the explanatory range of movement presentation at workshop on comparative and theoretical syntax...
Post on 31-Mar-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The Explanatory Range of Movement
Presentation atWorkshop on Comparative and Theoretical Syntax
When and Why do Constituents Move?University of Aarhus, December 14-16, 2004
Torben Thrane[Århus School of Business]
The Janus-Effect of Move
When you see a cheetah move you can ask for an explanation of this fact in one of two ways:
• What properties of the cheetah will account for its having moved? (‘Systemic’ explanation – muscles, sinews, etc.)
• What properties of the cheetah will its having moved account for? (‘Functional’ explanation – hunger, fear, etc.)
Each explanation is causal in its own right, but they are not causally connected
[H. Putnam, Reductionism and the Nature of Psychology (1973)]
Movement in language
The most casual inspection of output conditions reveals that items commonly appear “displaced” from the position in which the interpretation they receive is otherwise represented at the LF interface.91
[Chomsky 1995:316]
You only have to look to see that something has moved
The axiom of Chomsky’s version of GG:
Movement is not a thesis that needs support; it is one of the facts of language that can be invoked to support other theses.
Rather there are just extremely general principles like “move anything anywhere” [Chomsky 2000: 1]
There is no meaningful controversy over the basic facts.
Functional vs. systemic explanation of movement in language
• What properties of language will some linguistic item having moved account for ? (‘Functional’)
(1a) John called up his sister vs. (b) John called his sister up
• What properties of language will account for some linguistic item having moved? (‘Systemic’)
Movement in language
The most casual inspection of output conditions reveals that items commonly appear “displaced” from the position in which the inter- pretation they receive is otherwise represented at the LF interface.91
[Chomsky 1995:316]91 Technically, this is not quite correct; see note 1.
1 The PF level itself is too primitive and unstructured to serve thispurpose, but elements formed in the course of the mapping of syn-tactic objects to a PF representation might qualify.
Notice that I am sweeping under the rug questions of considerablesignificance, notably, questions about what in the earlier Extended Standard Theory (EST) framework were called “surface effects” oninterpretation. These are manifold, involving topic-focus and theme-rheme structures, figure-ground properties, effects of adjacency andlinearity, and many others. Prima facie, they seem to involve someadditional level or levels internal to the phonological component,postmorphology but prephonetic, accessed at the interface along with PF (Phonetic Form) and LF (Logical Form).
[Chomsky 1995:220 – my italics]
t[NP
i ] [V ]
Functional vs. systemic explanation of movement in language
• What properties of language will some linguistic item having moved account for ? (‘Functional’)
(1) John called up his sister vs. John called his sister up
• What properties of language will account for some linguistic item having moved? (‘Systemic’)
][VP (2) John cried[IP [NP
i ] ]
NPs
D N´
IP
stedplace
atto
stilleput
sin cykelone’s bike
N´
VP
V´
DPV
I
NP
A N
eta
godtgood
PRO
Advice about parking your bike
(3) Nede/*ned i kælderen er et godt sted at stille sin cykel Down in cellar-the is a good place to put one’s bike
eris
VPAdvP
Nede/*ned i kælderenDown in cellar-the
S
This sits fairly well with the ideaof Danish as a V2 language
NPs
D N´
IP
stedplace
atto
stilleput
sin cykelone’s bike
N´
VP
V´
DPV
I
NP
A N
EtA
godtgood
PRO
Mirror-image advice about parking your bike
(4) Et godt sted at stille sin cykel er nede/ned i kælderen A good place to put one’s bike is down in cellar-the
eris
VP AdvP
nede/ned i kælderendown in cellar-the
S
... and so does this
NPs
D N´
IP
stedplace
atto
stilleput
sin cykelone’s bike
N´
VP
V´
DPV
I
NP
A N
eta
godtgood
PRO
Revised structure for (3)
eris
VPAdvP
Nede/*ned i kælderenDown in cellar-the
S(5)
CP
SpecLOC IP
VP
tLOC
stilleput
sin cykelone’s bike
I
V´
V´
DPV
Spec
NPLOC
atto
et godt steda good place
PRO
(6) *Nede i kælderen er en god idé at stille sin cykel
(7) Det er en god idé at stille sin cykel ned(e) i kælderen
“Under any approach that takes Attract/Move to be driven by morphological features ...there should be no interaction between theta-theory and the theory of movement.” [Chomsky 1995: 312]
Revised structure of (4) + further matters
eris
VP AdvP
nede/ned i kælderendown in cellar-the
S
CP
SpecLOC IP
VP
tLOC
stilleput
sin cykelone’s bike
I
V´
V´
DPV
Spec
NPLOC
atto
et godt steda good place
PRO
(9) Han parkerede sin cykelnede/*ned i kælderen
(8)
(10) Han stillede sin cykelnede/ned i kælderen
(4) Et godt sted at stille sin cykel er nede/ned i kælderen A good place to put one’s bike is down in cellar-the
V
V´
nede/ned i kælderendown in cellar-the
eris
AdvP
VP
CP
SpecLOC IP
VP
tLOC
stilleput
sin cykelone’s bike
I
V´
V´
DPV
Spec
NPLOC
atto
Et godt stedA good place
PRO
(11)
(4) Et godt sted at stille sin cykel er nede/ned i kælderen A good place to put one’s bike is down in cellar-the
V
V´
nede/ned i kælderendown in cellar-the
eris
tv
AdvP
VP
NP
ts
IPC
CP
C´
NP
ts
CP
SpecLOC IP
VP
tLOC
stilleput
sin cykelone’s bike
I
V´
V´
DPV
Spec
NPLOC
atto
Et godt stedA good place
PRO
(12)
IP
V
V´
C
CP
C´AdvP
Nede/*ned i kælderenDown in cellar-thea
eris
tv
AdvP
ta
VP
NP
ts
(3) Nede/*ned i kælderen er et godt sted at stille sin cykel Down in cellar-the is a good place to put one’s bike
CP
SpecLOC IP
VP
tLOC
stilleput
sin cykelone’s bike
I
V´
V´
DPV
Spec
NPLOC
atto
et godt steda good place
PRO
(13)
Ned vs. nede
DerThere
eris
et godt a good
at stille sin cykelto put one’s bike
(14a)
derthere
eris
et godt steda good place
at stille sin cykelto put one’s bike
*NedDown
i kælderenin cellar-the (Acc.)
(16b)
stedplace
i kælderenin cellar-the (Dat.)
derthere
eris
et godta good
at stille sin cykelto put one’s bike
NedeDown
i kælderenin cellar-the (Dative)
(16a) stedplace
*DerThere
eris
et godt steda good place
at stille to put
ned i kælderendown in cellar-the (Acc.)
(15b) sin cykelone’s bike
nededown
DerThere
eris
et godt a good
at stille sin cykelto put one’s bike
(14b) stedplace
i kælderenin cellar-the (Dat.)
nededown
DerThere
eris
et godt steda good place
at stille to put
i kælderenin cellar-the (Acc.)
(15a) sin cykelone’s bike
neddown
(3) Nede i kælderen er et godt sted at stille sin cykel
Subject
Intermezzo
Fact: Spoken language is linear, by genetic necessity produced and perceived through one channel
Fact: Grammatical structure is hierarchical, with a clearly discernible level of phrase structure between the levels of lexical structure and sentence structure
Need: An empirically falsifiable theory of the mapping between linear structure and hierachical structure
Claim: Theories of movement may be systemic or functional in explanatory range; only the latter are empirically falsifiable.
Conclusion:
If the Need is to be satisfied by a theory of movement, its explanatory range must be functional.
The Representational Thesis
• All linguistic facts are mental facts
• All mental facts are representational facts
• All representational facts are facts about informational functions
The Extended
[Thrane 2004a,b][Dretske 1995:xiii]
The language faculty as a 2o Representational System
A Model of Language Perception
1o- Represetational systems (Perceptual and Conceptual)
Conceptual input 1o-RepresentationsDigitalizationSensory input
2o- Representational System (The Language Faculty)
Complete Digitalization
Linguisticdata
2o-Representations
The Generative View of Representational Domains
CP
IP
VP
Information Structure
Modalization Structure
Argument Structure
Sentence
Movement
Movement
The Representational View of Representational Domains
ASSI
MS
1o-R
ep
INP
UT
Principles of Linear
Organization
Optional-Necessary
Obligatory
John his shoes in the bathroomput on
onConstitutive
+NecessaryJohn
Constituents
+Argumental
-Argumental
John
his shoes
on
in the bathroom
+argumental -argumental
+necessary Complement Parasite
-necessary Argument Satellite
Typology of sentence constituents
Constituents are Necessary iff they help define situation type
Constituents are Argumental iff they are referential
V selects Complements and Parasites to form V´
V´combine with Arguments and Satellites to for VP
VP
•
V´
•
V
S
A
C
P
put on
his shoes
John
in the bathroom∑
∏
∑ = situation type
Argument structure
∏ = proposition
Localist basis?
Case Relations abs erg loc abl
CASE COMPONENTS place place
source source
abs(olutive); erg(ative); loc(ative); abl(ative)
The axioms of John Anderson’s Localist Case Theory
Constituent types C A P S
Selectional Components
C = Complement; A = Argument; P = Parasite; S = Satellite
VP
•
V´
•
V
S
A
C
P
stilleput
ned i kælderendown in cellar-the
sin cykelone’s bike
John
hver aftenevery night
19. Hver aften ˌstiller John sin cykel ˈned i kælderen
18. John ˌstiller sin cykel ˈned i kælderen hver aften
17. Sin cykel ˌstiller John ˈned i kælderen hver aften
20. * ˈNed i kælderen ˌstiller John sin cykel hver aften
23. Hver aften ˈstiller John sin cykel ˈnede i kælderen
22. John ˈstiller sin cykel ˈnede i kælderen hver aften
21. Sin cykel ˈstiller John ˈnede i kælderen hver aften
24. ˈNede i kælderen ˈstiller John sin cykel hver aften
●
•
V´
•
V
S
A
C
P
stilleput
nede i kælderendown in cellar-the
sin cykelone’s bike
John
hver aftenevery night
Ø
VP
S
25. John ˈstiller sin cykel et nyt sted hver aften
VP
C
nede i kælderendown in cellar-the
Ø
værebe
•
V PVP
•
V´ A
et godt sted a good place
V´
•
V
S
C
P
ˈstilleput
sin cykelone’s bike
Ø
Ø
A
Ø
● SNP
To conclude -
Systemic movement is not empirically falsifiable
Functional movement is empirically falsifiable, if an initial order is assumed
If an initial order is not assumed, movement reduces to linear organization of hierarchically related constituents according to language-specific principles of information structure
top related