001: Ling Syntax II
Movement & Constraints 2-11-2009
Phrases
In the last lecture, we talked about simple phrases; e.g. Noun Phrases like
The dog The big dog The big dog that John was talking to
In this lecture, we will look at how phrases and larger objects are derived by rules, and how phrases can be moved from one position to another
How structures and meanings (including ambiguity) are mediated by syntax, particularly those hidden structures that we dont see or hear but actually use John is easy to please vs. John is eager to please Some basic rules and two case studies of hidden structures that combine linguistics with psychology
Notations: Noun Phrase Example
Lets talk about Noun Phrases (NPs) to begin with. These have (among other properties) the following: The optional presence of an determiner (the, a, etc.) The optional presence of more than one adjective We can write a rule that generates NPs in the following way: NP --> (determiner) AP* N
This means that a noun phrase consists of minimally a head N; it also can have
-an optional determiner (parentheses) -any number of Adjective Phrases (AP), including zero From this rule, and rules that say N-->cat,, A --> big, furry, irritable, we can generate a number of phrases
Examples
From N --> (det) AP* N NP det the AP A big A furry cat AP N
Adjuncts (are optional)
We also need a way of adding adjoined phrases like in [the cat [in the hat]]. The PP here is adjoined, to modify the meanings of the NP. The object that it is attached to is still an NP. The rule that we can talk about is like this: NP --> NP PP (the cat in the hat) There are other options for this, but this will generate the right structure, along with one more rule: PP --> P NP (in the hat)
Verb Phrases
We will also need rules to derive VPs Consider:
VP --> V NP
This says that a VP consists of a V and an NP This will define our set of transitive verbs: those that have objects (more on this in a few slides) To be explicit, we could indicate this as
VP --> V-trans NP
Where V-trans --> kick, hit, kill, . We want to exclude Vs like sleep, arrive, etc. from this context
More Verb Phrases
We can also have a PP adjunct to a verb phrase; often these specify how the action was performed, where it was performed, etc.
Mary fixed the car with a wrench John kicked the ball in the garden
A rule like the one that we employed above will work here:
VP --> VP PP
VP--> V NP, NP->NP PP, VP->VP PP: this is getting confusing
(Structural) Ambiguities
Notice that both NPs and VPs can have PPs attached to them In some cases, this results in what is called a structural ambiguity: one string has more than one structure associated with it, and means different things depending on what the structure is Example: I shot an elephant in my pajamas. (How did it get in there I dont know).
Reading 1: I shot an elephant while wearing my pajamas. Reading 2: The elephant I shot wore my pajamas for some reason.
More ambiguity
Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant Stolen Painting Found by Tree Kids Make Nutritious Snacks Obesity Study Looks for Larger Test Groups British Left Waffles on Falkland Islands Red Tape Holds Up New Bridges Hospitals Sued by 7 Foot Doctors Bush Wins on Nomination, but More Lies Ahead
Analysis: Recall un-lock-able
We can understand these ambiguities in terms of our rules above. The ambiguity depends on whether the VP is modified by the PP (reading2) or the NP is so modified (reading 1)
Sentences, etc.
In order to generate sentences, we need additional rules For instance, where S is for sentence: S --> NP VP When we add rules for distinguishing transitives from intransitives, etc., we can derive a wide range of sentence types
Jabberwocky
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did grye and gimble in the wabe: And mimsy were the borogoves, And the moeme raths outgrabe. What is/are toves? wabe? gimble cannot mean something like like. Its syntax is intransitive, so it must involve only one argument
Arguments, etc.
In some sense, many things that happen in a sentence depend on what the verb in the sentence is:
Transitive verb: kick
Two arguments of kick, like f(x,y)
Intransitive verb: sleep
One argument, like f(x) In order to be more precise about this, we need to distinguish grammatical (syntactic) position from semantic role
Roles and Positions
Consider a transitive verb like kick
This has two arguments The arguments are
The agent (the kicker) The patient (the thing kicked)
In active sentences in English
The agent is the subject The patient is the object
Verbs and Arguments: Introducing Movement
Verbs are looking for their arguments in particular positions; remember the rule we formulated above:
Patients appear in object position (inside the VP)
What about the passive? Here is where the process of movement is important
We can start with the VP [kick [the ball]]. Then the object of the verb kick is moved to subject position as part of the passive rule It is still interpreted as the Patient, because that is where it starts In order to be interpreted as a patient, the NP has to have some relationship to the position where it came from; this is why traces are important: [The ball] was kicked _____
Other cases of movement
The same principle applies in other areas as well: whenever an element appears in a position that is NOT where it is interpreted meaning-wise Questions
John ate the apples. What did John eat ____
Relative clauses
John was talking to Mary. The woman [who John was talking to _____]
Topicalization
John likes these apples. These apples John likes _____.
A brief look at some other languages
I English: always DO my homework. I AM always late
Note the difference between different kinds of verbs
Old(er) English
Shakespeare English/French
Basic Pattern: In French and Old English, the finite verb appears before adverbs and negation In Shakespeare/French: the verb also moves in questions In Modern English: only the auxiliary does so E.g., Do you always read the books?
Rules + transformations
In all languages: S->NP VP, VP-> (Adv) VP VP->V NP, or
What does the verb go?
In French/Old English, it moves to a position above the adverb but after the subject This is the position called TENSE, where tense like present/past is represented E.g., We like exams. We DO like exams. We DID like exams Revise the rules: S NP TP, TP->Tense VP
Transformations across languages
French/OE: main verb moves to the Tense position English: main verb stays put. If TENSE needs to be filled, we put an auxiliary there
I DID like exams.
In Shakespeare/French, the main verb moves to the beginning of sentence to form questions In Modern English, the main verb stays and the auxiliary verb moves to the beginning
French/Old English vs. English
Constraints on Movements
Much like syntactic rules, which dont just combine anything and everything, movement is also restricted: some of these traffic laws are quite bizarre Recall the auxiliary movement rule (last lecture) in English questions: no movement of the first auxiliary I shot an elephant in my pajamas. Two readings What (clothes) did I shoot an elephant in? How many readings?
Of Elephants and Pajamas
There are structures out of which movement is not possible. And this is quite general across sentences and languages
Impossible movements, Possible Meanings
A-over-A Principle, or No Grandparent Left Behind
In general, a small NP cannot move out of a large NP.
Even young children know this
Three year olds saw a play. A dog broke a leg. A little girl fixed it up with a bandage What did she fix the puppy with ___? Reality gives two answers, but constraint on movement makes only one possible--and thats how children answered.
Another psychological dimension
To this point, the discussion of traces has been motivated by considerations of how verbs find their arguments A substantial research program in linguistic theory asks further questions for other cases that look like movement For an additional illustration, we will consider here some psycholinguistic evidence about how traces are processed online by hearers
Chains of Fillers and Gaps aka moved elements and traces
The idea above is that the who functions as a kind of place-holder:
The man who John was talking to ___ left.
In this particular case, the idea is that the who, which is associated with the man, must be understood as the object of talking to Another way of investigating this hypothesis involves priming; in the following slides, I summarize an experiment by Swinney et al. (1988)
Background: Lexical Access
When we hear the sound form of a word like cat (or see it represented in spelling) we activate this lexical item (word); this is called Lexical Access A number of factors determine how quickly Lexical Access will occur for any particular word
Length Frequency of the word Etc.
Priming
One factor that influences lexical access is called Priming Priming is the facilitation of lexical access-- under certain circumstances, accessin...