1 / 32

Advanced Syntax

Lecture 2: Constraints on Movement. Advanced Syntax. Formal movement rules (called Transformations) were first introduced in the late 1950s During the 1960s a lot of work was done to see what could be achieved by using transformations

brady-adkins
Download Presentation

Advanced Syntax

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lecture 2: Constraints on Movement Advanced Syntax

  2. Formal movement rules (called Transformations) were first introduced in the late 1950s • During the 1960s a lot of work was done to see what could be achieved by using transformations • Enthusiastic linguists used transformations to describe phenomena in: • Syntax MorphologySemantics PragmaticsStylistics PoeticsLiterary Analysis • By the end of the 1960s it was clear that you could do anything with a transformation! The Need to constrain movement

  3. If transformations can do anything: • they can describe everything • but explain nothing • Suppose we observe some phrase X moving from position Y to position Z • Can we describe this? • Of course – transformations can describe anything • Can we explain why it happens? • NO! – Anything could have happened The Need to constrain movement

  4. It therefore became clear that transformations were too powerful At the same time linguists didn’t want to get rid of transformations altogether The only way forward was to maintain transformations but attempt to limit their power There must be things that you can’t do with a transformation The Need to constrain movement

  5. The first observation of situations in which things couldn’t move concerned examples such as: • The train [VP came [PP out [PP from [DP Paris]]]] • [PP out from where]1 did the train [VP come t1 ] • [DP where]1 did the train come out [PP from t1 ] • * [ from where]1 did the train come [PP out t1 ] • So: • A PP can move out of a VP • A DP can move out of a PP • But a PP cannot move out of a PP Impossible movements

  6. Similarly: • They [VP liked [DP [DP John]’s picture]] • [DP whose picture]1 did they [VP like t1 ] • * [DP whose]1 did they like [DP t1 picture] • So: • A DP can move out of a VP • But a DP cannot move out of a DP Impossible movements

  7. Similarly: • They [VP made [VP the ice melt]] • I thought they would make the ice melt and [VP make the ice melt]1 [IP they did t1 ] * [VP the ice melt]1 they [VP made t1 ] • So: • A VP can move out of an IP • But a VP cannot move out of a VP Impossible movements

  8. It looks as though the movement of a phrase cannot be out of a phrase of the same category • An XP cannot move out of an XP The a-over-a principle

  9. There are cases where a phrase can move out of a phrase of the same category: • He painted [DP a picture of [DP a lake]] • [DP what]1 did he paint [DP a picture of t1 ] • A DP can move out of a DP The a-over-a principle is too strong

  10. Sometimes an XP cannot move out of a YP, where XP and YP are not the same category • John knows [DP the woman you sold [DP your car] to] • John likes [DP the car you sold [PP to Mary]] • * [DP Which car]1 does John know [DP the woman you sold t1 to] • * [PP to whom]1 does John like [DP the car you sold t1 ] The a-over-a principle is too weak

  11. Ross (1967) identified a number of constituents from which he claimed it was impossible to move anything He called these constituents ‘Islands’ Ross’s islands

  12. No phrase can be moved out of a clause that begins with a wh-element • Who1 can you guess [that Mary likes t1] • * Who1 can you guess [why Mary likes t1] • This constraint also covers relative clauses as they begin with a wh-element • We like the present [CP (which) Mary gave to Bill] • * who1 do we like the present [CP Mary gave to t1 ] The wh-island

  13. No phrase can be moved out of a clause which is contained inside a DP (also covers relative clauses!) • He denied [DP the allegation [CP that he murdered his wife]] • * Who1 did he deny [DP the allegation [CP that he murdered t1 ]] The complex DP island

  14. No phrase can be moved out of a CP that is the subject of another clause • [CP that he hid the drugs] was proof of his guilt • * what1 was [CP that he hid t1 ] proof of his guilt The sentential subject island

  15. No phrase can move out of a phrase that is coordinated: • John [VP likes beer] but [VP hates wine] • * what1 does John [VP like t1 ] but [VP hates wine] • * what1 does John [VP like beer] but [VP hates t1 ] The coordinated structure island

  16. Islands constrain transformations and so increase their explanatory power • But what explains Islands? • Why are wh-clauses, complex DPs, sentential subjects and coordinated constituents Islands? • Just proposing that there are Islands does not give any clues to why there are islands or what constituents will be islands The problem with islands

  17. In response to this problem, Chomsky (1973) proposed one general restriction on movement This restriction predicted most of the Islands and so offered an explanation for why certain constructions are Islands Subjacency

  18. Subjacency works on the assumption that certain categories are hurdles that have to be jumped over by moving phrases • These hurdles were called Bounding Nodes • In English: • IP and DP are bounding nodes Bounding nodes

  19. No single movement can cross more than one bounding node The principle of subjacency

  20. Consider the following • Who1 did [IP you think [IP Mary thought [IP Bill liked t1]]] • It appears that three bounding nodes (IPs) are crossed by the wh-element • But, if we assume: • the wh-element doesn’t move in one go • it moves to each vacant specifier of CP in turn • then each movement crosses only one IP • Who1 did [IP you think [CP t1 [IP Mary thought [CP t1 [IP Bill liked t1]] How to achieve long distance movement without violating subjacency

  21. The wh-Island • Who1 can [IP you guess [CP why [IP Mary likes t1] • Movement to the first CP specifier is blocked by the wh-element why • So only long distance movement is possible • This crosses two bounding nodes • So it violates subjacency How subjancency accounts for Islands

  22. The complex DP Island • Who1 did [IP he deny [DP the allegation [CP t1 that [IP he murdered t1 ]]] • The first movement is fine as it only crosses one bounding node • The second movement however crosses both DP and IP and so violates subjacency How subjancency accounts for Islands

  23. Head movements are always short They never cross clause boundaries Therefore they never get anywhere near violating subjacency So what makes sure they are short? The head movement constraint

  24. V can move to I • John love1-s [VP Mary t1] • I can move to C • can1 [IP you t1 make the tea] • V cannot move directly to C • * make1 [IP you can [VP the tea t1]] • V can move to C only if it first moves to I • [CP who2 made1 [IP t2 t1 [VP the tea t1 ]]] Head movement: the facts

  25. In other words: • Heads must move to the their closest head position Head movement: the facts

  26. Subjacency constrains phrase movement The head movement constraint constrains head movement But both constraints prevent long distance movement The connection between head movement and phrase movement

  27. A wh-phrase can move to the specifier of CP • [CP who1 did [IP you see t1]] • It cannot move to the CP more than one clause away: • * [CP who1 did they ask [CP why [IP you can’t see t1]]] • The only way a wh-phrase can get to the higher CP is if it goes through the lower CP: • [CP who1 did they think [CP t1 [IP you can see t1 ]] A new look at wh-movment constraints

  28. In other words: • A wh-phrase must move to its closest CP specifier • This is very similar to the head movement constraint A new look at wh-movment constraints

  29. A DP can move to the specifier of its own clause (subject) • [IP he1 was [VP seen t1]] • It cannot move directly to the subject position of the next clause up: • * [IP he1 seems [IP it was [VP seen t1]]] • The only way it can get to this position is by going through the lower subject position: • [IP he1 seems [IP t1 to have been [VP seen t1]]] DP movement

  30. In other words: • A DP must move to its nearest subject position • Again, this is similar to the head movement constraint DP movement

  31. It seems that there is one main restriction on all movements: • Movements must be as short as possible • But what is ‘possible’ for a movement depends on what is moving: • A head can only move to a head position • A wh-phrase can only move to a specifier of CP • A DP can only move to a specifier of IP (subject) • Thus the constraint is: • An element must move to its nearest relevant position RelativisedMinimality

  32. Constraints have developed from specific to general ideas • A-over-A and Islands • specific constructions are barriers to movement • Subjacency • specific nodes in a structure are barriers • RelativisedMinimality • all movements are short Conclusion Constraints

More Related