want to go to the partywant to go to the party

• * do something* do something

S

NP VP

someone V NP

loves Mary

What syntacticians did nextWhat syntacticians did next

• The solution to all these problems was The solution to all these problems was to impose restrictions on to impose restrictions on transformationstransformations– the emphasis turned from what could be the emphasis turned from what could be

done with transformations to what they done with transformations to what they couldn’t docouldn’t do

– for example, given that deletion causes so for example, given that deletion causes so many problems, it was suggested that we many problems, it was suggested that we should not make use of deletion rulesshould not make use of deletion rules

transformations + transformations + restrictions = generalisationrestrictions = generalisation• Restricting transformations meant that Restricting transformations meant that

more phenomena had to be handled more phenomena had to be handled with less grammatical deviceswith less grammatical devices

• So the remaining grammatical devices So the remaining grammatical devices had to be more general than previouslyhad to be more general than previously

• A good example of how restrictions lead A good example of how restrictions lead to generalisation is the passiveto generalisation is the passive

Having got rid of deletion, the D-Having got rid of deletion, the D-structure for the passive could no structure for the passive could no longer be claimed to be the same as longer be claimed to be the same as for the active as passives appear to for the active as passives appear to have no underlying subjects:have no underlying subjects:

• Active D-structureActive D-structure– SS

NP Aux VP NP Aux VP

John may V NPJohn may V NP

see Mary see Mary

• Passive D-structurePassive D-structure– SS

NP Aux VPNP Aux VP

--- may be V NP--- may be V NP

seen Mary seen Mary

• The active and passive are still The active and passive are still related by what they share in related by what they share in common: ‘Mary’ is the object of ‘love’common: ‘Mary’ is the object of ‘love’

• The only transformation needed now The only transformation needed now is to move the object to subject is to move the object to subject positionposition• Passive S-structurePassive S-structure

– SS

NP Aux VP NP Aux VP

Mary may be V NPMary may be V NP

seen seen

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

the empty subject positionthe empty subject position

• However, there are passives which However, there are passives which do not involve the movement of an do not involve the movement of an object:object:– John believed [Mary to be nice]John believed [Mary to be nice]– Mary was believed [--- to be nice]Mary was believed [--- to be nice]

• So we should not restrict the moved So we should not restrict the moved NP to the object position:NP to the object position:– Move an NP into the empty subject Move an NP into the empty subject

position of a passive verbposition of a passive verb

• This seems too general as not all NPs This seems too general as not all NPs can move to this position:can move to this position:– John believes [Mary is nice]John believes [Mary is nice]– * Mary was believed [--- is nice]* Mary was believed [--- is nice]

• However, it seems that no NP can However, it seems that no NP can move out of a finite clause, so this is move out of a finite clause, so this is an independent restriction:an independent restriction:– it seems [Mary is nice]it seems [Mary is nice]– Mary seems [--- to be nice]Mary seems [--- to be nice]– * Mary seems [ --- is nice]* Mary seems [ --- is nice]

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

– --- seems [Mary to be nice]--- seems [Mary to be nice]– Mary seems [--- to be nice]Mary seems [--- to be nice]

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

positionposition

• However:However:– the fact that the subject position has to the fact that the subject position has to

be vacant follows from general principles:be vacant follows from general principles:•one position cannot be filled by two elementsone position cannot be filled by two elements

•deletion is not alloweddeletion is not allowed

– the fact that the NP must move to a the fact that the NP must move to a subject position also follows from general subject position also follows from general principles:principles:•the subject position has to be filled by the subject position has to be filled by

something in all sentences:something in all sentences:– it seems [Mary is nice]it seems [Mary is nice]– * seems [Mary is nice]* seems [Mary is nice]

•this is not true of object position:this is not true of object position:– Mary smiledMary smiled– * Mary smiled it* Mary smiled it

• We can therefore generalise our rule We can therefore generalise our rule to:to:– Move an NPMove an NP

• In other words, this simply states In other words, this simply states that it is possible for NPs to movethat it is possible for NPs to move

• The details of actual movements fall The details of actual movements fall out from general principlesout from general principles

• There is no time to demonstrate it, There is no time to demonstrate it, but the same generalisation but the same generalisation happened to all other movementshappened to all other movements

• In the end, all we needed was one In the end, all we needed was one movement rule:movement rule:– move anything anywheremove anything anywhere

• This is not as chaotic as it soundsThis is not as chaotic as it sounds– it is a statement that movements are it is a statement that movements are

possiblepossible– the details of actual movements all fall the details of actual movements all fall

out from general principles independent out from general principles independent of the movements themselvesof the movements themselves