Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FOREWORD
The present course aims at providing further knowledge and insight into the syntax of contemporary English language by focusing on the second level of syntactic description, namely the transformational level. The main envisaged objectives are: a. to revise basic concepts used within the general framework of Transformational Generative Grammar. b. to revise knowledge concerning the constituent structure of the English sentence. c. to introduce, discuss and illustrate the concepts which are held responsible for such syntactic phenomena as movement operations within transformations. d. to analyze the basic types of transformations undergone by the English sentence. These aims are to be achieved by both studying the theoretical part of each and every chapter and by doing the practical applications as suggested by the exercises.
-2-
Contents
Chapter 1.The Transformational Level 1.1. Basic Concepts 1.2. Exercises Chapter 2. Basic Elementary Operations 2.1. Deletions 2.1.1. Constant Deletion 2.1.2. Identity Deletion 2.1.3. Gapping 2.1.4. Equi-NPDeletion. Control Constructions 2.1.5. Subcategorization of Control Verbs 2.1.6. Exercises 2.2. Insertions 2.2.1. Exercises 2.3. Substitutions 2.3.1. Exercises 2.4. Adjunctions 2.4.1. Exercises Chapter 3. Movement Rules 3.1. Raising 3.1.1. Subject-to- Subject Raising 3.1.2. Exercises 3.2. Subject to Object Raising 3.2.1. Exercises 3.3. Cleft- Constructions 3.3.1. Exercises Glossary of Terms References 4 4 6 7 7 7 8 8 10 11 15 15 17 17 19 19 21 22 22 22 24 24 28 28 29 30 31
-3-
PM1 NP1
S VP Aux
S VP Aux T V MV NP2 PP P NP
They 1
-ed 2
paint 3
by by
them 1
Figure 1. 2. The passive transformation illustrated above can be formulated in terms of Aspects-style as seen in Figure 1.3. T-passive NP1 SD 1 SC 4 Aux V NP2 2 3 4 2+be 3+ed by+1 Figure1. 3. The general property of transformations is that they are meaningpreserving i.e. the deep structure and the surface structure of a sentence are semantically equivalent irrespective of the operations performed. In this respect the meaning of 1.a, an active sentence, has not been changed by applying the passive transformation identified in 1.b. The difference is only formal, involving the movement of the NP occupying the place of the direct object in 1b to that of subject in 1a. The empty place is symbolized by in PM2 and the agent is introduced by the preposition by. In order to both revise previously acquired knowledge and understand new concepts and phenomena we have resorted to a synthesis made by Chomsky in connection to the theory of transformational generative grammar : [] a general theory of linguistic levels is developed in an abstract and uniform way, with phrase structure and transformations each constituting a linguistic level. On each level markers are constructed that represent a sentence. In particular, derived phrase-markers and T-markers fill this function on the phrase-structure and transformational levels, respectively. Each level is a system of representation in terms of certain primes (elementary atomic symbols of this level On the level of phrasestructure, the primes are category and terminal symbols. On the level of transformations, the primes are base phrase markers and transformations. A marker is a string of primes or a set of such strings. Both phrase-markers and transformation-markers can be represented in this way. Levels are organized in a hierarchy , and we may think of the markers of each level as being mapped into the markers of the next lowest level and as representing the lowest level marker ( that is, the phonetic representation [] ),which is associated directly with an actual signal [] (1969: 54).
-5-
After clarifying upon the two levels of syntactic description we again resort to Chomsky in order to underline the role played by the transformational rules in relating the dualistic concepts , deep structure and surface structure : The general requirement on a syntactic theory is that it define the notions deep structure and surface structure, representing the inputs to the semantic and phonological components of a grammar , respectively [], and state precisely how a syntactic description consisting of a deep and surface structure is generated by the syntactic rules. These requirements are met by the theory outlined above in the following way. [] We take a T-marker to be the deep structure; we take the derived phrase marker that is the final output of the operations represented in the T-marker to be the surface structure. (1969:59). The theoretical considerations outlined above are supported by a series of exercises meant to increase students awareness of the most important concepts used in transformational generative grammar.
1.2. Exercises
1. Explain what a PM is and give examples of your own. 2. Specify if true or false: a. Deep Structure is the syntactic level upon which meaning is determined. b. Surface Structure changes the form of the sentence. 3. Draw up the phrase-structure trees for the following sentences and discuss upon the constituents structure. a. The blaze of light on her heart was too beautiful and dazzling. b. But the summer drifted in with the silence of a miracle, she was almost always alone. c. The Brangwens received a fair some of money from this trespass across their land. d. The house stood bare from the road approached by a straight garden path. e. His life was shifting its centre becoming more superficial. 4. Apply T-passive to the following sentences by following the model given in Figure 1.2. a. And he closed the door behind her. b. Wendy and Michael fitted their trees at the first try. c. She tied the unhappy dog up again. d. They just tweaked Peters nose and passed on. e. The children had discovered the glittering hoard.
-6-
2.1. Deletions
Deletions eliminate a constituent of an input PM which must specify the elements to be deleted, while its effects must be clearly indicated in the output PM. All deletions must be recoverable, i.e. if something is deleted from a sequence it always has to be possible to tell what that something was: Deletion is a structure-destroying operation subject to a recoverability condition, which prohibits the elimination of information from a phrase marker that cannot be reconstructed from what remains after the operation .(Freidin, in Brown & Miller, 2005: 122). Depending upon the approach, we can speak of several types of deletions: constant deletion, identity deletion, equi- NP deletion.
-7-
T => Imp-deletion
S NP Pro VP V run
Figure 2.1. Imperative construction is a coding property, universally targeting subjects. In this construction the second person subject is interpreted as the addressee in a speech-act (SA) indexing a declarative affirmative sentence as represented in the PMs in Figure 2.1. The element PRO is omitted under constant deletion.
2.1.3. Gapping
If the deleted constituents are not recoverable, there would come out a change of meaning with the violation of the recoverability condition as exemplified in (3). (3).a. Mary watered the flowers and John watered the drinks. b. Mary watered the flowers and John the drinks. The simple reading of sentence 3a proves the violation of the recoverability condition by a disregard of selectional restrictions rules. The meaning of
-8-
water in the second clause i.e. to dilute is different from its meaning in the first clause which is to nourish and the deletion operated in 3b brings about a humorous effect. This type of deletion has been called gapping. Such contexts as provided by the sentences under (3) and (4) can first elude the listener into a perfect understanding of the message, followed by an immediate non-understanding transposed into amazement and laughter : (4) a. Mr Brown took his hat and his leave. b. All the girls were in tears and in muslin. c. He was in high feather and spirits. d. The young lady went straight home in a roar of laughter and a sedan chair. Gapping is a sentence-bound ellipsis and its functional province is the interface between the syntax, semantics and the information structure of ellipsis. As a syntactic phenomenon gapping was first proposed by Ross (1967 b) with reference to the Complex NP - Constraint and Coordinate Structure Constraint and it has been succeedingly treated under various headings: VP Anaphora( Jackendoff, 1972 ); Derived Conjunction ( Stockwell, Schachter, Partee, 1973 ); Deletion ( Sag, 1977; Tancredi, 1992); Coreference and the Complement System (Jackendoff, 1972, Reinhart, 1983 ); Coordination (Cornilescu, 1986); the Phonological Deletion Account ( Chomsky, 1995); Ellipsis ( Radford, 1992; Hardt, 1993; Lobeck, 1995; Johnson, 2001; Winkler, in Brown, 2006). The characteristic feature of gapping is the parallelism requirement ((Winkler, 2006) according to which it must occur in coordinate structures and trigger a contrastive relationship between the remnants and their antecedents, as seen under (5): (5) Doris speaks German and Ann [VP [v speaks ] Japanese]. Violation of this requirement leads to anomalous sentences as shown under (3) and (4), thus creating puns. As a semantic phenomenon gapping focuses on selectional restrictions imposed upon by the semantics of the verb in the first conjunct of the examples under (4): a. take b. be c. be d. go. The verbs quoted operate at the level of the sentence both as single word forms and as multi-word forms as represented under (6): (6) - single verb form + D.O. => denotative meaning a. first conjunct : took his hat - single verb form + Adjunct => denotative meaning b. second conjunct : (were) in white muslin. c. (went straight home in ) a sedan chair - multi-word form => figurative meaning b. first conjunct : were in tears => sad/depressed c. first conjunct : was in high feather => elegantly dressed second conjunct : (was in high) spirits => very energetic and joyful d. first conjunct : went straight home in a roar of laughter => highly amused Violation of the selectional restrictions concerning the matching of the semantic features [ abstract ], [ concrete ] of the verb and its modifiers leads to obtaining humorous effects as previously demonstrated.
-9-
In what concerns infinitival complementation he distinguishes between intransitive and transitive VP-COMP as shown by the derivational trees in (3) a,b as reproduced from Stockwell, Schachter, Partee (1973:54): (3) a. Intransitive VP-Complementation e.g. The doctor condescended to examine John. b) Transitive VP-Complementation e.g. They commanded the doctor to examine John.
S NP AUX PRED
VP
ADV
NP
. In both cases the NP subject of the infinitival complement has been deleted on (4) co-referentiality condition (4): a.[S[NP1Thedoctor][VP[V condescended][S [NP1 the doctor][VP to examine John]]]]
NP1 T-Deletion
- 10 -
= > [S[NP1The doctor][VP[V condescended][S [NP1O][VP to examine John]]]] b. [S [NP1They][VP[Vcommanded][NP2the doctor][S [NP2 the doctor] [VP to examine John]]]]
NP2 T-Deletion
=> [S [NP1 They][VP [V commanded][S [NP2the doctor][s[ NP2[ VP to examine John]]]] Stockwell, Schachter, Partee emphasize the role played by the recoverability principle in the case of NP deletion in sentential complements as one way of avoiding sentence ambiguity: It is a general principle of transformational theory that deletions in the course of a derivation must be recoverable. Otherwise an ambiguous sentence whose derivation included a deletion could have an infinite number of different sources. The kind of deletion that commonly occurs in complement structures is erasure under an identity condition: e.g. for a whole host of reasons the deep structure of a sentence like He tried to leave is assumed to contain two occurrences of the subject he: He tried + He AUX leave. The subject of the embedded sentence is erased by the higher identical subject in this instance (1973:533) In later approaches, this transformation was eliminated and referred to as control sentences. In GB Theory, the missing subject is analysed as PRO. Thus, it was Chomsky 1973 who replaced EQUI by PRO, a null pronominal generated as the subject of the infinitival complement clause in the underlying structure and interpreted by co-indexation with the controller in the matrix clause as seen in the examples under (5): (5) a. the childreni tried [PROi to solve the exercise] b. the guide persuaded the touristsi [PROi to greet the welcomers] The NP Subject in (5)a or the NP Direct Object in (5)b is said to control the PROi in the infinitival clause thus establishing a causal relationship between controller and controlled in performing the action, type of relationship much discussed in the literature, both along syntactic and semantic coordinates .
(1) a. controlling |vs| controlled items/positions in a sentence b. the nature of the relation holding between PRO and its controller c.control typology d. control verbs subcategorization Both former and present approaches to control theory debate over control verb typology (Chomsky and Lasnik ,1977; Bresnan ,1978; Chomsky ,1980; Cornilescu ,1986, 2003; Farkas ,1988; Dubinsky and Davies, 2006, among others) distinguishing between verbs of obligatory control and verbs of nonobligatory control. Further subcategories are schematized in Cornilescu . Control
Obligatory Non-obligatory (Optional)
Exhaustive
Partial
Long Distance
Arbitrary
Figure 2. The dichotomy between obligatory and non-obligatory or optional control can be retrieved by analyzing the selective verb subcategorization in (3) where we focus both on the type of controller i.e. subject or object and on whether coreference between controller and PRO is obligatory or optional. Table 2.1.
Verb wait pray hope decide try learn condescend permit persuade force promise agree (with NP) learn (from NP) get bother Controller Subject Object + + + + + + + + + + +/+ + + +/+ Control Obligatory Optional + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Contextualization e.g. Im waiting to use the phone / for John to come. e.g. The old man prayed to leave / for John to come. e.g. I hope to come / for Mary to come. e.g. They decided to move out / we should stay. e.g. Mary tried to open the door (but she couldnt). e.g. The little girl learnt to ski very quickly. e.g. The lawyer condescended to listen to his client. e.g. John permitted Bill to come. e.g. Mother persuaded her child to have some rest. e.g. The commander forced his troops to march on. e.g. They promised to fetch the car back. e.g. Mary agreed to write back / with John to write back. e.g. They learnt to skate / from Bill to skate. e.g. The teacher got to leave / the students to leave. e.g. (For Bill) To leave so early would bother everybody.
In the table, optional control is assigned to such verbs as wait , pray, hope, decide, and bother indicating non-obligatory co-reference between NP
- 12 -
matrix controller and the infinitival PRO, phenomenon realized at the syntactic level by the use of the for-to construction or the subjunctive with that-deletion. Obligatory control is assigned to such verbs as try, condescend, permit, persuade, force, and get emphasizing the matrix NP controllers full authority over the infinitival PRO (i.e. absolute co-reference). Control verb subcategorization can be achieved on the basis of the semantics of the matrix verb, the syntactic function of the infinitive clause and the pragmatic information being centered on shift in authority. Consider the sentences in (4): (4) a. Mr. Brown intends to withdraw from the race. b. I decided to move house. c. They planned to take a trip to Cyprus. d. The boy tried to climb up the tree. e. She hopes to get much more money. f. He hates to stay indoors for a longer period of time. An interpretation in terms of semantic roles will lead to the argument structure of affected and an S-theme where a situation or event, actual or potential starts from, and further impinges on some entity as represented in (5): intend/decide/plan/try/hope/hate
affected Mr. Brown I They Boy She He agent Mr. Brown I They Boy She He
One group of control verbs that can particularly fulfill the conditions specified above is the class of attitudinal predicates which are discussed in Dima (2003a:78-84). We suggest subclasses of attitudinal predicates / VPs whose head allows either obligatory (OC) or optional control (OpC) .The verbs tabulated in (7) enter control constructions having the surface string NP-V-(-NP)-to-VP and can be assigned the prototypical argument structure given in (6) and contextualized in (4) above. (6)
Verb affected S-theme
agent
predicate
- 13 -
(7)
Attitudinal Predicates / VPs[V] Prospective Intent aim->OC mean->OC Decision choose->OpC determine-OpC elect->OpC Preparation plan->OpC prepare-OpC arrange-OpC Attempt attempt->OC try->OC strive->OC seek->OC endeavour->OC undertake->OC venture->OC Attitudinal Predicates / VPs[V] Neutral Liking Disliking like->OC dislike->OC love->OC prefer->OC hate->OC detest->OC Reliance on another count on- >OpC depend on->OpC rely-on->OpC Desire/ lack of desire want->OC wish->OpC desire->OpC expect-OpC hope->OPC
intend->OC decide->OpC
Table 2.2. The argument structure suggested here pushes the analysis to a more abstract level of message decoding. The NP controller has undergone a shift in authority by having been attributed the role of affected due to some favorable or unfavorable circumstances pertaining to the event or situation denoted by the predication in the S-theme. Our proposal does not in any way contradicts Agent-PRO co-referentiality typical of controllability, but it is rather another contribution to the subject. Either prospective, dealing with proceedings to perform future actions of the type intent, decision, preparation, attempt, reliance on another, desire or lack of desire, or neutral, expressing subjective evaluation of actions to perform, the semantics of attitudinal verbs as a subcategory of English control verbs can be developed on both coordinates.
- 14 -
2.1.6. Exercises
1.Define deletion and exemplify cases of deletion. 2 .Identify the type of deletion in the following sentences: a. Mary planted roses and Jessica forget-me-nots. b. The children wrote letters and their parents invitations. c. I have read all morning. d. She said she would come later. e. They tried to open the door. 3. Describe the changes in meaning due to gapping: a. Disco was working in all his shore dignity and a pair of beautiful carpet slippers. b. The fat boy went into the next room ; and having been absent about a minute , returned with the snuff-box and the palest face that ever a fat boy wore. c. A young girl who had a yellow smock and a cold in the head that did not go on too well together, was helping an old lady. d. Mr. Smangle was still engaged in relating a long story , the chief point of which appeared that , on some occasion particularly stated and set forth , he had done a bill and a gentleman at the same time. e. Sophia lay between blankets in the room overhead with a feverish cold. This cold and her new dress were Mrs. Baines sole consolation at the moment. 4. Define PRO and the phenomenon of control by resorting to the information contained within the course. 5. Comment upon control typology in the following contextualizations: a. Shes waiting to take a cab / for the cab to co.me. b. The commander condescended to listen to his troops demands. c. The little child tried to climb up the tree (but he couldnt). d. The old woman prayed to be healthy / for her relatives to take care of her. t e. The committee agreed to change the regulations / with the president to change the regulations.
2.2. Insertions
Insertions are syntactic operations which introduce a new structural element to the input PM without any change in meaning, since transformations are meaning-preserving. It follows that the only type of element that can be inserted by a T-rule is a meaningless one. Specific types of insertion are: do-insertion, negative-insertion, there-insertion, lexical insertion (which inserts lexical items at particular places in grammatical structures) as exemplified in paired-sentences under (1). (1). a. They go skiing every winter. a. Do they go skiing every winter? b. She will come early tonight. b. She will not come early tonight. c. A cat was in the box.
- 15 -
c There was a cat in the box. d. Bill grows carrots. d. Bill grows tired. The pairedsentence 1c is an example of there-insertion and it is described in Figure 2.2. PM1 NP Det N Aux S VP MV V PM2 NP-Movement NP PP Aux V Det A cat -ed T-There-insertion be in the box -ed be S VP MV NP N PP
PM3 NP
In order to get there insertion, NP movement has become obligatory, by moving the NP a cat from its initial position to a lower position under the VP. There -insertion has been applied by filling up the empty place under the initial NP in PM2.Insertion rules are ordinarily obligatory rules.
- 16 -
2.2.1. Exercises
1. Define insertion and illustrate its typology. 2. Identify cases of insertion in the following sentences. Represent them by using derivational PMs. a. There was a turkey in the courtyard. b. You are not proud of yourself. c. Do you like sending postcards? d. That I had lost the ticket offended Jessica.
2.3. Substitutions
.Since no T-rule is allowed to change meaning, substitution rules can only replace an element with one having an identical meaning : Substitution is a structure-preserving operation which replaces one category( phrasal projection or head ) with a corresponding category under a condition of non -distinctness that essentially prohibits the operation from eliminating information from the phrase marker to which it applies. (Freidin in Brown, 2005: 122). Substitution is at the base of various types of movement transformations out of which we here specify : V-movement which moves V out of VP into an empty finite I ; I movement which moves an I containing an Auxiliary into an empty C; NP movement which moves an NP into an empty NP position , etc. In this chapter we shall treat substitution only from the classical TG point of view, anticipating the discussion in the next chapter. In classical transformational grammar, substitution rules are pronominalization rules which replace a lexical NP with a pronoun , since only pronouns can meet this criterion (that is, you cannot use a substitution rule to substitute unmarried woman for spinster. The meanings are very close, but not identical). PRONOMINALIZATION can be best described as a feature-matching operation, which substitutes one of a set of forms called pronouns for NPs with identical features. So, if you have two instances of John in a sentence, you may substitute he for one of them because both John and he have the features contained in the matrix under (1) : (1) + male + singular + human + subject
This process will derive sentence 2b from 2a as represented in Figure 2.3. (2) a. Johni said that Johni was sick. b. John said that he was sick. Remark:: [i, j] are called subscripts: when two instances of John in some sentence are marked Johni and Johnj they refer to some individual; if marked Johni and Johnj do not refer to the same individual, but to John Smith and John Jones, etc.]
- 17 -
S NPi N John V said NPi N he Figure 2.3. The rule of PRONOMINALIZATION operates in English under strict constraints. From a practical point of view, the rules must operate from left to right, so that the derivation shown in sentence (3) is allowed, but that in (4) is forbidden. Sentence (4) b cannot be derived from (4) a. (3) a. Maryi reported that Maryi had lost the ball b. Mary reported that she had lost the ball. (4) a. Maryi reported that Maryj has lost the ball. b. *She reported that Mary had lost the ball. In another example e.g. She said that Mary was sick the words she and Mary have to refer to different individuals. In Mary said that she was sick, on the other hand, Mary and she may be the same individual, although they do not have to be. Some substitution rules are special cases of PRONOMINALIZATION. We here mention the REFLEXIVE rule which introduces reflexive pronouns Into sentences by changing the syntactic feature on the object personal pronoun from [- reflexive ] to [+reflexive] when it is co-referential with the subject. As an illustration consider the derivation under (5) and its treerepresentation in Figure 2.4. (5) a. John shaved him. b. John shaved himself. S NPi VP John was sick VP NP S VP
NP
himself
Figure 2.4. Another substitution rule is that of do-so pronominalisation which derives example (7) from (6). (6) John picked up the ball and Mary picked up the ball, too. (7) John picked up the ball and Mary did so, too.. In GOVERNMENT-BINDING theory NP- traces, PRO and reflexives are base-generated anaphors, a class of NPs.
2.3.1. Exercises
1. Define substitution. Give examples. 2. Explain why pronominalization can be described as a feature-matching operation. 3. Make changes so that the following sentences should contain cases of substitution. a. Mary claimed that Susan had fooled her. b. Tom saw Lily in the mirror. c. Leslie talked about her mother. d. Brenda said that she was in the blues. e. Paul read a book and his daughter read a book, too.
2.4. Adjunctions
Adjunctions are basic syntactic operations referring to a rule which places certain elements of structure in adjacent positions, with the aim of specifying how these structures fit together in larger units (Crystal, 1995). In other words, adjunction involves the moved category replacing an empty category of the same kind in accordance with the STRUCTUREPRESERVING CONSTRAINT imposing the condition that a constituent can be moved only into another category of the same structural type, which has been independently generated. According to Freidin: Adjunction is a structure- building operation [ ] it creates new hierarchical structure in a phrase marker . (in Brown, 2005: 122). Adjunctions have several sub-directives indicating the placement of the adjoined term. In classical TG, several types of adjunctions were recognized: sister-adjunction, daughter-adjunction, Chomskys adjunction . Daughter-adjunction is a type of derivation whereby some constituent is adjoined in such a way as to become a daughter of another constituent, e.g. in one derivation of the VP, be and its past participle marker are adjoined as daughters of Aux ( auxiliary ) ( see Figure 2.5) Sister-adjunction is a type of adjunction in Generative Grammar in which two elements are adjoined under a node as sister constituents of the node (see Figure 2.5.). Chomskys adjunction is a special type of adjunction which involves a copying of the node to which another node is being adjoined, i.e. Chomskyadjoin B as right daughter of A (see Figure 2.5.)
- 19 -
S A G D H C B K A G H A
S C B K D H B K
Figure 2.5. The Aspects-rule which we have used to represent the passive transformation in Chapter 1 is now useful in formalizing adjunction: (1) SD: NP1 Aux V NP2 SC: NP2 Aux+ be +en V- by + NP1 The relative positions of the two NPs are interchanged , the morpheme by is adjoined to the left of NP1 in its new position and the morphemes be and en are adjoined to the right of Aux : by is linked to the agent complement NP(the former subject) by a copy of the NP being made on the level above the original NP, which copy dominates both by and the agent and is sisteradjoined to the VP. Another illustration of Chomskys adjunction is provided by the contexts under (2) and the representation of the derivation in Figure 2.6. (2) a. Boys come with flowers. b. Boys with flowers come with flowers
S NP N V P Boys come with VP PP NP flowers Chomskys Adjunction NP N Boys P with NP PP NP V P S VP PP NP flowers
Adjunction is responsible for such transformational rules as extraposition which adjoins a PP or CP ( S-bar ) to the minimal XP containing the Phrase out of which it moves (see Dima , 2003b). Freidin is of the opinion that In terms of X-bar structure, adjunction sites appear to be limited to maximal phrasal projections, and in particular those which are not complements to the major lexical heads (N,V, A and P). Example (15) illustrates an adjunction which results in the movement of a relative clause (CP) while example (16) shows the effects of an adjunction which inserts a grammatical formative (s) into a phrase- marker. (15) [ N Pan article on string theory CPi] [VP[VP just appeared] [CPi which. I want to read]] (16) [NP[NP the [N philosopher[PP[P from[NP[N Princeton]]]s] beard. ( in Brown, 2005: 123 ) Adjunction like substitution, can be used to perform insertion as well as movement.
- 20 -
2.4.1. Exercises
1. Define and illustrate adjunction. 2. Explain the Structure-Preserving Constraint. 3 .Identify sister-adjunction, daughter-adjunction or Chomskys adjunction in in the following sentences: a. A young woman has just entered with a tall, feathered hat. b. Their house has just been redecorated. c. The tourists longed for their homes whose trip got to a final sightseeing tour.
- 21 -
- 22 -
a. NP N It
a NP N
S VP V SVP
Melvin seems
c. NP N It
SCOMP
b. The second category of SSR triggers is provided by aspectual verbs: begin, continue, commence, start, stop, etc. Contextualizations are provided in (5). (5) a. The noise began to annoy John (see Figure 3.3.) a. John began to be annoyed by the noise. b. They stopped to greet their neighbors. b. Their neighbors stopped to be greeted by them.
a. NP Det The N Aux S VP MW begin SVP John to annoy John -ed begin to be annoyed by the noise a. NP N Aux S VP MW v noise -ed SVP
c. The third category of SSR includes the constructions had better / had best (+ short infinitive). (6) There had better be no flows in your argument. d. The fourth category of SSR triggers includes be + adjective combinations: be about to; be bound to; be apt to; be going to; be set to: (7) a. She is about to cry ( Figure 3.4. ) b. It is going to rain. c. Little headway is apt to be made on that problem.
- 23 -
e. The fifth category includes dicendi verbs: say, rumour, estimate, certify, deduce, discern etc. (8) a. They say that she is the apple of his eyes. a. She is said to be the apple of his eyes ( Figure 3.5.) b. They certified that he was the best in the team. b. He was certified to be the best in the team.
3.1.2. Exercises 1. Identify the concept of subject -to- subject raising and provide example sentences in which it occurs. 2. Provide examples of SSR triggers in sentences of your own. 3. Draw the trees for the base forms of the following sentences. Show how surface structures are produced. a. It happened that Mary had won the competition. b. It appears that the weather is changing. c. It is unlikely that the bridge will be built. d. The rain began to annoy everybody. e. She is bound to deliver the goods earlier. f. It looks like our car is going to break down.
a. NP N Aux
S VP MV NP Det N SVP
b. NP N He Aux -ed
S VP MV imagine NP N SVP
himself He -ed assert the charge to be incorrect to be sought after by the English
(ii) acknowledge, affirm, attest, conclude, deny, pronounce (2) a. He concluded that she was a witch. a He concluded her to be a witch. (Figure 3. 6) b. He attested that this was the same which had been taken from him. b He attested this to be the same which had been taken from him.
a. NP N Aux
S VP MV NP N SVP
He
-ed
b. Causative Verbs (i) cause, set, occasion, necessitate, get,have (ii) make, let, have (+ short infinitive) (iii) verbs of negative causation: prevent, stop (4). I had my tooth extracted. S NP N V VP NP SVP I had my tooth extracted
Figure 3. 7. c. Illocutionary Verbs of Permission and Command allow, bid, beg, ask, comment, dictate, direct, forbid, instruct, order, permit, prescribe. Contextualizations and the transformational cycle are taken from Cornilescu 1986: 285. (5) a. I allowed John to interrogate the witness. a. I allowed the witness to be interrogated by John ( Figure 3. 8.)
- 25 -
b. I forbid John to visit you. b. I forbid you to be visited by John. a. NP V I allowed COMP for to NP John S VP NP S S VP NP PP to John
a. NP V I allowed
the witness is interrogated by John d. Verbs of liking and disliking like, love, prefer, want, wish, desire, need, expect, mean, intend, prefer, choose (6) a. Id like you to come earlier. b. I didnt expect that to happen. c. I want someone to redecorate the house Figure (3.9.)
- 26 -
c. NP N I V want
S VP NP S NP N VP
to redecorate the house someone e) Verbs of physical perception see, hear, listen to, watch, feel, find, perceive, note, notice, observe (7) a. We saw John cross the street ( see Figure 3.10.) b. I noticed them walk across the lane. a. NP N We Aux -ed S VP MV see NP VP N John cross the street S-
- 27 -
3.2.1. Exercises
1. Identify the concept of raising - to- object and provide example sentences in which it occurs. 2. Give examples of SOR triggers in sentences of your own. 3. Draw trees for the base forms of the following sentences and show how surface structures are produced : a. The captain ordered the soldiers to march on. b. The old man believed the street to be empty. c. She denied his behavior to be of a good common sense. d. The bear is said to have left the circus. e. Dark caused them to stumble and fall down. f. Id prefer you to play Cinderellas part. g. The girls watched the swans fly over the river. h. The teacher didnt mean the pupils to read the whole story. i. I have never expected her to run away from home. j . Id like you to get yourself a job.
Mary fed
COMP What
- 28 -
3.3.1. Exercises
1. Define cleft-constructions and provide examples of your own. 2. Comment upon the focused constituent in the following sentences. a. Its in the library that I prefer studying. b. Its happiness that Mary wants. c. What she said was that we shouldnt leave the house. d. Where we lost the key was in the cupboard. e. It might be Ben who stole the car.
- 29 -
Glossary of Terms
ambiguity the condition whereby any linguistic form has two or more interpretations anomalous sentence a meaningless sequence of words which deviates from the rules for sentence formation co-indexation in GG, the process of marking the identity of constituents (e.g. in the deep structure of a sentence) by using subscript letters or numbers complement a functional label which denotes a constituent whose presence is required by a verb, noun, adjective or preposition conjunct a conjoined element (e.g. in TG, conjoining transformation) constituent a string of words which syntactically behaves as a unit , part of a larger linguistic construction deep structure in TG , the abstract , underlying representation of a sentence specifying the syntactic facts upon which meaning interpretation is applied derived structure in GG, an output phrase-marker resulting after the application of a transformational rule ellipsis omission of a part of a sentence structure embed (-ing /-ed) in GG, a process or construction where one sentence is included ( embedded) into another, i.e. traditionally, in syntactic subordination extraposition a movement rule or transformation involving adjunction, e .g. a PP moved out of a NP and attached to the end of the clause gapping the omission of an identical part in coordinate clauses lexicon the lexical component of a generative grammar , containing morphological, syntactic and semantic specifications movement in TG , a basic type of transformation which moves a constituent from one part of a phrase-marker to another; a constituency test phrase- structure (PS) level the level of sentence constituency structure primitive a concept which refers to axiomatic terms (i.e. true, given, basic) used in the description of various linguistic theories ( e.g. grammars) recoverability a term which takes into account the retrieving of elements which have been deleted by means of the linguistic context selectional restriction a semantic feature specifying a restriction on the collocations of lexical items, e.g. learn generally has a human subject surface structure in TG, the stage in the derivation of a sentence that occurs after applying transformational rules and which constitutes the input for the phonological component.
- 30 -
References
1. Bresnan, J., 1978, A Realistic Transformational Grammar in Linguistic Inquiry and Psychological Reality , edited by Morris Halle et al., Cambridge, MIT Press 2. Brown, K, and J, Miller, 2005, Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories, Pergamon 3. Brown, K. et al, 2006, Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics . Second Edition, Elsevier 4. Chomsky, N.,1980, On Binding, Linguistic Inquiry, 11:1-46, in Eugene A. Fong, Current Trends in American Syntactic Theory, Bucuresti, 1982 5. Chomsky, N., 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press 6. Chomsky, N., 1969, Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar, Mouton 7. Chomsky, N., H. Lasnik, 1977, Filters and Control, Linguistic Inquiry 8:425-504, in Eugene A. Fong, Current Trends in American Syntactic Theory, Bucuresti, 1982 8. Chomsky, N., 1973, Conditions on Transformations, in Andersen, S.R. and P. Kiparski, eds. 9. Chomsky, N., 1995, The minimalist program, Cambridge, MA : MIT Press 10. Cornilescu, Al., 1986 , English Syntax, Bucuresti 11. Cornilescu, Al., 2003, Complementation in English, EUB, Bucuresti 12. Cornilescu, Al.,1995 ,Concept of Modern Grammar, Bucuresti 13. Croitoru, El., 2002, The English Sentence Structure, ed. Fundaiei Universitare Dunrea de Jos, Galati 14. Crystal, D., 1995, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, Blackwell 15. Dima, G., 2003a, Outlines of English Semantics, Editura Fundatiei Universitare Dunarea de Jos din Galati 16. Dima, G., 2003b, Outlines of English Syntax, Editura Fundatiei Universitare Dunarea de Jos din Galati 17. Dubinsky, S.W., W.D. Davies, 2006, Control and Raising, in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics , Second Edition, Editor-inChief, Keith Brown, Volume 3, Elsevier. 18. Farkas, D., 1987, On Obligatory Control, Linguistics and Philosophy 19. Freidin, R., 2005, Generative Grammar: Principles and Parameters , in Brown, K. and J. Miller 20. Hardt, D.,1993, Verb phrase ellipsis: form, meaning, and processing . Ph.D. Diss., University of Pennsylvania 21. Jackendoff, Ray, S., 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, The MIT Press 22. Johnson, K., 2001, What VP ellipsis can do, and what it cant, but not why. In Baltin M & Collins C (eds.) The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell 23. Lobeck, A., 1995, Ellipsis: functional heads, licensing and identification. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press 24. Postal, P., 1974, On Raising, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass 25. Radford, A., 1992, Transformational Grammar. A First Course, Cambridge University Press 26. Reinhart, T.,1983,Coreference and bound anaphora: a restatement of anaphora questions in Linguistics and Philosophy, 6,
- 31 -
27. Rosenbaum, Peters S., 1967a, The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions, Research Monograph No 47, The MIT Press, Cambridge 28. Ross, J.R., 1967, Constraints on variables in syntax , Ph.D, MIT 29. Sag, I., 1977, Deletion and logical form, Bloomington, IN : Indiana University Linguistic Club Publications 30. Stockwell, R.P., Paul Schachter, Barbara Hall Partee, 1973, The Major Syntactic Structures of English, Holt, Rinchart Winston, INC 31. erban, E., English Syntax, vol.I, Bucureti, 1986 32. Tancredi, C., 1992, Deletion, deaccenting and presupposition , MIT 33. Winkler, 2006, Ellipsis, in Brown, K. et al, Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Second Edition, Elsevier
- 32 -
- 33 -