Linguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

Lecture 5Lecture 5

FiltersFilters

The Structure of the The Structure of the Grammar 1960s (Standard Grammar 1960s (Standard Theory)Theory)• LexiconLexicon Phrase Structure RulesPhrase Structure Rules

Deep Structure Deep Structure

Transformations Transformations

Surface Structure Surface Structure

The Structure of the Grammar The Structure of the Grammar 1970s (Extended Standard 1970s (Extended Standard Theory)Theory)• LexiconLexicon PS RulesPS Rules X-barX-bar

Deep Structure Deep Structure

Transformations TransformationsConstraintsConstraints

Surface Structure Surface Structure

Some Further Some Further DevelopmentsDevelopments

• The treatment of ComplementisersThe treatment of Complementisers– A group of subordinating particles (A group of subordinating particles (thatthat, ,

if, forif, for) were identified as a separate ) were identified as a separate category: Complementiserscategory: Complementisers

– These occupied a position separate from These occupied a position separate from the clause, but forming a constituent the clause, but forming a constituent with the clause:with the clause:

• SS

COMP SCOMP S

NP INFL VP NP INFL VP

• The COMP position not only hosted The COMP position not only hosted the complementiser but also fronted the complementiser but also fronted wh-phrases:wh-phrases:

• SS

COMP S COMP S

Wh- COMP NP INFL VPWh- COMP NP INFL VP

who will leavewho will leave

• Trace TheoryTrace Theory– As a way to reduce the power of As a way to reduce the power of

transformations it was proposed that transformations it was proposed that movement does not alter structure or movement does not alter structure or lexical propertieslexical properties

– For example: passive movementFor example: passive movement

• SS S S

NP INFL VPNP INFL VP NP INFL VP NP INFL VP

- was V NP - was V NP John was VJohn was V

detested John detested John detesteddetested

• If transformations can change If transformations can change structure and lexical properties, they structure and lexical properties, they are very powerfulare very powerful

• So it was proposed that all So it was proposed that all transformations do is move transformations do is move something from one place to another something from one place to another without changing anythingwithout changing anything

• SS S S

NP INFL VPNP INFL VP NP INFL VP NP INFL VP

- was V NP - was V NP JohnJohn11 was V NP was V NP

detested John detested John detested t detested t11

• A ‘trace’ of the moved element remains in the A ‘trace’ of the moved element remains in the extraction position (co-indexed with the moved extraction position (co-indexed with the moved element to show the connection)element to show the connection)

• Reasons to believe in traces:Reasons to believe in traces:– Clause bound phenomenaClause bound phenomena

• I thought [they left together]I thought [they left together]•* they thought [I left together]* they thought [I left together]•TheyThey11 seem [ t seem [ t11 to have left together] to have left together]

– Phonological argumentPhonological argument•You want to beat himYou want to beat him•WhoWho11 do you want to beat t do you want to beat t11

•WhoWho11 do you wanna beat t do you wanna beat t11

•You want him to winYou want him to win•WhoWho11 do you want t do you want t11 to win to win•* Who do you wanna win* Who do you wanna win

FiltersFilters

• Filters do the same job as constraintsFilters do the same job as constraints– i.e. Stop overgenerationi.e. Stop overgeneration

• But instead of imposing restrictions But instead of imposing restrictions on transformations, they impose on transformations, they impose restrictions on structuresrestrictions on structures

Adding FiltersAdding Filters

• LexiconLexicon PS RulesPS Rules X-barX-bar

Deep Structure Deep Structure

Transformations TransformationsConstraintsConstraints

Surface Structure Surface Structure FiltersFilters

• Continuous Continuous gerunds gerunds – His leavingHis leaving

•He leftHe left

– His having leftHis having left•He had leftHe had left

– His being beatenHis being beaten•He was beatenHe was beaten

– * His being * His being leavingleaving•He was leavingHe was leaving

• Continuous with Continuous with gerund gerund complementcomplement– It started to rainIt started to rain– It started rainingIt started raining– It is starting to rainIt is starting to rain– * it is starting * it is starting

rainingraining

E.g. The double –ing filterE.g. The double –ing filter

* X-ing Y-ing* X-ing Y-ing

• How superficial are filters?How superficial are filters?– The for-for filterThe for-for filter

•He hoped for peaceHe hoped for peace

•Peace is what he hoped forPeace is what he hoped for

•For there to be peace is what he hoped forFor there to be peace is what he hoped for

•* He hoped for for there to be peace* He hoped for for there to be peace

•He hoped for there to be peaceHe hoped for there to be peace

•* ... for for ...* ... for for ...

• How superficial are filters?How superficial are filters?– The az a(z) filterThe az a(z) filter

•Az Az ő autójaő autója– * az ő elment* az ő elment

•Az ember autójaAz ember autója– * ember elment* ember elment

•* Az az ember autója* Az az ember autója

– * ... az a(z) ...* ... az a(z) ...

• How superficial are filters?How superficial are filters?– It seems there is a general ban on having two It seems there is a general ban on having two

formally identical elements one after the formally identical elements one after the otherother

– There is a similar restriction in There is a similar restriction in suprasegmental phonology:suprasegmental phonology:•HLHL•LHLH• *LL*LL• *HH*HH•You can’t have two similar tones one after the otherYou can’t have two similar tones one after the other•Obligatory Contour PrincipleObligatory Contour Principle

• But not all filters are so general and so But not all filters are so general and so they appear rather descriptivethey appear rather descriptive

More early filters (Chomsky More early filters (Chomsky and Lasnik 1973)and Lasnik 1973)

• The root clause filterThe root clause filter– I think [that he left]I think [that he left]– He leftHe left– * that he left* that he left

* [* [S S COMP [ …COMP [ … if COMP is filled by an if COMP is filled by an overt complementiser and S is rootovert complementiser and S is root

More early filters (Chomsky More early filters (Chomsky and Lasnik 1973)and Lasnik 1973)• The doubly filled COMP filterThe doubly filled COMP filter

– The man [who I met]The man [who I met]– The man [who I met]The man [who I met]– The man [who that I met]The man [who that I met]– * the man [who that I met]* the man [who that I met]

* [* [S S WH + COMP [ …WH + COMP [ … if WH is not deleted if WH is not deleted or COMP is not emptyor COMP is not empty

More early filters (Chomsky More early filters (Chomsky and Lasnik 1973)and Lasnik 1973)

• The that – trace filterThe that – trace filter– WhoWho11 did you think [ e Mary liked t did you think [ e Mary liked t11]]

– WhoWho11 did you think [ that Mary liked t did you think [ that Mary liked t11]]

– WhoWho11 did you think [ e t did you think [ e t11liked Mary ]liked Mary ]

– * Who* Who11 did you think [ that t did you think [ that t11liked Mary ]liked Mary ]

* [that [ t …* [that [ t …

More early filters (Chomsky More early filters (Chomsky and Lasnik 1973)and Lasnik 1973)

• The for – to filterThe for – to filter– I want [him to win]I want [him to win]– I want [ to win]I want [ to win]– I want very much for [him to win]I want very much for [him to win]– * I want very much for [ to win]* I want very much for [ to win]

* [for [__ to …* [for [__ to …

Later filters (more Later filters (more explanatory)explanatory)

• The Case FilterThe Case Filter– Subject of finite clause = nominative Subject of finite clause = nominative

positionposition– Object of a verb = accusative positionObject of a verb = accusative position– Every NP must occupy a Case positionEvery NP must occupy a Case position

•* NP if NP is not in a Case position* NP if NP is not in a Case position

– This is so, even for languages which This is so, even for languages which have little or no morphological Casehave little or no morphological Case

• The subject of a infinitive is not a The subject of a infinitive is not a Case positionCase position– I tried [ - to leave]I tried [ - to leave]– * I tried [myself to leave]* I tried [myself to leave]

• Unless:Unless:– It has a for complementiser in front of itIt has a for complementiser in front of it

• I hoped for [him to leave]I hoped for [him to leave]

– It is the complement of certain verbs:It is the complement of certain verbs:• I believed [him to be smart]I believed [him to be smart]

• What this accounts for:What this accounts for:– Nouns never take NP complementsNouns never take NP complements

•They destroyed the cityThey destroyed the city

•* their destruction the city* their destruction the city

•The complement of a noun is not a Case The complement of a noun is not a Case positionposition

– Why certain NPs have to move:Why certain NPs have to move:• It seems [John is smart]It seems [John is smart]

• JohnJohn11 seems [ t seems [ t11 to be smart] to be smart]

•* it seems [ John to be smart]* it seems [ John to be smart]

•The subject position of an infinitive is a The subject position of an infinitive is a Caseless positionCaseless position

– The for – to filterThe for – to filter•Clauses must have subjectsClauses must have subjects

– It seems he is richIt seems he is rich– * seems he is rich* seems he is rich

•So infinitives which appear to lack subjects So infinitives which appear to lack subjects must really have one:must really have one:

– I tried [ PRO to leave]I tried [ PRO to leave]

•PRO is an NP which cannot sit in a Case PRO is an NP which cannot sit in a Case position:position:

– * PRO is rich* PRO is rich– * I like PRO* I like PRO

•The subject of an infinitive introduced by for The subject of an infinitive introduced by for is a Case position:is a Case position:

– * I hoped for [PRO to leave]* I hoped for [PRO to leave]

Do we need Constraints and Do we need Constraints and D-structure?D-structure?

• Filters cannot do the same thing as Filters cannot do the same thing as constraints:constraints:– A constraint limits the relationships A constraint limits the relationships

between D- and S-structuresbetween D- and S-structures– Filters limit S-structuresFilters limit S-structures

• But you can achieve the same effects But you can achieve the same effects with a filter providing the S-structure with a filter providing the S-structure is rich enoughis rich enough

• The complex NP Island:The complex NP Island:– You can’t move anything out of a You can’t move anything out of a

complex NPcomplex NP

• The complex NP FilterThe complex NP Filter– * XP* XP11 ... [ ... [NPNP ... [ ... [SS ... t ... t11 ... ...

• So why do we need D-structure and So why do we need D-structure and constraints?constraints?– Some have argued the we don’tSome have argued the we don’t

•Lexical Functional GrammarLexical Functional Grammar

•Generalised Phrase Structure GrammarGeneralised Phrase Structure Grammar

– Others argue that we do:Others argue that we do:•Filters tend to be too ‘surfacy’Filters tend to be too ‘surfacy’

•To do everything that constraints do, we To do everything that constraints do, we need devices that apply at S-structure which need devices that apply at S-structure which do exactly what transformations dodo exactly what transformations do

•So there is no difference between the two So there is no difference between the two modelsmodels