Constraints on variables in syntax

7 RF.SUMES ED 016 965 AL 000 976 CONSTRAINTS ON VARIABLES IN SYNTAX. BY- ROSS: JOHN ROBERT MASSACHUSETTS INST. OF TECH., CAMBRIDGE PUB DATE EDRS PRICE MF-$2.66 HC- $21.00 SEP 67 523F. DESCRIPTORS- *TRANSFORMATION GENERATIVE GRAMMAR, CONTEXT FREE GRAMMAR: *DEEP STRUCTURE, *SURFACE STRUCTURE, TRANSFORMATIONS (LANGUAGE) , IN ATTEMPTING TO DEFINE "SYNTACTIC VARIABLE," THE AUTHOR BASES HIS DISCUSSION ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SYNTACTIC .FACTS ARE A COLLECTION OF TWO TYPES OF RULES- -CONTEXT -FREE PHRASE STRUCTURE RULES (GENERATING UNDERLYING OR DEEP PHRASE MARKERS) AND GRAMMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS, WHICH MAP UNDERLYING PHRASE MARKERS ONTO SUPERFICIAL (OR SURFACE) PHRASE MARKERS. THE THESIS PRESENTS A SET OF CONSTRAINTS ON VARIABLES--UNIVERSAL AND LANGUAGE-PARTICULAR--AND DISCUSSES HOW THEY AFFECT SYNTACTIC RULES. HE POINTS OUT THAT CHOMSKY'S A-OVER-A PRINCIPLE IS BOTH TOO STRONG AND TOO WEAK, BECAUSE THE PRINCIPLE CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PHENOMENA WHICH THE AUTHOR CALLS "SYNTACTIC ISLANDS." THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION CENTERS AROUND RULES AND CONSTRAINTS: WHICH ARE ACTUALLY LIMITS ON THE POWER OF VARIABLES THAT CAN APPEAR IN CERTAIN TYPES OF RULES. IT IS SHOWN THAT CONSTRAINTS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE NOTION OF "COMMAND," DIVIDE P:'11ASE MARKERS INTO "ISLANDS," SUGGESTING THAT THESE "ISLANDS" BEHAVE LIKE PSYCHOLINGUISTIC ENTITIES. THE AUTHOR PREFERS TO MAKE THE RELATIONSHIP BETW:EN GRAMMATICALITY AND ACCEPTABILITY MORE ABSTRACT THAN PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED BY TRANSFORMATIONALISTS. THIS THESIS WAS PREPARED AS PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY AT THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. (FB) ."0 CONSTRAINTS ON VARIABLES IN SYNTAX 11." by %4C) III w J0414 ROBERT ROSS r-4 U) B.A., Yale University (1960) M.A., University of Pennsylvania (1964) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATIRG IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY. SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY at the a ..... "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS delnatito MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY 1/1-4411.4226_ MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE U.S. OFFICE OF EDUCATION. FURTHER REPRODUCTION OUTSIDE September, 1967 THE ERIC SYSTEM REQUIRES PERMISSION OF THE °WNW Signature of Author Department of Modern Languages, August 21, 1967 Certified by Thesis Supervisor hairraan, Departmental Committee Grliiduate students -W1 _ ii DEDICATION To four of my teachers. Bernard Bloch, Zellig Harris, Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle who have awoken in me, and intensified by their ever-deeper insights, the desire to understand Nan through an unraveling of the mysteries of his language; and to aly mother, Eleanor Campbell Mott Ross, who, although she does not understand how anyone could want to study language, has spared no effort to let me study where, what, and how 1 want to, I dedicate this thesis. At, iii CONSTRAINTS ON VARIABLES IN SYNTAX by John Robert Ross submitted to the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics on August 21, 1967, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ABSTRACT This thesis attempts a definition of the notion syntactic variable, a notion which is of crucial importance if the central fact of syntax, that there are unbounded syntactic processes, is to be accounted for. A set of constraints on variables, some universal, some lelgiage-particular, is presented, and the question of what types of syntactic rules they affect is raised. It is shown that these constraints, in conjunction with the notion of command, partition phrase markers into islands -- the maximal domains of applicability of all rules of a specified type. Thesis Supervisor: Noam Chomsky Title: Professor of Linguistics iv FRAGESTELLUNG The following anecdote is told of William James. I have beer', unable to find any published reference to it, so it may be that I have attributed it to the wrong man, or that it is apocryphal. Bc that as it may, becaUse of its bull's-eye relevance to the study of syntax, I have retold it here. After a lecture on cosmology and the structure of the solar system, James was accosted by a little old lady. "Your theory that the sun is the center of the solar 1 system, and that the earth is a ball which rotates around it, has a very convincing ring to it, Mr. James, butit's wrong. I've got a better theory," said the little old lady. "And what, is that, madam?" inquired James politely. "That we lire on a crust of earth which is on the back of a giant turtle." Not wishing to demolish this absurd little theory by bringing to bear the masses of scientific evidence he had at his command, James decided to gently dissuade his opponent by making her see some of the inadequacies of her position. "If your theory is correct, madam," he asked, 'Nwhat does this turtle stand on?" "You're a very clever man, Mr. James, and that's a very good question," replied the little old lady, "but I have an answer to it. And it's this: the first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him." ."But what does this second. turtle stand on?" persisted James patiently. To this, the little old lady crowed' triumphantly, "It's no:use; Mr. James --It's turtles all the way down." 5 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis ends an overly long career as a professional atflapnte a carper which has been a by to me, but a trial to the many teachers and administrators who have gritted their teeth and forgiven the lateness of papers and assignments (seVeral are still late), the frequency with which I asked ill thought-out questions; and my chronic unpunctuality. They have put up with all this in t e hope, that something might become of me someday. To these i friends I can only offer this thesis, in the hope that it. will in part repay their confidence in me. For aid and support beyond the call of duty, I must single out the following for special gratitude: The Deutscher Akademische Austauschdienst, who gave me a chance to dabble around at three German universities, apparently learning nothing) but in reality finally realizing that it was time to stop dabbling and study seriously; The Woodrow Wilson Foundation, who gave me one last chance that 1 had no right to, sending me to the University of Pennsylvania) where at last I did stop dabbling; , - vii Don Walker, of the MITRE Corporation, who allowed me to spend the summer of 1963 at MITRE, a summer in which I produced nothing, but learned more through reading and talking than in. any comparable period of my life; Naomi Sager, for whom I worked for almost a year as a research assistant on the String Analysis Project of the University of Pennsylvania, and who never complained about the extent to which I neglected my job; Hu Matthews, who I worked for when I first came to MIT, again giving precious little to show for it; John Olney, of the Systems Development Corporation, who supported my work during a pleasant California summer in 1965; The National Institutes of Health, for a PreDoctoral Fellowship during the year 1965-1966; and viii Susumu Kuno, of the Harvard Computation Laboratory, who supported my work during 1965-1966, and eliminated many oversights and inadequacies in my work with insightful counterexamples. The typing of a thesis this size is a job of Herculean It is there- proportions, and proofreading it can be almost as bad. fure with great pleasure that I thank Ellie Dunn, Patricia Wanner, and, because she did the bulk of it with a speed.and industry which were incredible, especially Lorna Howell. The care and accuracy with which these girls prepared the manuscript made proofreading as enjoyable as I have ever known it. I would also like to expresi my thanks to Dwight Bolinger, of Harvard, for the care that he has devoted to reading, and commenting on, various papers of mine, some related closely to the thesis, some not, and for the many deep insights into syntax that his comments afford. To Roman Jakobson, I owe a special debt: not only has he always given me freely of his time, for discussion of a wide range of problems, but he loaned me his office in Boylston Hall, so that I could break out of the becalmed state I had gotten into. Without his generosity, the thesis would not have been finished this summer. Each member of the BIT Linguistics Department: -..as helped me overcome some obstacle in my work.' Hu Matthews helped me to see ix Subject Constraint (cf. 6 4.4) more the nature of the Sentential insight that clearly, and to formulate it.) Ed Klima's fundamental of Chapter 4 (cf. § 4.1.1) pruning interacts with the constraints of the thesis. has been the indirect source of most And Paul behave the same with respect Kiparsky's insight that factive clauses rules (cf. 5 6.4) leads to feature-changing rules and reordering important concepts directly to whatI regard as one of the most developed below --the concept of islands. is less direct, My debt to the remaining three members but no less important, for'all that. It was from Paul Postal's of a highly abstract, lectures in 1964 and 1965 that the conception contained only nouns but probably universal, deep structure, which and verbs, emerged. It is 'to the end of establishing the correctness and my work, including this of this conception that most of Lakoff's thesis, has been directed. Morris Halle, in addition to running a department which discovery, has somehow contains an atmosphere uniquely conducive to distinction between been able to get across to me the all-important solutions to problems (i.e., devices that work, but...) and in science. explanations for phenomena, the most crucial distinction What I owe to Noam Chomsky is incalculable. Unless he 2), it is doubtful had formulated the A-over-A principle (cf. Chapter this thesis is whether I would have even noticed the problems which devoted to solving. I disagree with him on many 'particular points of analysis, but since it was really from his work that I learned how to construct an argument for or against a proposed analysis, my ability to disagree also derives from him. I am deeply grateful to him and to Halle for helping me to understand what it is that a theory is. It is impossible to thank all my friends individually for their contributions, so I will select three. David Perlmutter, aside from the great amount I have learned from his work, has also taught me a lot about my own, through serving as a backboard for my new ideas and pointing out unclarities and inconsistencies. proofread the thesis, for all of which I thank him. He has also helped Bruce Fraser has helped in every kind of way 7- linguistically, technically, financially. I cannot thank him sufficiently. This thesis is an integral part of a larger theory of grammar which George Lakoff and I have been collaborating on for the past several years. Since there is close interaction between the theory of variables reported here and almost all facets of the larger theory, it is impossible to guess what kind of thesis I would have written on this topic had we not worked together in delving down into deeper and deeper layers of turtles. Where I can remember, I have tried to give him credit for particular ideas of his. I ask him to accept this general word of thanks for all the places I have forgotten. Finally, I come to my family. Since in my view cats are as necessary as air or water, I thank our cats Krishna and Aristotle ,,Mor.r777.-nw7,77.7. c,,,07:77.774777,77"-- + xi for deigning to stay with us and seasoning our existence To my new son Daniel. Erik I owe the added impetus that pushed me to finish the thesis this summer. ti The ease with which this three-month-old child dislodged the completion of the thesis from its central position in the universe, to assume this position himself, made use realize that once he became ambulatory, thesis writing of all sorts would cease. I have no words with which to thank my wife Elke-Edda. The writing of this thesis has been as much of an ordeal for her as it has for me, for which I beg her forgiveness. For making my life as easy as it could be, under the sword of Damocles, I thank her with my heart. xii Table of Contents, .Dedications Abstract OOOOOO ..iv OOOOO Fragestellune Acknowledgements.'Vi 1 10 OOO 11.4bOOc OOOOOO Introduction 12 O .7 12.. OOOOOOO . Footnotes . OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOO 10 .........11 The Ar.over-A Principle, 20 OOOOO 2.1......4.0..... OOOOO .... OOOOO OOOOOO .14 2.2.. OOOOO 00000006 OOOOO : dko.0;46000040 OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO .16 24 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO ........ 25 OOOOOO 25 OOOOOOOOO 0000000600400000000000008 OOOOO 9050 OOOOOOO OOOOOO 2.4.1 OOOO OO 0. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO 2.4.2. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO * OOOOO . 29 OOOOO I OOOOO 000000040!t;000400004000 OOOOOOOOO 34 OOOOO Footnotes 26 OOOOOOOO OO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 37 Tree Pruning OOOOOOO 3.0.0.. OOOOO OOOOO ft OOOOO OOOOO O OOOOO ....................o......41 4 Nft a2:4 :e ".0 ^ 30001600000000000000011000004000041.00060000.0041,40000000000006.00644 31100 OO s 30002O.000646066.00046000000011410004000600006600606**040000,0400060M0645 301006.1.06000000040000.000040004.04600041444.40000047 3oldele e o .. o OO 47 "1/ 3,11.3. ................51 .51 3.1.1.2. o 3113. . 31.1.3.2 e . 49 ._.0 . e62 301010303.00000$0,000000000000.006.0600000.000000000066606.001T00,69 3,191.4,.......,..0.0.....73 3.1.3..-,00o80 3.1.4.,0 OO .:.88 316e*00494 31.7.. 460 OOOOO 96 OO 32. 6 6100: 3.1.90..e......a........99 3i108404100000400000,000000.004.00.1100000006000000000000006.98 4 00117 60118 Footnotes.... Constraints on Reordering Transformations 41, 4'74 1,, .0 102 . .The IJmplex NP . Constraint c4}.` -..=11111111 , .. ATX 811O0001000080900000090110000110000001001100006600106011000.000.0..0041016,1 mpoom55olo1100550,WV110V orroosiposesesso4ripooloo,000m000mibo5 . . . 9n60400000600000000000.0000006.0000000000000401,004100000411000001010V ',Iry OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO e1. 050111.0. 6E10 00,1000114b04111141100001004,94 ,-,,........... . 7-......_S L coe.o.e,59Tv ' .. 89,T.....0.. sw..............99.......................,....................L.T.v ... suo3 ..........4uTea4-- OOOOO aztfuTpa000'biu aanlonals KT... 1p Z 8cr0000mIll0000mee011ooewoo0500055560)010o0e000041000100WITI 1 T9T600800006011011100000080000000008,111C000040006006100000000060,041z. Niy P 1.918,111004,1i000101000000950000000000000000000000011100000666W.500E0z0", itr0000rnowillowomoosogoome1wor000romose00050000***00eVozo f . 1711000110000000000001100000050000000.0006011606606660606066.4poitvorly 811 O0000,0#000000000000000050000000000)0000.01100000000000000801116z1, 98.1154,000000060601119000110410000000006000000051100000000000000eSSOCIOVV .r.z.v .......0 .....5 ..........,................0 06T.......9.......0 s6Teeet0940004,e00000006*,000e0WO*110410900441o6011wooso*04100rnson au_ plc/ 2UTdTa "*"1111.10T3MAUOD ** 118.4"."01"4"*"" 96T 666664060606011141666004004)0041001111101,0601000WISi90411410411111411006.000TOCO 961 90V00000000011100,00.00410111000540004190.0091114)00000000000000041TOCO o5114114ioefornIs09140**0.00004,004oVies ** 0 ** 90z000s000rnott000mornee 1140000000000000TOZOC44.1 ***** LoV000060000001110000101,0960004100111000.6:1.,9 LI.c.6410000011101941000**90414,4)000000000410:0000004000410009,0044041006zizerill EzzeiglowomeormoomIwo4,61504b000m04,414100,041Wern0400400Eorco 8ul,000041000410004,0000000411000000001100041004111.541501900000414,4144000v0Vril 060411.04,000000110990111600400111,000900000004000000000000401100001110SOZOV ''.. ,..4.--0' ,...,,.., Z £9 t: XV 436304100410414100000041000000414100000000000.41.411060000004044000006410600240 The Sentential Subject Constraint owes*,4,eowtboiso241 4.4. 4.4.1...o....m....woesmoososooioessooyogoomeessoossisoo.o241 4.42most0000seees*Ioeoosoeosomooses0000000*44,.....essoseooses24.5 . 404.0300690000041004100410000041041000440410044004100041000,0.41410041004104100000252 405o64141041000004104100000000 0044000000000004100000410414,410416041000.4104141000255 50 Footnotes.... c0256 ..... . .......... . Bounding,'Commandi. and Pronominalization, 267 Bounding,soeeasowase 5; 1 5.1.1.1,0268 5.112e260 501010000000000,04400410000000440041000410030000000000000004100040041o410.26 8 54296 5.113I04,...285 .11 50102090009000000000084100410414141410000944004100400,000000000000000410041,96298 5010201000000:*000004110000440041004100100000000000000414144000000000000.0298 5010202041004100041000.440000000.0441410000410000041000000410041000000041990.301 50102.3000040,4000.00000.000.444400004141000440.44444404141041444144440040041.440000306 5.103.6eolosomos000m0000o0.6o0ososoos**secom00000s00000soo..*6312 it 5.1.3.20:318 5.1.321,318 5010.3.1000000004100041410004141410410,000410410410004100000000000600000000312 5.1.3.2.2:322 . 47:77 ,77i77,77017g.""77"" '4, 71. . '. te TAX I 47zvrc e too IIsozorrs 9zrts lerc IP, puvutta03 izs, .IIII ... . .. G££.. vcc 000 f.41194 so oo . rzecTes 50 0111114 * .3 . SZEO 6zt I,' .0 05 35 . Icy 8CE sEr . Evc.zzes crs . . .. . 0Trs *Terris, ezerrig Tcrs zErs 0Es rCS .. O II oe 0. uotwenlympuouola: . 'Eci. . fetrs .Ecrs II IS O. 0 .... . 0,Ke ItC L9E 1 f, I . meg . crs . . . 00Erg sEt ice *' GOO I. OzEEs, I II BEE 4 . . vsE .. .04, II zst ipsE I fist . I . . .. C9C sce. 40 e 4p. G 4 I o .. . . . . .. . I II II C9C 479E0 g9C . L9E . 89E0(10,11 xvii 5.3040080000,00.0000.040000000000000000,000004100000000.4,000,0000094369 . ........ .. 4 . , , 5040,10i 00040W,00000000008000010004.0011,0000.i00000000004.110.00.000.372 Footnotes.0.00 1 WWWWWWW Wwww..174 On the Notion "Reorderinz Transformation" 6.00,0401*&.dowerneeeetroee,00,382 Some Rules'Obeying the Constraints6. 46.383 6.1. 6103c4...................383 6.1.1.1...i...........e.o.......60.64........................385a 6112....1..serne*,emernee0480386 64,1,1,30 ee oP; :..388 i 6.1.1.4 OOOOO 391 64,1415 Ofieoesolo0000e 391 'itdi .......4,394 64,1411.7.6........6..396 60101666 6120ee0398 6.1.2.64100006011'/,.398 6.102.10.00041.00000.4000008.0000000000398 6.1.2.2 ..06400 6.1.2 3 6.1.2.5...5......m....)0..406 6.1.2.6 .406 6.1.207.0.0ornowolleow.sorno.rneforneofoloos0000sossomoves..408 %loge ...N... a pi. aaa YM %N1. 641.2.8.641.41 ir, ...409 . . 613:41,044:444,:e40,44, so.410 6136046a:4 .414 641113010000eie.. . .4.411 c .14415 6.1.3.3...........................................................416 620.: 6.2. Chopping Rules... 6.2.0....: *II IP IP IP It IP IP IP .4... .422 IP IP IP .428 6820300110000416000000000,0041.00000.00418,000000006000000000000000432 .w437 6.2.4. 44441,40:orne,44434 ...... ..........434 6.20402..... 602.500.041100,.0,011WOMo40060411000Oplio*O0o000MOSOoOloo6000.41000.442 6.3. Reordering over Variables.... ....................... .442 6114061100 3,...O0.0..00.450 6.4. Islands.... ..........................................449 o .4..6449 6.4010. 6444,10. 4e414,006646,54iiloorn450 . t"; ;;.,, , & .4! 1 461 xix 6.4.1.1 ..06451 ., . . 6040164.6CO* 6.44.36.0m 006 .6.464 4. 6.4.2. .6.469 6.4.3 .469 6.4.3.1. .477 6.5. SummarY.......0 3 Footnotes***6e6***64 .481 =10. Conclusion.... Bibliography0604 .495 Biography* .500 . ot ,...,.. 4 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The past decade of vaapAreh on tI.Anafnrmelt4nn.1 grammar has substantiated amply, to my mind, the claim that the optimal framework for the description of syntactic facts is a set' of rules, of two types: context-free phrase structure rules., which generate an infinite set of highly abstract formal objects, underlying (or deep) phrase markers; and grammatical transformations, which map underlying phrase markers onto an infinite set of objects of roughly the same formal character, superficial (or surface) phrase mar_ kers. 1 . Within this framework, an evaluation measure is provided which must select, from . a set of observationally adequate grammars of some language -- i.e., grammars which all generate the observed set of grammatical sentences of the language -- the descriptively atklatre grammar -- the grammar which makes correct predictions about strings of words not yet observed, and can thus be said to reflect linguistic knowledge of speakers of the language. 2 Such knowledge includes intuitions about the immediate constituents of sentences, about similarity, among constituents, and about relatedness between sentences. For instance.; a descriptively adequate grammar of English would have to predict the following facts about sentence (1.1): (1.1) A gun which I had cleaned went off. a) The main constituent break occurs between cleaned and went; I is a constituent; which I .0 is not; etc.. A , -..tRi4 2 b) The constituent gun which I had cleaned is a constituent of ate same kind as the constituent I. Similarly, went off is the same type of constituent as had cleaned, and neither is of the same type as I, a, or off. c). (1.2) Sentence (1.1) is related to sentence (1.2). A gun went off which I had cleaned. ry Within a transformational grammar, intuitions of relatedness between sentences are reconstructed by deriViag sets of related sentences from the same or highly similar underlying phrase markers by means of slightly differing sets of transformations. As a first approximation, we could postulate a rule like (1.3) to convert the structure under-, lying (1.1) to the one underlying (1.2)3 (here and elsewhere I will give rules and tree diagrams in a simplified formes long as it makes no difference for the point under discussion):' (1.3) [NP VP, S] VP 1 OPT 2 3 0 3 4- 2 where the phrase marker (P-Marker) associated with (1.1) can be 4 represented as a tree diagram of roughly the following form : A r . 3 (1. 1') NP NP went. VP ,Fun which off NP I I h d cleaned Rule (1.3) would convert (1.1') into thelerived*P-Marker (1.2') n. a gun went off NP . NP whichI VP had cleaned It is fairly easy to demonstrate that the present evaluation measure gives a higher rating to a grammar which has (1.1') as an under-. lyingP-Marker and derives (1.2') from it by using (1.3), than to one which assumes (1.2') is.basic; but I will not undertake such a demonstration here, since the point at issue is more general, and these rules I propose are only supposed to illustrate it, not to constitute a' complete analysis. Nbw consider the sentences (1.4) and (1.5). (1.4) 1 gave a gun which I had cleaned to my ,rother.' (1.5) I gal, a gun to my brother which I had cleaned. 4 To relate (1.4) and (1.5) -- again, I omit the argument wbich would prow that (1.5) must derive from (1.4) -- some rule like (1.6) would be necessary. (1.6) NP V [NP - S] =nneS PP NP OPT 3. 2 3 1 0 3 + 2 By the provisions of the evaluation measure, we are forced to collapse rules which are similar in certain ways, and (1.3) and,(1.6) . collapse to yield (1.7); : ". (1.7) [NP S] PP NP 1 L"....see.....11 1 . 2 3 0 3 + 2 OPT Consideration of sentences like (1.8) and (19). (1.8) He let the cats which were meowing out. (1.9) He let the cats out which were meowing. and similar sentences might lead one to reformulate (1,7) as an even more general rule, (1.10), which I will call Extraposition from NP: (1.10) Extraposition from NP [NP Y SI OPT NP NP 1611111......vaorISIMIIIIId 1 2 3 1 0 3+ 2 .. .,,,,r., 4, .. 5 The symbols X and Y in (1.10) are variables range over all strings, including the null string. which With them, the (1.10) would rule as it stands is much too powerful.' For instance, convert (1.11) into the ungrammatical (1.12). (1.11) , NP r I s :, ' 1 : ./' 7\ went S NP t.... VP NP that *, : 1 off .. NP NP 1 //"NN had cleanid I . (1.12) .. .i "' *- : which one .surprised -1. o . t - .-..-. -. . ,. . .: 1 NP 1 . . 4 LW ., VP IL LA I surprised : no one I -which wtnt off The fact is that an extraposed clause may never be moved outside "the first sentence up," in the obvious interpretation of this phrase, and there are a number of ways of incorporating this fact Into .; A- cleaned 6 . " I. " 4.1 u yr or One rather obvious way of blocking a restriction on rule (1.10). sentences like (1.12) , which arise because of the great power which variables in the structural index o: a 'transformation have, is simply to eschew entirely the use of variables in the statement of the rule, and to replaci (1.10) by an expanded version of (1.1), in which all the nodes, or sequences of nodes, over which clauses may be extraposed are merely listed disjunctively in the structural index of the rule. Such a "solution" is feasible for this rule, but any linguist adopting it will have merely postponed the day of reckoning when he will have to find a more general way of constraining variables in structural indices of transformations; for there are many rules whose statement' requires variables, and these variables cannot be replaced, as far as know, by disjunctive listings of nodes or sequences of nodes, as is the case above, with respect to the rule of Extraposition from NP. One example of a rule in which variables are essential is the rule which forms WH-questions. It can be stated roughly as follows (1 ignore many details which are irrelevant for the,purpose at hand): (1.13) X NP Y OBLIG 1 2 3 2+1, 0 3 =====> where 2 dominates WH +'some This rule produces sentences like those in (1.14), where it is clear that the questioned element can be moved from sentences which are indefinitely deeply embedded in a P-Marker: " .,1111111110M 1 t: (1.14) 7 What did Bill buy? What did you force Bill to buy? What did Harry say you had forced Bill to buj? What was it obvious that Harry said you had ( forced Bill to buy? A moment's reflection should convince anyone that it is impossible to replace the variable X in (1.13) by some such disjunction as that contained in (1.7): variables. rule (1.13) is not stateable without And yet, just as was the case with rule (1.10), Extraposition from NP, it is easy to see that (1.13) is far too strong, for it will . generate infinitely many non-sentences, such as those in (1.15). (1.15) * What did Bill buy potatoes and? . * What did that Bill wore surprise everyone? * What dl,d John fall asleep and Bill wear? 1.1. Sentences and non-sentences like those in (1.14) and (1.15) show that some rules must contain variables but that somehow the power of these variables must be restricted. It is the purpose of this thesis to try to justify a set of constraints on variables, which I will 7.....?ose in detail in subsequent chapters. There are doubtless many constraints on variables which are peculiar to individual languages, and possibly some which are even peculiar to some rule in some particular r language, but I have by and large avoided detailed discussion of these and have instead concentrated my research on constraints which I suspect to be universal. 8 It is obvious that the limited character of presently.' available syntactic knowledge reduces drastically the chances of 4 survival of any universals which can be formulated today, for the study of syntax is truly 'in its infancy. But it will be seen below that the constraints on variables which I will propose are often of such a complex nature that'to state them as constraints on rules in particular languages would greatly increase the power of transformational ,4 rules and of the kinds of operations on P-Markers they could perform. But to assume more powerful apparatus in a theory than can be shown / to be necessary is contrary to basic tenets of the philosophy of 01 science, and so I will tentatively assume that many of the constraints I have arrived at in my investigations of the few languages I am familiar with are universal. It is easy to prove me mistaken in this 41 assumption: if languages can be found whose rules are not subject to these constraints, then the apparatus in theory of generative . grammar which provides for the description of languageaaarticular facts will have to be strengthened so that.rules like the question. transformation in English, (1.13), for instance, can be stated and correctly restricted to exclude ungrammatical sentences like those in (1.15). But until such disconfirming evidence arises, the assumption of a weaker theory for particular languages is dictated by principles of the philosophy of science. It is probably unnecessary to point out that it is commonplace to limit the power of the apparatus which is available for the description of particular languages by "factoring out" of individual 1 ' i 9 grammars) principles, conditions, conventions and concepts which are necessary In all grammars: a theory of language. to factor out in this manner is to construct So, for example, when the principle of operation of the syntactic transformational cycle has been specified in linguistic theory, it is unnecessary to include another description of this principle-in-a 'grammar of French. And so it is also with such well-known notions as free variation, 'grammatical sentence, constituent,, coordinate structure, verb, and many others. The present work should be looked upon as an attempt to add to this list a precise specification of the notions actic variable. This notion is crucial for the theory of synton for without it the most striking fact about syntactic a. 1,1 ,orocesses - the fact that they- may. operate over indefinitely large domains - cannot be cap cored. And since almost all transformations either are most generally stated, or can only be stated, with the help of variables, no transformation which contains variables in its structural index will work properly until syntactic theory has provided variables which are neither too powerful nor too weak. It is easy to construct counterexamples such as those in (1.15) for almost every .transformation containing variables that has ever been proposed in the literature on generative grammar. It is for this reason that attempts to constrain variables, like those which will be discussed in Chapters 2, 4, and 5, are so important: without the correct set of constraints,. it is impossible to formulate almost all syntactic rules precisely, unless one is willing to so greatly . 10 increase the power of the descriptive apparatus that every variable in every rule can be constrained individually. But one pursuing this latter course will soon come to realize that many of the constraints he imposes on individ.4a1 variables must be stated agaia and again; that 1 he is missing clear generalizations about language. course must be abandoned: universal constraints. 1.2. the latter the only possible course is to search for This thesis is devoted to that search. The outline of this work is as follows. .4. In Chapter 2, I will discuss the only previous attempts to limit the power of variables which I know of 5 Chomsky's A- over -A principle and two conditions subsequently proposed by him, and demonstrate that they are too strong in some respects and too weak in others. In Chapter 3, I will discuss a notion which will prove indispensable in stating the universal constraints: the notion of node deletion, or tree pruning. In Chapter 4, I state and discuss two putatively universal constraints on variables, which overcome the inadequacies in the principles discussed in Chapter 2, and several lea.a geacral constraints. bounding, is introduced in Chapter 5. The notion of In Chapter 6, I discuss briefly a number of rules and show that these rules are subject to the constraints of Chapter 4, but that not all transformations to these constraints. : subject,f.,:, The question is discussed as to w1 t formal features of rules determine whether the variables in them are subject to the constraints or not Chapter 7 is a brief recapitulation of. the 1. .1.; results of the thesis. .", -,....4.44±kOda474 11 Chapter 1 FOOTNOTES. :. 1. For an excellent introductory article on the difference between underlying and 'superficial structure, cf. Postal (1964). A more technical and far more complete exposition is given in , . Chomsky (1965). 2. For further discussion of the notions of observational and ' : . descriptive adequacy, cf. 3. ChrAsky (1964b). My notation for transformations follows that of Rosenbaum (1965), except where otherwise noted. 4. The assumption that relative clauses are introduced in the deep NP structure by the rule 9 NP S will be justified in Lakoff and Ross (in preparation b). 5. Except Langacker's notion of command (Langacker (1966)) and Klima's notion in construction with (Klima (1964)), which will, be discussed separately in i5 below, in connectio;A with the notion of bounding. " - ,f 1. t. V "°` kk: 12 Chapter 2 THE iv-OVER-A PRINCIPLE 2.0. In a paper written for the 1962 Ninth In ternational Congress of Lineuists, "Theflogical basis of linguistic theory" (Chomsky (1964a)), on p. 930-931, while discussing the relative clause transformation and the .question transformation, Chomsky makes the follow ing statement: "The same point can be illustrated by an example of a rather different sort. Consider the sentences (6) . (i) % (ii) (7) who(m) did Mary see walking toward the railroad station? do you know the boy who(m) Mary saw walking to the railroad station? Mary saw the boy walking toward the railroad station. (7) is multiply, ambiguous; in particular it can have either the syntactic analysis (8i) or (8ii) (8) (i) (ii) NP - Verb - NP - Complement NP - Verb - NP where the second NP in (8ii) consists of a NP ("the boy") with a restrictive relative clause. The interpretation (8ii) is forced if we add "who was" after "boy" in (7); the interpretation (8i) is forced if we delete "ing" in (7). But (6i,61i) are not subject to this ambiguity; the interpretation Once again, (8ii) is ruled out, in these cases. these are facts that a grammar would have to state (Notice that to achieve descriptive adequacy. there is a further ambiguity, where "Mary" is taken as the subject of "walk ", but this is not relevant to the present discussion.) 1. . The problem of explanatory adequacy is, again, that of finding a principled basis for the factually Consider how (6i) and (6ii) correct descriptio : W=m;imillmmilsWirmwW41,732,77.7wArsir4W4-707;,-;:-' .. 03. . 41 13 .f must be generated in a transformational grammar for English. Each mus t be formed by transformation from a terminal string S underlying (7). In each case, a transformation ap lies to S which selects the second NP, moves. It to the front of 1.5 the string S, and replaces it by a wh-form. [I have not quoted footnote 15 here, for it does not bear on the h-over-A principle -JRR] But in the case of (7) with the structural description (8ii), thi specification is ambiguous, since we must determine whether the Second NP -- the one to be prefixed -is "the boy" o=. "the boy walking to the railroad station," each of which is an NP. Since transformations must be unambiguous,, this matter must be resolved in the general theory. The natural way to resolve it is by a general requirement that the dominating, rather than the dominated, element mmstalways be selected in such a case. This general condition, when appropriately formalized, might then be proposed as a hypothetical linguistic universal: What it asserts is that if tha phrase r X of category A is embedded within a larger phrase ZXW which is also of category A, then no rule applying to the category A applies to X (but only to ZXW)." ' I. It is the principle stated in this last sentence which I will refer to as the A-over-A principle. In terms of tree. diagram (2.1), the principle asserts that all transformatiolis which refer to A must apply to the topmost instance of A in (2.1), not the dominated A, which I have circled. I.... (2.1) + )i . 1 , : I,. Nt ,7 '4, 1101 1%. . 4 I , , s I. I . / *' e_ t P .,- 41"4"". . 14 2.3 Chomsky, in the course of revising the paper quoted aboVe for separate publication as the monograph Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, (Chomsky 1964b), realized that the A-over-A principle was too strong. On page 46,: in footnote 10, he gives the examples "who would you approve of my seeing?", "what are you uncertain about giving to John?", and "what would you be surprisedby'his reading?", where in each case the question word, who or what, itself an NP, moved out of another NP has been aNp Ey2191131121M1hilaj. [Np skkaison. Other examples of this sort to John], [NP his jaadjagssataking])/. are not difficult to construct, and there are even cases where the relative clause transformation can move either a dominated NP or NP's which dominate it. any one of an unbounded number of NP (2.2) 1 . .,,,./°"'""ft. NP ,..-47'4,.... Det NP book the I ':. '. VP NP Vi . . '' ,.. ... NP lost PP . .. Det NP N r tile"colver- arrows Det 'tLe book 9. The relative clause rule", when applied to (2.2), will produce either the book, the cover of which I lost, or the book which I lost the cover of, the second of which would be ruled out by the A-over-A principle. the NP The example can be made more complicated b embedding in ever larger NP's, can be repeated without limit. (2.3) and as far as I know, this process Thus if the strucf.dre underlying (2.3) The government prescribes the height of the lettering on the covers 4f the reports. is embedded as a relative clause into an NP whose head noun is ,reports, the relative clause rule must produf& (at least) four relative clauses: the'reports, the height, of the letteriagoa the covers of which'the overnment -%rescribes- the'reptalsi.the lettering on the covers'of which the height of: the reports overnment rescribes'the the covers of which the government t prescribes the height of the letteriagau and the reports which the government covers of. the height of thelettering'on'tle The problem of how to formulate the relative clause rule so that it will produce all four of these is an important' -- and difficult one which I will discuss in SOM3 detail later (cf. §4.3 below); but for the purposes of the present discussion it is enough to note that the A- over-A principle would exclude Many other examples of all but the first of these four clauses. the same kind, whicL show that the principle as originally stated, is too strong, can be found, so it would appear that it must either be modified somehow, or abandoned and replaced by some weaker principle. I have not been able to find any successful s .'. It 16 , modification, and therefore, I have pursued the latter course. Of course, it was not merely to handle certain 2.2. restrictions on question and relative clause formation that the ki.over-A principle was proposed. And it is incumbent upon anyone who wishes to modify or replace this principle to take into As consideration all cases which it dealt with satisfactorily. far as 'I know, the following is a complete list of all cases In all of these, I have which the principle handled convincingly. been able to construct an alternative explanation which still allows the generation of such sentences as were demonstrated in to be improperly excluded by the A-over -A, principle. i 2.1 --.:''. In , all of the cases but one, I will not present here the alternative I have found, but rather postpone the explanation until a more :y For ease of referunce, nazural time in the sequence of exposition. I will repeat here several examples which I have already discussed, so that all cases which seem to support the A-over-A principle are grouped together. Elements 1:41: relative clauses may not be , questioned or relativized. - Thus, the sentence , I chasedl.the boy'whothrewla snowball] at 'our NP NP teacher.] can ziever be embedded as a relative clause in an N? . whose head noun is 'snowball: , 4 r. ; , sentence (2.4) is ungrammatical... ,, r . '4 % . 4 ' 1 .-f . . 1 , 41 4 , ,:' : . ; .,. i ,}C ' ' 17 It (2.4) * He is the snowball which I chased the boy who threw at our teacher. 4. It is easy to sae how the A-over-A principle would exelude this: in the source sentence the snowball is embedded within a larger NP NP- a tjejLoyc./ho .. 'threwa 'snowball at our teacher, and the principle nodes can dictates that only dominating, not dominated, be affected by the operation of a rule. . . of Thiè restrtetion also applies to elements f .. 51 (i.e., those in which the reduced relative clauses 3 initialvhich'is has been deleted ): the VP- bikinis , .. , . , in the following 'is impossible to.question or relativik.s : .,. . . . she reported, sentence: . r -,all'_the'Rirls wearing, NP :-: ibikiniili to the police. :,... Thus the following question ., . . , , , 4 , ,f , r,, ' , IA ' ,1 4 ; 0 :., I r {' .4 1 ',. :: _ 1,., : ,. i : . is impossible: , : .! i ,,t I, 01 ..i .0 . ' (2.5) . ( . : . ,,,.... .. . , I ,,,:,,.,,.., .... st ,.:, ., . ; .. B. . the * Which bikinis did she report all, , , 7 girls wearing to the police? Elements of sentences in apposition to such sentential nouns as fatt,'idea; doubt,t's2essloa, 1184, cannot be questioned or relativized. Thus tile sentence Tom mentioned C the fact that NP 'she had worn, E a'bi.32 cannot be 2mbedded NP NP whose head as a relative clause into an . 18 sentence (2.6) is ungrammatical: noun is bikini: (2.6) * Where's the. bikini which Tom mentioned the fact that Sue had worn ?, Once again, it is easy to s'ee how the A-over-A principle can be made use of in a~:-Audiri this sentence. . An extraposed clause may never be moved outside "The first sentence up," as was discussed . .4. Assuming that an approximately ', briefly in S 1.0. correct formulation of the rule for'Extrasositiam, Is the one which was given in (140), "from 'NP : ; : *k '! $ ." .$ 1 . eonvemiance, which I repeat here . (31010) Ixtrasositian'from'NP, I , X Y 03 ENP I. OPT NP 1. .2 1 0 3 3+2 we see that unless it is somehow restricted, it .4: will have two results when it is applied on the 'topmost cycle of the structure shown in (2.7). '1 . ,, 4 . $.4 t ; .5 I°, .r r >Fa1 3 1r 17.; ry ; , +1. " 4. t , . r t. r 1,14I . 4 . C . It I tk . t. .,,,, r-4". ..:"" 4'1414%<,-e,Nti4 t . I 19 .-t - (2.7) 'I N NP (1)241,e. "that 'given was NP . had been made ; * t' -the-e aim ...f It 4 .. 1 VP 17 'that John -had lied , Either S2 r. (the subscripts have no systematic ' . i : .,.... :.;:. . significance and are merely inserted as an aid to exposi- t tion) could be moved to the end of . . Si, which rould yield . ... . , '0.' : . .... . the grammatical sentence (LS) ., I (2.8) ' , A proof was given that the .claim that John had lied had been made. or could be moved to the end of Si,. which would S 3 t result in the ungrammatical (209),* t (2.9) * A proof that the claim had been. made was ; giver that John had lied. . Sentences like (2.9) could be avoided if the A-over-A principle' was strengthened somewhat so that if a P -Marker had two proper analyses wish respect . . I :. ; e I ; k . VI.' , :1 . 4- ,:romossoklisem 20 the structural index of some transformation4, Where one proper analysis "dominated" the, other, in a sense Which is intuitively fairly clear, but would probably be difficult to state formally; then the trasformation in question would only perform the operations specified in. its strucZural change5 with respect to Begging the question the "dominating" proper analysis. of how these notions could be made precise, it should rt be clear that the sequence of nodes 0 Sim? which . is immediately dominated by NP, in (2.7) "dominates", ' in the intended sense, the sequence of nodes which, is immediately dominated by N22; [NP so'Extrapositimn 'from NP could not produce (2.9) from (2,7), if the strengthened version of the A-over-A principle which was sketched immediately above were adopted. .. . A NP In a relative clause structure, ie/Ss it is, NP' i. S' not possible to question or rPlativize the dominated NO. This is the case discussed by Chomsky in the passage quoted in 5 2.0 ".above. An example of the kind of sentence that must be excluded is the following: it .*-: is not possible to question (2.10) by moving a. tT trj 4. , ' 1I 21 someone to the front of the sentence and leaving the relative clause 'who I' was Vith: 'behind. It IY.4 (2.10) 41.4. He expected ([someone] NP who I was acquainted within, to show up. Thus (2.11) is ungrammatical: (2.11) * Who did he expect who I was 4. , t acquainted with to show up? In (2.10), if the NP someone is to be questioned, the whole NP which dominates it, someone who I was :Aclaglpedvith, must be moved forward with it, yielding', .(2.12), or, by later extraposition, (2.13) '.(2.12) Who who I was acquainted with did he expect to show up? .14 . ".' (2.13) 1 Who did he expect to show up who I was acquainted with? It should be obvious how the AfoverA principle 'would exclude (2.11). ,, 4 i . ' :Cy ' ,.., .., . .,......0. ... . .;' ; A NP which is exhaustively dominated6 by a E, , ' , . t ' i ... ":e I. , 1141 , . (t :*' Determiner cannot be questioned or relativized out of the NP which immediately' dominates that !.. Determiner. Thus, from (2.14) it is impossible to form :(2.15)i ;r/4(f -42? .. S. . f: , 22 ' . (2.14) NP Det found N ./' 1 "bodk NP . 4. ' a N Det Pose - . .% some ;` one ''s 4 1 (2.15) * Whose did you find book ?' Only (2.16) is possible: Whose book did you find? (2.16) and the to.over-4 principle correctly makes this assertion. , P. ' . J.. Alt NP . structure cannot be questioned or relativized. :. Thus, in (2.17), neither, of the conjoined 4 . ." . , . : . ." which is a, conjunct in a coordinate NP ,t4'; NP's (2.18) and (2.19) are both may be questioned , impossible. (2.17) Ile will put the chair betweeliplIm[pmme ,t, table] , NP And some sofajle] What sofa will he put the chair between some table and? (2.19) f * What .table will he put the chair,..., , .., some. between nail!' sofa? 1 . 1 4'4^ '4' !' . 23 principle will exclude The last example was suggested by'James McCauley (cf. McCawley (1964)). He points out that if the'Adlective Shift Rule, the r le which permutes . ,. ; ..,t. . a reduced relative clause with the noun it modifies, ective, and not -A principle; ed from the noun 'sate, instead of with the whole compound t. ; 24 Thus, without the stronger version of the 4 S l.nverA principle Vitich wan discussed shrive .t '1. i t , s it ion from NP in connection with E2...ittapp a 5/ rule (2.20), when applied to (2.21) would 4.; yield the incorrect ** a'boolcbig case t' instead of the desired a big book case. 2.3 As was stated above, z have been able to find alternative explanations for all seven of the cases discussed in Cases 6 2.2 above. A, 110 and C will be accounted for by the Complex NP ' Constraint, . . which will be discussed below, in 5 4.1. In case D, ungrammatical 4' ?I sentences like (2.11) will be shown to be excluded by either of two independent conditions: the Complex NP Constraint of § 4.1, or the 4 . Pied Piping Convention, which will be discussed in with relative clauses. 6 4.3, in connection .. The Pied Piping Convention will also be used to exclude the ungrammatidal sentences which arose in case E. And. case P will be accounted for by a special condition of great generality which will be discussed ins I 4.2 0 the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Case G ;, remains to be explained without invoking the: ." A-over-4 principle, and it seems to me that the most likely line of explanation lies in rejecting the assumption that the correct statement of the 'Adjective Shift1tule is the one given above in (2,20). The rule of (2.20) must have many restrictions placed-on 4 51 25 into the ungrammatical for otherwise it will transform I painted it*red * 7 -ainted red it.10 and we showgd the children untranslatable passages, into assa es * we showed the untranslatable children etc. Clearly adjectives it ii necessary to restrict the operation of this rule to which are part of the same permutes, as the N over which the adjective 111, One simple wad to do this would be to modify.(2.20) so that it is stated as shown in (2.21): Y rNp Det, N Adjlta; X (2.22) . 1 3 1. 2 3 4 2 0 4 Although the formulation in (2.22) avoids the difficulty' Lakoff and Ross (op.'cit.)) pointed out by EcCawley, recent work (cf. Indicates that it is still inadequate. ,1 I will not discuss this inadequacy, here, for to do so would be unnecessary for my present purpose: examples:, suff4ce to show. of ungrammatical sentences like * I painted red it is too strong that MCCawley's formulation of the Adjective Shift*Rule and must be replaced by some rule formulated along the general lines of (2.22)0 Thus case G provides no support for the A,over-A principle. 2.4. 2.4.0. InCILLl'ueltELLtieor(Chomsky (1964b))* having realized that the A-over-A principle was too strong, Chomsky rule. proposed two other conditions on the relative clause and question These need to be scrutinized carefully, so that it can be ascertained to what extent they can replace the AmtAver-A, principle.- Admittedly, -.. . . i , . 1' , : 1 t 1. 1 e 1 i k . . . ' . 4 v .1 : '1,0 4 e 26 I Chomsky at no time claims that these two conditions will have the same coverage as the principle, but since the facts given in cases through P h.vn to ht. AnnotetIteA f.r Onyvny, lt is of interest A to see how far his two conditions can go towards this end. In the quote that follows, '(6)' refers,, to the following rule, which Chomsky states on p. 38, and which he asserts is the basic rule in question and relative clause formation. F (6) 2.4.1. .; Y 1411 + Z +'X -Y Z. The first of the proposed conditions on this rule is . on pp. 43-44: .. . , S,.4 ' .. 1 i 1* . 1 S , e 4 "Notice that although several noun : .1 ..'...,t. , 1 - , . . 6 : e t, ..,'.; ,.!,. 4 l'. ' :4 to them, the operation (6) must be limited to a single application to each underlying terminal string. Thus we can have 'who saw what?', 'you met the man who saw what?', 'you read the book that who sawl','you saw the book that was next to what?', etc., but not 'who what sawr, you saw the book which which was next to' (as a .1 declarative), and so on, as could arise from multiple applications of this rule. These. examples show that (6) cannot apply twice to ...... ; Relativization and cannot a given string as a apply twice as an Interrogative transformation, ;,.:, but it is equally true that it cannot apply to a given string once as a Relativization and ,6 once as an Interrogative transformation. Thus if rule (6) has applied to form a string which is embedded as a relative clause, it cannot reapply to this embedded string, preposing one - ,.., '. ... : :' of its Noun Phrases to the full sentence. Thus we can have the interrogative 'he saw the.man read the book that was on what?' , but not 'what did he see the man read the book that was on'; Ind we can have 'he wondered where John put whatl', but not 'what did he wonder where John pute'i 4tc." . ,,. ,. .,, Phrases in a sentence may have A attached 1 ., . 11,4 o ,e . .4.., .. , et , '. , '!e,.. 'I ....- 1..1q. .:,. '' ', '..'° :;.1; , I, 'A: ei :'..1.;,6,,i; : . , . , . ! ..r . , ., ,..- , . . 66.......1 A./ H 4: ' 1, 27 My first objection to this condition, which I will refer to as Condition 1, is that is seems to me, to be somewhat too strong. That is, I find the sentences in (2.23) all more or less acceptale: . , ,,, t, , 1. "t, , ' I H . 1 (2.23) 4( ,'" ` 1. I 1 . au., He told me about a book which I can't 'whether to buy or not figure out how to read. where to obtain. what to do about. , b. 41. " . 1 c. He told me al-out a book which I why he read. ?whether I should read figure out ??when I should read. Which books did he tell you r .. .. 4 k$ ! why ?whether ?when he wanted-to read? e7 For some reason that is obscure to me, I find sentences like those in (2.23a), where the embedded question 8 "' .1 .5 consists of a r wh-word followed by an infinitive, by and large more acceptable than ' corresponding sentences, like those in (2.23b), where the wh -word is 1.14.... followed by a clause with a finite verb. And yet there are many sentences which differ in no way which I can d / sceru from those in r (Chomsky's example, (2.23b-c) but which I find totally unacceptable. "* what did he wonder where John put?" is a good case in point). , So, for speakers who agree with me in finding at least some sentences like : those in (2.23) acceptable, Condition 1 is too strong as it stands, although examples like Chomsky's make it clear that it is partially! true. This all, indicates that much more work needs to be dons on this condition, so that a. weaker version of it may be found. ^' .tv, $ 6 .1 . 4: .... S. i I 1 , 28 ......welIt It is apparent that even a correct version of Condition 1 must be supplemented somehow by ethe. principles; for, of the six cases which were discussed in 5 2.2, Condition_l can only account for case A. And it should be noted that even in case A, Condition 1 it is not obvious how 10, should be stated so that it will apply to embedded . questions, full relative _clauses end reduccd relative clauses. That is, in (2024a) 'and (2.24b), it is easy to state formally that, in Chomsky's terms, "operation (6)" has applied once, for there is a . , . subetring which is headed by a wh-word. (2.24) : , a. I know who is mad at John. b. I know a boy who is mad at John. _ , . / : . But in (2.25)., which has been derived from 1/.24b) through ete operation ' of the Relative Clause Reduction Rule, there is no longer any wh-word I in the sentPnce which could be used as an indication that Condition I . 1 , '." Qust be invoked. : ; ...:4 1 ": (2.25) ..; I knott e boy mad at John. . The fact that NP's in the position of John in (2.25) s ' , cannot be relativized or questioned (cf. the ungrammaticality of LILlosgagg10 would have to be stated in some other :4 .....E*119LASYoualcm , way than in terms of wh-words, possibly, for instance, as follows: `*- . (2.26) ' No element of a constituent of an NP which' , ,: modifies the head noun may be questioned or relativized. But thin condition is strong enough to account for cases A 1 .t .1. ., and (with ; 1. A . 1 .7- It ;, , It. . 4 4 e r n 5" A 29 ;: . suitable modification) . B, of an4 in fact, condition (2.26), 6 2.2; . when suitably formalized, is the cornerstone of whet I have called the . ..,. ,. I; ), , S 4.14 Constraint, and will be discussed in detail in .... Complex NP . . , , . t-. . is of limited It appears, therefore, that Condition 1 , utility, except insofar as it can be given in a weakened reformulation ..t .41, - . ., . which will allow some of the sentences in (2.23) to be generated, but . , ,1 ' .1''0!','. will, exclude others, like ChQmsky's example of "* what did he wonder :lc IA ;44.4 ?..., , : :. -, ,.. I will , ..: ,., .. ', where,John put?''. 1/4. t: i'..--.,, i.., ,: ", .,.. 4 , i .. ...., \:. 4. ,. . ' ::::: : I should add that none of the conditions -- . . . propose in Chapters 4 or 5,can be modified, in any way, that I know .,.. ..,4.1 .. . . .. ' . ... ,... ; t exclude this last example; so it is evident that some version e of, to . , .. .. -.... :,.. .. ...,. :.' . , . . .....,- of Condition 1 i must appear in the grammar of English, or, if this ' S, t condition should prove to be univeisal, in linguistic theory. ,, ,wt; '4. , a The second condition which Chomsky proposes for his rule, -:.;.-._ , ...:.4, . 4' f ,.. : , ,,,,:tt ' 8 1- , n a .. ,. I . ,.- t j,. I. 1' . ''. i' 4 :4Vi:IA : : !,.. . I: ; r tl" Finally, it is clear that the first segment Y of the structural condition of rule ..pi .! i ,, .1;". (6) must be suitably restricted. Thus we cannot .,,,,-,...,, have such interrogatives as 'what presumably "' ) ' i ' t. 0 did Bill see' from 'presumably Bill saw something 9 ...--eu .;.s.,I.,,.:. 14 ,.t. t ., . : and so on. This suggests that we restrict Y in (6) to the form NP + ..c. With this further condition, we also succeed in excluding such " , non-sentences as 'what for me to understand , would be difficult?', although the perfectly .. ,..,!i\: correct form 'what would it be difficult for me to understand?' is still permitted. Thus .:,..-:5'.. this condition would account for a distinction bgtween the occurrences of 'for me to understand _ ,...;-: something' in the:contexts '---- would be , '-4 , ..1',..--4.*:',..... . -"Y.i.o ' , 4 .. V, . ., . . ..f.. .. . ' . . . ,... .." , .. . -. er , . ,, ,'. ;-,,,t' .,..;: ,, . ., ., . . .. ,. I . '' 91: . .....,..., .- difficult' 'ard lit would be difficult ---ftlt- .,..'2......- ti.', 4. os :, % I I :ii i : '' 4 %, ;', . . 1 , ' ':....,i ,I 4.. 1, 1 % , . / .Y 0. ., . o . # 1 r . ', . 1 , Z s' ,.. % ''.... d %. ,, 4 .''' .. *; ,i ' I,' .. . ; *-... , : :. IN .. A t 4 : .4 ". ' k 'is .. . .... t . ' O .;,, $ 4., ., V ',:.. ,. .. '.; V ., . , e. t ... , . 4 . . i , , - !,*-- *;. . ri- , ., , . ' ,....2:, ,..-: ,.4.41,-....; -' . ft .-,..... . ,-,: -, 1 :: . i : .',.; .. *4 . . .;' : N 1 et: , , s.,:.. I. In i,L.;;:..ni .. .. , ,,..... ..,,,.:...,.,..7".., :-..... . ,, A ....4....,0.,.!:;.;,...;..,,...., is stated as follows: . .. ,.. , -4-'', t .' : , (6) , , "i 1 . ie 7P4 .k 0 . t L .. k r 1 1. i ! . 1...'', '. ' , y .,,,,, r :1 'No,..N : o Vf ', l ', it. Aa '1 ...44*. '..,.., ,q i _ .- I .. 4.. a .;,, ? .. : 1 ! i".' .; till:, (op. tc the point at hand , ; i!zi.,41 H , cit. pp. 45-46) [I do not quote footnote 10 here, becatise its content has been discussed in 5 2.3. above,-an4I it. is of no direct relevance 3.,:,.:., 1,, :Of.. ii °I;V:. .,, f ., ,,.,:l: .::;th.: ,,; li -,,i I, Bo far as applicability of (6) is concerned."" * . ; lit i,-, i!..; , . i . , - ,, :"'.r, I 30 ''. '' ,:t-:1`. 4 ,7,z; _ ' , , . ' ; .i, ' ?, ...?..,-- a II' 4. .4. 0' ' ', * t I. I, .. Ai , This condition, which I will refer to as "Condition 2", .! ! 4, ;-,,..:.,; - ;:,i -,:, i''.-' -., , .. . . none of the ungrgumaatical excluded by Condition 2. ,, - . 6 2.2 will be ,... sentences discussed in cases A through P of 1. a at all between it and tht A-over-A principle . . .-.:: bears close scrutiny, even though it is clear that there is no overlap ....,1 .:,,: , . .. ,.;;:i ye' In the first place, - 5- the first example is not convincing. ' :. :4.. is The fact that Chomsky's example * what presumablyda Bill see? .., , , an . ungrammatical has nothing to do with the fact that . 4 . adverb star:a , , .: ,-,' ..... .. . . ..... . :. , . et .7 i :' . r , :, / ;:-?:,,441 .;';: .,: incompatible with sentence adverbs in any position. Thus, neither . , t, :c.i:1;-..,,. . ,::-.4. ''..--,,,,: ...,: ,. :: above, questions are the sentence; as was noted in footnote 8 ? -,. , , ...:. %,...,::. b. , . i i . .." J. : .r. , in Bill presumably saw something nor in Bill saw something., presumably 4. ' ".-" , . can the word somethinst be questioned: * tahat did Bill ayes . ; % " ;. ; "' -'' are both probably to be and * what did Bill see, presumably '.1 `' f 1.- -, , - , . .. . I ;,- ,. , . . i.. : ,i 41; ,':. ,;.''$.:' (. (2.27) " J IA.. .(,. '..., s, i'.', . i / 0 s;., .. . : 1, : I . : .. : ,t 4. Itlii, . I 0, !.. you get out of bed? ,, ' ' 1 ,., ; '::. 1''' .:.. : , . , .' , ' ''' '''. '',, :, -0 I , - p , .., . . , .. . ' . . :1'1'''''!:: '' ,.. ;'- ' , I . :, ' i . . - . ; ,* ' 1 , .1 ' . i1 :: A ,, ` ,,.. 't .' i '', 4 y t" 4-4...4 :4 . ' ;. ;. a ; I.,. .q.... ........... '-, II ,,,.. % :;,.... - . , longwill you ..',4';' this promotion, how long 14-. '4'44. ..,..... .. ..., '. * .- ,t :. ... %.....,.. f. would 2.:.-4...,1::::...,.`:..;.t. Is' -, . / . f, . . 1 , 4 . i ' i'4'. ', :.7..!..2.1''''' .1'; In light of . ,.... . .. (T. .. . ,... ,, .9 i''' you do in a typhoon? 4 at a ' :,, ,,. . 0 ..,... ,,. s...,.i.., :"....%;,... . ./ 1. i.. t,......,:. ,7 . .. : t. ! .,' '7+1 ; " ,;', .: !4. : ;,1,,,', .,:, . ..-. .: i Although you've never been in one, what y , ... . !, . ''.,-; 3:1::.,.,... s , , ! After maintaining that you were sick, why did -:.!.. :1....,,,.,, I . t'l., !,.,.1.: --ir"'.1.', . .,., ,., .';'`1" ., . -. ,4-.'...1 ':. 11. ; ',:,:':' 'it ,,`,,(: 4 .:,'I'.:)i , I '. 4 :i. :,: 4.: .. ..... ., :-. .. , : ...r I* ' ''': . , `:' d ,f : .'''' '"Y,' '1'.' ..t,, . :It 1 1%.t.:I. . . ., , ,,, ...., .1, .,... i!, ,. is n ...; ,,,. , i.. 01,, e .:. "I. . .- S' ..,14 f, ,'... , . ,, . ,,0.41' !, . ), ,..o ' , ; . 1:,:i. '';'.1.'. ';! , .p., ;.-;..,;.,.' 1 ''' 'ti . ,,r 4. explained away, for they appear to be counterexamples. t i'''': : :::,:, .r .,. ;. '''''i..," 1 .. - I . is correct anyway, but if it is, all of the sentences in (2.27), (2.28), and (2.29) must be , , It may be that Condition 2 excluded. , i' 1 ,'' k , , .. . ; i' . . , . .. 1 : , '. 4 q . ' : ;' , ... * . I t ..s . . . . ,V : . , :c , 61:- .. . § 4 I . , .). ,v. ., . . :. 1,14 i ,',.. 'fri ) ' , _ 44 , .. . .. . , ;. . ' ; .1 f 1. . 00,44. ,- , 0. I '.4.4 .` 6,4 4' .- 40" 4 481.1.1.1! \./ V ' . :4 4 ' .; .., , i ,t * * 1 " . . .. I1 ' 1 .i I.I 4 4 t. 1 ; .' .. '''. .). ' -"to ' , 4! *V ..) t i! I !... 1. ! " - :,.. .; I, .S,A....I. ,-..4. , .4. . .3, ; , t . ' , . 31 , . .t . . . stay here? 4 14: -; " , . Furthermore, what prompted you to hit John? If it rains, will you finally give up and go ,41 1 4 .. . . ..; .; ,t ..r.' t . ; .: .,. gi 1 ;, .,.. :it ,,'; "t '.5., . ! ,: , . t: ": l' -'=" .: : f I - i ,.: " , ., 't ,. ,., . ..., (2.28) A: Why, after maintaining that you were sick r, did ..,11.:4!' 1.1; e " ' , "i':.. -; , I 4.3. I ; .4 . . ft . *".; ' '' , -1.-}5': .; 4ti 1 13 What, although you've never been in one, would "t ; I 44. -L, , : 1",. I t' ril ; ; ..; 0 0: . 4, t Now long, in light of this 1 11 Pttnaqiitifit WAAL& i , 1. you estay here? `11 "." ":4 3 /..' - . s. ....is, "'"r ' , it, 4 . . .4 ,, - . . What, 'furthermore, prompted you to hit John? ;-..-.'n-:;--1.. ....'".::.; ...,...;:`.".i.,:.!:.*'*-z :..,....... ;.t:.:..r.- ,.., .... ,.,,,.... :..... .-. What, presumably,,did Bill seat t, (.,'; : . 4 .( . 4. .4 n t., ; . i ;'' .. ' ' 1 ' ,14 . , -. , i4 ; ' .S. .. !t 7od do in a typhoon? 4 4 . . I t , ' 4 6 ' , you.get out of bed? , ' , 1' .1 .:t 4 I home? 4 ft . X ; ." r a ' .. ' 4,01 4n% ) ' . 4' p.4... what can you do with the wounded? E144 . , . J 1, . The type of explanation which at first seems attractive ... : , is one involving rule ordering,. That is one might suggest that the t 44;` 4 r keLtim11111111311Majtule should apply first, and that the the adverbial.' t elements which start the sentences in (2.27) should be moved to the . front of the sentence, past the'trwordo, to yield the sentences in . = , a i (2.27). Subsequently, a second adverb movement rule might move the r i preposed adverbs to the position immediately following the gh7word, I A 4 and insert ;Os= markers on either side of them. To giv,. an example, I. . the second sentence in (2.27) and (2.28) would be derived as followst :%:-: : .s f ;-' .. .. - ;i . -. f .. I` . .., .. .... ., ) ; .1., ., . - ... ;. . e 4.1 , ' 8 i 48 t ". . . 1 ' t ,,_..I: , . I.1 ! i %I. , never been in one. 11.? s i. - ' sh. . ' " . 1,', ' 4,' '. 'something in a typhoon, although you've you would do wh . ` ., 4 1 ." " Bacei ..., 1 , *' v. 32 * 1 . , I ir '1 4 ` t+ ss . 11 a ; s sI V, ,ir?1 r 4 4 r question formation I 4' 4 A. .t" IA ' ' . , IA ,4 , t '' 4.:4*I . . y la 41 / ' .. ,' , 44 s4 ' e ; ..... `' 1".... s,. t4 ,, (2 .27) i * Although you've never been in one, what-would ". . v I. s. -Z1 *. :411; 4;:. ,'.4 t you do in a typhoon ?f . 4. .1.;S.- 1st adverb movement " ":1 v: 4 -' one? , ...;* . , what would you do in a typhoon, although you've never been . , " it 2nd adverb movement .1 i Xj . "1':; 7- . . , What, although you've never been in 2.28) . . . - . 7 .; r St I Molt do 4" a typhoon? a' r-.11 I I Note that if this proposal is adopted, Condition 2 can S : e t. be dispensed with anyway, for at the time at which the question rule - - applies, no adverbs have yet been moved into sentence-initial position. But there is still some doubt in my mind as to whether the rule; , . , such low .siccaptability that I doubt they should be generated at all.9 r s , , wonder, after maintaining that you lase ,;' were sick why you got out of bed'.. ,4 7", ' s a.- (2.3 . .4 0. . ordering, explanation is possible, because the sentences of (2.30) have .;... r 4. : ' 1 ''''' '4,; ',., A'- 's' f $ 1 I' ,4,.. t. i . ! .: I. " 't.' "t /44 . s, ,s '' . nv .''.., . .. .' 1"' 1 i. 4,4!, " 'A -1a., . 4 ...",. ts *0 r , 04' Ov.! tiail ....,..* ' tt t,',.4 ...:q ... .,f 1 ,if.',4' T..: 4 6 :,`,4 i % 1P. 1"." e fi'''' lyric,. .$ '1,' ' . '0 A"; 4 ". ,...... ., 6,: ' `' ir.. % ' :( V ,, ,7 , , i '' Y .4,, . ` s, , ". , .;.' ;... -.! ..) ' . , .: . , 4' -t.i .e. ; .. . . .,` , . v.,:, ;- , 1 , # 7 , ,; ... . t. Aso r . . ,..; t' I ,,', 7, .., .i 4', 1, 1 1. # ' ,. ., .... ,.- : ,, . . "? . . r ' 1 ' .' , . is, 1 - . ....,, . ,.:. .t. . i 4 ' ' 7.I. 4 ''i, '' : it .:..., -' , . .' ,.. ;. .' .., r 4 ,,.. N .,,.- '..:. , .: . t ,' . 4 *$ .,,: : ::3..,;' .. s T! ..';,. .41 s 4:4 : ., c ..4.'n ..,.4: ,1 0,* !Pt - ...,. ' '.` e . IN . 1 *I : s ,, . . . . . 4 . . . 0 7 . 4 r 33 , ,A ,,,. ., -./"....,,...... ., ,, r, I e . O ' ,... , . , . -I 4 .. -I ':0 .4 , ... A" , c' ; . will : ask you, although you've never y , . been in one, what you would do in a typhoon. ... ' "0 I . `i ,. ?*/ wonder, if it rains, whether he will . I *, - .1 . . . I finally give up and go home. lo, 1 e. ' d. . *It is not known,if it rains, whether he . ,,t., .,t , 1 . 1. ? Tom : , . ; ' . ..,.. . A 1. '" I 7 I , , t .(41.t.' b. 4 ,4::".;......44 71. . : ..! .. .;., i ,e- , ,.,,,..4! C.. l'; 1 it , . ?a y . , .'3 .4 t 1 ,: . .:-, 1.: : , , e *41 ": will finally give up and go hone. 4 . ,?70. t. . f e. :. *She raised the question , if it e . rains, whether he will finally give up '55- and go hone. , . 3- '. Since the sentences in (2.30) all contain embedded / , questions, the first adverb movement rule, which produces the sentences.: . of (2.27), will also generate the ones in (2.30), unless it can be t ' 1` 1, ' And if the first restricted somehow, which seems doubtful to me. adverb movement rule camnat be prevented from generating them, then " "ie ..S :" the second adverb movement rule, which Converts sentences like those in in (2.27) to ones like those (2028), must somehow be made obligatory I :.%1' I when it operates on embedded questions. It does not appear to me as ,.!. .!,,4 . -4' .if conditions of either of these kinds on the adverb movement rules.' e cannot be stated, but it does begin to seem that the rule - ordering , ,g i 1; , I I I say ft some version", because it seems to me that the sentences in, 1 .; I (2.29) constitute clear (thou h rather trivial) counterexamples + 5,0 : .s I r. ' I '1" r 1 4, . 4.7; . . 4" rt. t.-4 r. r . ,. 4. , r or oar. . . . t 4, , V a. . , 1 s 11. 5%44 may be necessary4. ordering of the rules, then some version of Condition 2 4 .4 :. If the correct explanation is not toibe found in the 'r , n: 4 mode of explanation may not be the optimal one. r ; ; t A i ,5 i " -V,11A. V''. I ".4 , 4, 4,41. , '4 4 ti a : I , 34 . 4 Ft N 444 r 4 4, ;$ to the condition as it was originally stated. : I would like to call particular attention to the last 4 "". .11. sentence of (2.28), what,,yresuambly; did' 8311 ? 'tr. I This sentence r ' A =' seems perfectly acceptable, as long 04 ,.. ;/. : ,!4, .i, ; (1 1 T. ;.,:. it " 11 ''. 4 This fact is especially baffling, since it seems that presumably can occur nowhere else in ;±k ','4,' , 1 4!i A .., : question .. ', 4. , t .j .-,. 4 .., - 4 .. w::.., .,.. i e,: I unless I was wrong in excluding the the questioned sentence, );i: : .., ., .:,,. ' ? .ekt '4 . . 1 :.. ,, . '.. ;.,,. t., P , : separate ' presumably, from the rest of the sentence. ' :',9:1 ' t as heavy pauses , . 4 41 which .has it occurring finally, preceded by a comma: ?*what did t ,Bill see, presumablz1 It is obvious that much more work will have ity ; ;: ;:; . to be done in this area before answers to many of the questions I. 1 ' I have raised can be attempted. 4 "4 1' '11 ' . ,' s:, ., . . , although it is strong enough to exclude Cnomsky's example, * wnat , i . . re: 'I :`:: t- One last comment about Condition 2 should be made: . :f.,1 4 :, 2 NI ) ' :::, :. - ,- s' , "CA. ' l .i' for me to understand would be difficult?, I will show below in .... , : , I ;` . . ..1 14, 4 .0. 6 4.4 that sentences like this can be excluded by a' latch more , .widely applicable condition than Condition 2, 44 and one that is , V, f So it appears that although Condition 2 :, ',':-. independently motivated. :, .. ''!" --' ..., .44' 'rt;!'.1;, ' ''' it :,4:$14;:l.. i. , . . :'.. "7' .1t: may be correct, the cnly support for it is to be found in the .. ..:. ::: ' 1,4!):kZ (..- : ; ' 4 21'?' k . :!,.s....,:....,.i.,- .,v''-!-,: ::: .': . confused mass of eases which have to do with the interrelationship . .: '', .s.-1: '.-. , ." ; of the tgo,adverb movement riles and the question formgtion rule. . . v.) ) . . frw .4.3. .1. 'VC 2.5. , , , ,;( 4, a ,. :, . .... 410 ti . . : 44 In summar, I have tried to demonstrate in this chapter.' e.1 that the three conditions on the relative clause and question formation 'c. . . ..44i'' , -.. . . ' '., . .,', "S ' ,i l' ;...1 ft .r 41 ,. . . . ;'' !:' . , ,4 .3 - . 4"; 41. . `, , 1 ... . ; 4; k ":"i ' " .4 i' . , rf . I /. CP: .1 f 4 4i 1. 4; t $ 44. "' 4"' . 1. 4. I 35 4 1 ^ ' 4 t 0.4 rule which Chomsky has proposed all suffer from defects of various , S 2.1 The k-over-,A principle, while shown in kinds. to be too ., Ar strong in a non-trivial way, still' is the most important of the three, .0,1 . 1!% 1 because of the wide range of cases it successfully accounts for. - , , .., ,- , '.1-': %:.'' Condition 1 seems tb be somewhat too strong, in somevay which 1 AA:'.:...*Ii.i;!,' cannot yet delimit precisely; but insofar as it is correct in the k 7 3 , 4 t .11 ., .;,, : ; .,. ,..4.,. ;. ;IY i.:.., .ss!:,---1,.-;.-W, restrictions it imposes upon the reletivizing or questioning of ' , .. .. :.t.--,;4..,.n:, . , ,-, . -I. elements in embedded questions, it is valuable and should be added - 4 " : .1.s to the rules of English grammar or to the theory of either grammar.' ' ..", - ' But it seems that this condltion, if it is to apply both to full and 4. - , 'A to reduced relative clauses, cannot be formulated in terms of Chomakep to notion of "single application of rule (6) a string"; rather, It -,;, .' must be formulated along the lines suggested in (2.26), and, as will . t. s .. "' : in rough form, the central 5 4.1, (2.26) contains be shown in ,,. . , . , : ..1,t notion of the Complex 1P Constraint, which has much independent I ; .10 4 s 4 " 'S , fails to account for most In any case, Condition 1 motivation. ,,,; is undecidedL.:',.'Y,i'--.. r. =',1* ' The status of Condition 2 5 2.2. six cases of of 4:. 4. because of the present lack of knowledge about the complex syntactic., ' '7. *. t . " e "4 . 4 , At But whether it is phenomena which way provide support for it. . s . eventually adopted or not . 4. . 't of I , .. e .-,, 1`. -1' ;.1 4 4,' ; ; ; :'t 2:2. ' 4 , 1,. ' t .,, ' it can account for none of the six cases t I hope that in my criticisms of the three nonditions the' impression proposed by Chomaky I have not given that I wish to t belittle them, merely because they can be proven to be wrong today; 4,. .. ., , ,,r kr .0.1 .1 ,- " :, ; ., o 4, 'el' .. .: '. -, -, .,4 , .. ,!: : I, ; I 7... o .. . . 4 . ' . a . % . '81TV:es:Pt' t.?; -a s . , tt ,;4..., .1'' '&`:. '' .'1:''':... to /' . k 1,, . 1. 1 ...74 . ,... . ' .' 14 % x. 1. ' ' , ' 4.,=d,`ra..'51fe z. ; 4' . .... 4 ,... t . ; ! :,' 0 4.4 : ".` . , ; .4!.., , ,' '1,, k "' r . .. 1 . . .. ', I - 4 , . s *4 , . ` 3, ' , 8 r a . . .1 .1,43.744e.t.y -4es , i :-. 4 ' ...i. .., . ' ...43,,,. 1 . . l ';t ' e. . i , r 7 i. e : . 4.', TT_8" (1. 4 A . . - , . . : I ; a t' ' , ,. t 4 .. ; :-tt1z )4 I , , k 4 ., 1 ES , , w4 l is t 1 - ., ; : : ., 'Y :; :::':: : - : . ) ' jJ4ta t - 4 4pt,, 4*t : I -F & , 4 .'.: .' . .. , . $1, r .#J14 , S i : , , ; ' .-t : ;,: ? , . j ,. these conditions , for the cOfltaXy is trtie : S.. the in particulsr , ' ' ,. ' .. ' kover"A principle , provide the basis fo the peaent work. For ? choinakf reuiarked , 10 , : .,, ': . . : :. . lii .. ; * 'tPrecisely constructed models for 34 r % ,. linguistic structure can play an iinportat role, t,oth negative and positive, in the process of discoVery itself. By pushing a precise but 'tTh ., .; 1 '4t 1: 4' ' t tj( ' ' , ' ;ì1 inadequate foXiflulation to an unacceptable 3 'I ' . 4 conclusion, we can often expose the exact source of this inadequacy end, consequently, gain a '- %' ' ' , deeper understanding of the linguistic data." ' I t. t1: . .' , " , (Choineky (1957), p.5) , ,,; r l ' i :j $-, :. :' : r constraints which Will avoid the detects pointed o*t in z, 2.1 : : ' . : i .. : i t ) .. J iI Before tU 2.2. and will account for all the casea in £4 . to provide a set of '- in task of this work i The t, 'i' can o t). t ' ;:: : . , ':' e be attempted, in Chapter 4, one digres8ion must intervene: $$ I "- -. b' ..' : ;,...r.: thapter 3, itt which the notion of tree"pruning, which interacts in I :' . 1 .; , : . :, . -:; * . t , . ' . ; : - 'q , ' t ' , ? . : 9 ' 4 T f , 'i ': : 4 f . $ : ' : : tp; ' : : _ : "' i4t:, l I A I ,: ' , 'fl 4$ :: -.i ' t 41 '' . 4 :; :i 4 I ,, c I 1; It . . : Ø 4 T.S t i '::. ? 47 I 1' ? :, ";t , i % : rt . : , I ,? I 1 . I I I ; ' : : .; . 4 '. . p various ways with the conatrainte of haptrs 4 and 5, is discussed. i . ; ' : : , :; ; ! ii ' lt h ' I ' h h1 : - I i ; l3 1; 1 l_ s?d. J, I (% ; .c 1 : 74'J) 3 1.4 1 4 . ,1 4' 9'. '. . '' . . " '. . i 4. 44 :. : b i:: 4 1 ( . ;;; I 3 LI 7 f4f'3 -. ,I4 '1' . SI . ' 4, r* 1 13 4 4' ';' ,' .4 ' 43, : I , i 4 '4 3 1". 1 444 It3 S ., . 4 t I 4 .4 j . I 1.... '.4 I 4. 4 4' k t .4 I .4'.r - ', ., 4 1' 1 - :. 4 Il / . S 4 1 4 , i I I 4 ;'t 4. 1 .. 4 - 4 ..f'r - 4, 4'. 44 I.;., 4 ?/j .4 4 I 1' \ 1. 5 '- 44 5 4 4 , 444 4 -. $ '.4 .4 :" " . 4 .4 * : S .. 4 4 / $ 1 S. 5 4 t .1 41 .4 5 4 .., '. . -' 4 4 , 1. 41.-J ',4' 3' #4 S I 't '. 4 ,4,'4 ' 74 4 4 ?' " ' 1' 4 * '.4. ' .4 : :''' 117 41 , , ' -I . v 1 tt,4 ;f tiø- 4 I J - 4' I , : ; ; i ;: : ;tS : . /t' .. "? - p . k . , ' : , I ' . . . ', , . p ' ' 4 1 4 :- , I):Iv. /.#._/ "' ) I ,c ( 4 ? . chapter 2 ; ' . k j , , ' , 4 4 f i ., , '_ +t 'a f POOTNOTES ' t: .r. , '? e ,; , 1 : , ' ::- pit \t 1 4 ' J : ', u"' .* : 31 44i 1 ' i ' 'i : '. 1 t :: ,, '' ,4 ' : 9 ; ¶ :1..: 1 .' - ' f ; ' . ' r4 t't I .''. .' I a 1', I NP br a justification of the as8ignwent o statua to theec 1 f ' _ I :' I ) L -. ..,' L .. ' ''. e±edded eentence, cf. Roaenbaunt (.96S). I , , ,, , : L& .. ', * 4 ' % ':. ' f.,. I.. 3 ' : t':t. :: S : a:t I4' ; j -, a , ' .' r , !; '; 1I , t, _3 h ;$i ig the correct deep etruture of relative c1aueo , a . ., ' c1im " :- 4\ i j_ 4 I which is implicit in Choky' earlier discuaiica of relativi et . V 7 (cf. Chon*ky (1964a) , p. 9O bottom, and p. c1aute -' 33 top) : ta ; - * &g,; :rt4 ' 4 44 ' tt: : N p Lakoff and Rosø (in preparation b) . cf . ' c ' : ' . . .:' k ' '" : : £ : : r: r; I :; 'i I 3j Por a discussion of tie relative c1ase reduction rule, ( :: I I i' t( ;l 1 .it , , ': ;, i;,, . : : ;'' 1 S ' ' : I. q 'U I , / ' ' " : ? 1 I '.4' ;g , ; , j iI ; ;d j 1 :t The mos t coinp].ete diacuacion of the notions P-Marker , 4. !! ci , .1 ' 'j I 'i !' , r : ' ''. ,t3' : c _ cf. Sin:Lth (1961) . '! 'a $, 'a l ;I ' 4r : I 'I , y 'i proDerna1ysis and a triietural index l.a contained Lu ( ;t ' . : ' ' I ; * tk 1 '' 'ft'atl ' "t$I I 4 . ' t : . # '-.' -- ' ''a t F ' " :. ' ; % 4 :t . ' NP S juetification for the c]im that the rule NP 2, ; : : 1 A Ahotter account is given in Fraser (1963) . (1955) $ a a. a a I ;, ? j i j a' ; ) I , For an explanation of the term "6tructural change" cf, the S. I t 1 references of-fn-4,-or Choins?y (1957),or Lees (1960). ; % l'' \ tt '. ,, 1_r ' a a ! ': P . g \ i t ''. 4 . ' a t % e ' . Y ,'' , a ." V' a. 'a - a i a a - ' a t ,.: :. :' -- : . -;.' ' '4. a '' a a a a : 1: . / . :-. -'a 'a I '1 a ',a / a I -, '- a I a " . , 1 , . I a, a : ' a a I ' I$' a a a a l a Ut$IHSl..aI_ - 'I I ': £ . - 38 6. The relation exhaustively dominates is the converse of the converse of the ISA relation (cf. Frasers(1963)). if A term (weakly) dominate as follows: B, then A exhaustively dominates are (possible null) variables and XBY, B (weakly) dominates where X dominates 7. Z and Z B and there is no dominates Y and is a single symbol or a string of symbols.- A immediately dominates only if A damiinates I use the Z if and B such that A. B. Sentences like I sainted red- all the houses which had white doors are derived by a different rule which moves "complex" NP (for an attempted partial explanation of this term, cf. them. § 3.1.1.3.2. below) to the end of the first S above Some results of this rule are the sentences I would consider unwise an attem t to visit her now, Pete attributed to Masaccio a beautiful old fresco which Joan swooned over, They elected president a'man who had never run for public office before,- etc. 8. There are two .acts about such sentences as those in (2.23) which indicate that the clauses in them that start with a wh-word axe in fact questions, and not the type of clause which has been called "the free relative clause," such as the wh-word clauses in I eat what she cooks or I live where he lives. 39 1. Questions exclude sentence adverbs, like perhaps, possiblx, etc., as was pointed out by Katz and Postal (cf. Katz and Postal (1964), p. 87-88). Thus the following sentences are impossible: * Did John probably hurt himself? * What will she perhaps wear? * Where did you possibly find this? The same restriction, however it is to be stated, which is far from being clear, obtains after such verbs as ask and wonder, * I wonder whether to probably leave, * Tom asked where he should possibly put the car. although after ask there are contexts where these adverbs can occur; e.g., Tom asked where Jane probably put the car. There is still much to be explained here. 2. The word else can appear after the wh-word in questions What else did he say? Where else did you stop? Why else would he have come? and after the wh-word in clauses after wonder, ask, kaow, find out, determine, guess, etc. 40 I wonder what else he said. Tom asked where else I stopped. ? I Know why else he would have come. but it cannot appear after the wh-word of a free relative clause * I ate what else she cooked. * I live where else he lives. 9. I will occasionally wish to designate more than two degrees of acceptability; when I do so I assert that I find that sentences prefixed with an asterisk are completely unacceptable;, those prefixed with a question mark followed by an asterisk are only barely acceptable, if at all; those prefixed with a question mark are not quite fully acceptable; and those with no prefix are completely acceptable. 41 Chapter 3 TREE PRUNING1 3.0. 3 nin A fairly serious failinR of the present theory of generative grammar is that it assigns to many senteaceq. derived constituent structures which seem intuitively to be overly complex.' For instance, sentence (3.1) would probably be assigned some such structure as the one given in (3.2): (3.1) John is taller than Dill. (3 . 2 ) VP Av is Adj tall er 'than 1i). NP Bill At present, I am not interested in the question of what the node over the constituent than Bill (if indeed it is a constituent at all) should be labeled, so I have avoided the issue by labeling it with a question mark. What concerns me at present is only the question of whdther the NP"Bill should be immediately 42 iominated by the circled node S. It seems intuitively abhorrent to assert that, in sentence (3.1), the single word Bill has the same status as a constituent as the whole sentence, and yet that is precisely the assertion that the labeled bracketing in (3,2) makes. And yet 'in sentence (3.3), from which (3.1) is derived by the deletion of the second occurrence of the word is, it seems more reasonable that the phrase Bill is should be called a sentence, (3.3) John is taller than Bill is. for there is every reason to believe that the underlying structure contained the sentence Bill is tall. Transformational grammarians since Harris (cf. Harris (1957), p. 166) have agreed that sentences containing comparatives derive from sources containing at least two sentences, and in more complex comparative sentences, like those in (3.4) fq LI This sofa is longer than the room is wide. Tom is smarter than anyone thought he would prove himself to be. Bannister ran a little faster than it was necessary for him to run. there is no intuitive difficulty in labeling as sentences the phrases which follow than. But the phrase Bill is in (3.3), which it seems correct to call a sentence, ceases to be felt to be one when the word is is deleted. 1 43 Similarly, it seems counter-intuitive to claim, with the present theory, that the correct structure to assign to a NP like his yellow cat, is one roughly like the one shown in (3.5). NP (3.5) Dec Art Postart NP VP N Adj Poss "c t 'yellow, he Once again, recent research in syntax has called into question many facets of the analysis implicit in (3.5) (cf. Postal 4 (196a) and Lakoff and Ross (in preparation, b)), but at present I am only interested in the fact that it seems incorrect to claim that the words his and theory, an NP are sentences. In the present like the one diagrammed in (3.5) would, correctly I think, be derived from an underlying clauses: 2 NP with two relative the cat which I have which is,....Lea:)%7. The motivation for deriving possessi'vzs and prenominal adjectives from relative clauses is well-known enough not to need recapitulation here 44 (cf., e.g., Harris (1957)), although several real'problems remain (cf. Winter (1965)). But it seems to me that the analysis is well-established enough to make the appearance of the two circled 3.0.1. S nodes in (3.5) more than a pseudo-problem. To overcome the inadequacies of the present theory, which I have just discussed, I propose that the following principle be added to the theory of derived constituent structure: (3.6) "S'- Pruning: delete any embedded node S which does not branch (i.e,, which does not immediately dominate at least two nodes). This principle should not be thought of as a rule which is stated as one of the ordered rules of any grammary but rather as a condition upon the well-formedness of trees, which is stated once in linguistic theory, and applies to delete any non-branching nodes S which occur in any derivations of sentences of any language. condition that (3.6) only affect embedded S The nodes, which was suggested to me by asloge Lakoff, is necessary to prevent the node S which should dominate imperative sentences like go homer iron deleting when the subject,Isu, is deleted."' It is easy to see that (3.6) will operate on the circled instances a the node S which were pointed out to be intuitively incorrect in diagrams (3.2) and (3.5), but the only evidence I have given so far for adopting (3.6) is that without er......r-ropmrreroorbrpr....."'"`1, 45 it, counter-intuitive derived structures would be produced. This is already a sufficient reason for incorporating (3.6) or something like it into the theory, but it might be objected that (3.6) could be replaced by some other convention which would do as well for the two cases I have discussed. Below, however, in § 3.1, I will discuss eight cases which I know of,whose correct analysis seems to me to depend upon occurrences of S being pruned out either by the principle stated in (3.6) or by some more general principle which subsumes It. These cases constitute even stronger evidence for (3.6), for in each case the rules which would be required in order to describe the facts accurately without the principle are far more complex than the rules which can be formulated if the principle is adopted. In most cases,'ad hoc conditions would have to be placed upon the latter rules, but in some cases extra rules would have to be added, and in one case, which is discussed in § 3.1.4, the facts seem to me to resist description completely, unless one allows the Complex NP (cf. Constraint § 4.1), which is applicable elsewhere in English and which I believe to be universal, to be avoided somehow for just these cases. 3.0.2. Before I start in on a detailed analysis of the eight cases, I would like to add one final prefatory comment, which was suggested to me by James Thorne, in a recent letter. Traditional 46 grammarians distinguished between'phrases,and clauses, and while a considerable effort has been made, both in structuralist linguistics and in generative grammar, to reconstruct the former notion (the resulting theoretical entities have been called (immediate) constituents, Iagmemes, or trees), little attention has been focussed on the latter notion, to the best of my knowledge, in any recent theoretical work. In the framework of generative grammar, it would seem that the most natural reconstruction for the traditional-notion:of'clause of a sentence would he "any subpart (not necessarily proper) of the terminal string of the final derived phrase marker of a sentence which is dominated by the node S." But' without some notion of tree-pruning, the cases discussed above, (3.2) and (3.5), are counter-examples to this reconstruction, for no traditional grammarian would designate as clauses the words Bill, his, or yellow. However, with principle (3.6), these words are no longer dominated by S in the derived phrase marker, so the definition just proposed is again in lane with the traditional notion. It might be thought that the distinction between clause and phrase is a minor one, but I feel that the contrary is the case. Many rules can only be stated if the notion of clause is available (three of these -- the Latin word order rule, the Serbo-Croatian clitic placement rule, and the English reflexive rule -- will be discussed in the next section), and I think it 47 is fair to say that the fundamental idea of transformational grammar -- Harris's insight that complex sentences can be thought of as being in some way "composed" of more elementary sentences, whieh may only appear in A defnrmeA gbape in the romplelc cientenee can be traced back to the realization that what might be called "clauses of the underlying structure" may differ from the things which have traditionally been called simply "clauses," but which it might be more accurate to call "clauses of the superficial structure." And the failure of traditional grammarians to recognize that the clauses' a2 and I'shave myself underl=3 the phrases 'ILsa and'shaving myself in (3.7) (3.7) I want to go. Shaving myself is difficult for me. may derive in part from the fact that such principles as (3.6) were not available to them. The first of the eight cases I will discuss 'ilas to do with the interaction of the Particle Movement Rule and "colplex" NP. Verb particles in English are a subset of the English prepositions which occur in such two-word idiomatic verbs as eke out think'overicallm, show off, etc.4 Since there is a . 48 close lexical connection between verb and particleAbruit, for instance, only occurs in,English in construction with the particle about ), in previous transformational accounts it has been assumed that the structure underlying (3.8i.) is basic and that .(3.8b) is derived from it by a rule roughly like the one given in (3.9) (cf. Chomsky (1962), p. 228). (3.8) a. The shock touched off the explosion. (3.8) b. The shock touched the explosion off.' (3.9) Particle Movement X V Pt-t: - NP - Y OPT 1 2 1 0 4 3+2 OBLIG if 3 is a pronot BLOCKS if 3 is "compl( 4 The condition that (3.9) be obligatory if the object NP is a pronoun has been imposed in order to exclude sentences like * I called ua him. But it is the second condition on (3.9) which I am primarily interested in)in connection with the problem of node deletion. Chomsky notes (cf. Chomsky (1961), fn. 18) That whatever "complex" in the second condition on (3.9) may mean, it cannot be equated with "long", for he finds (3.10a) though far longer, far more acceptable than (3.10b). (3.10) a, I called almost all of the men from Boston up. 0 49 b. * I called the man you met up. I agree with his intuitions, but I must point out that there are people who find (3.10b) perfectly acceptable, and there may even be people who find :ct better than (3.10a) . problem area of what NP The whole are felt to be "heavy" or "complex" borders on questions of style, and there seems to be a baffling array of dialectal, or possibly even idiolectal, variations here. Since I have not made a systematic study of this variation, I can have no hope of finding examples whose acceptability will be agreed or by all readers, if indeed such examples exist. Instead as I must resort to describing the facts of my own speech, insofar they can be ascertained with any consistency, for this area is really a grnunatical shadowland, and I fear my own judgments may change from time to time. I can only hope that most readers will share my judgments, at least in part. 3.1.1.2. With this caveat, I would like to propose the following definition as a partial explication of the notion of "complex" NP. A noun phrase is complex if it dominates the (3.11) the node S. Used in conjunction with the principle for S-pruning, (3.6), definition (3.11) explains why sentence (3.10b) is less acceptable than sentence (3.10a): in the d.c.s. or the former, the node will dominate the relative clause'you'met, so the object NP, S 50 definition (3.11); but in the man you met, is complex, under is (3.10a), although the postnominal modifier'from Boston derivedfromarelativeaause-who are from Boston, the node S will have which dominates this clause in the deep structure Rule5 been pruned by (3.6) when the Relative Clause Reduction deletes the subject NP* who and the copula are. in A similar explanation holds for the sentences (3.12), (3.13), and (3.14). The b version of each of these sentences is more acceptable, because the nodes S which dominate deleted after the who is the relative clauses of the a versions are Rule has been dropped by thelelative Clause Reduction (3.12) a. b. (3.13) a. * I ran a man who was old down. I ran an old man down. * I'm going to call somebody who is strong up. (3.14) b. ? I'm going to call somebody strong up.. A. * I polished the vase which was from India up. b. ? I polished the vase from India up. I find sentences (3.13b) and (3.14b) somewhat worse than (3.12b), although none_of.them are complex according to definition (3.11). It is thus clear that (3.11) cannot be strengthened to a biconditional: for an NP to dominate the node S is a sufficient, but not a necessary, condition for diminished acceptability. A 51 possible explanation for the less than full acceptability of (3.13b) arid (3.14b) will be suggested below, in S 3.1.1.3. Nevertheless, despite the fact that principle (3.6) cannot explain the variations in acceptability among the b sentences, the fact that it and definition (3.11) can predict the difference between the a sentences and the b sentences is an indication of the correctness of (3.6). 3.1.1.3. 3.1.1.3.1. I will now discuss what I consider to be an inadequacy of the previous analysis of particles, or of any analysis which includes conditions like these on (3.9). The second condition on (3.9), it will be remembered, was one which prohibited' Particle Movement, from moving a particle over a complex NP. I wish to argue that to state this as a condition on Particle Movement alone is to miss a very general fact about complex NP in English. In sentences (3.15) to (3.19) below, the a-sentences, in which the direct object immediately follows the verb, are basic, as is demonstrated by thelmaxeptability of the b-sentences, in which the direct object has been moved to the end of the verb phrase. (3.15)-W: He attributed the fire to a short circuit. b. *He attributed to a short circuit the fire. c. He attributed to a short circuit the fire which destroyed:4ost of my factory. 52 (3.16) a. He threw the letter into the wastebasket. b. * He threw into the wastebasket the letter. c. He threw into the wastebasket the letter which he had not decoded. (3.17 a. We elected my father president. b. * .We elected president my father. c. We elected president my father, who had just turned 60. (3.18) a. They dismissed the proposal as too costly. b. * They dismissed as to costly the proposal. c. They dismissed as too costly the proposal for the State to build a sidewalk from Dartmouth 'to Smith. (3.19) a. I consider the problem unsolvable. b. * I_consider unsolvable the problem. c. I consider unsolvable the problem of keeping the house warm in winter. The grammaticality of the c-sentences can be explained by a rule which optionally moves a complex sentence up. NP to the end of the first As the non-sentences in (3.20) show, however, this rule must be restricted in some way, iforced to eat hot soup all the children * I a. (3.20) lwanted who were swimming. . , 53 b. * 'I told that we were in trouble a an who had a kind face© c. * I watched talk(ing) all the children who had never seen the sea. d. * He restrained from attempting to bend the bars a cellmate he had know= the outside. for all of them'are the result of moving a complex NP of the S which contains it. It might be proposed that the rule should be restricted so that a complex NP its can move to the end of only if it does not pass over a VP S to the end in moving there. Such a condition would be sufficient to exclude the ungrammatical examples in (3.20), but unfortunately it would also exclude (3.18c) and (3.19c) , cosh and since I see no reason why tha unsolvable should not be considered to be verb phrases. the sentences in (3.21), which show that one complex NP Furthermore, can be moved over another, provide additional evidence against the condition, for the second complex NP, moved permutes, will of course_contain a these VP's proposiaa over which the one being VP. (I have underlined in (3.21)0 (3.21) a. He attributed to a short circuit which was caused by an overloaded transducer the fire which destroyed most of my factory. b. He threw into, the wastebasket which stood by his desk a letter which he had not decoded. 54 c. They dismissed as too costly to people who'live in*thesuburbs the proposal for the State_tobuild a sidewalk from Dartmouth to Smith. Clearly the condition must be weakened somewhat, but before this is attempted,.one-further.class of constructions must be .... taken.into consideration. (3.22) a, found to be delicious some fruit which I picked up on the way home. b. I found delicious some fruit which I picked up on the way home. (3.23) a. ?* The mayor regarded as being absurd the proposal to build a sidewalk from Dartmouth to Smith. b. The mayor regarded as absurd the proposal to build a sidewalk from Dartmouth to Smith. (3.24) a. * I consider to be a foci the senator who made the opening speech. b. ? I consider a fool the senator who made the opening speech. For me, at least, the a-sentences above are considerably worse than the b-sentences, although some speakers may find the distinction not to be as ciearcut as I have indicki., This then 55 must be made indicates that the rule which moves complex NP sensitive to the presence of the copulalbe, for the.a and bA444^.44 va, 4 U. 4 44G101 CM/ W V 4 %I J.i .16. G4 411.4:y 4, 4.44 444.44. 44444 W ^.44.4e, 14.4 wnmm^y4n,n1 44.4 ai.AM e 444 a %.1, Pt Under previous and does not appear in the ones which are grammatical. generative analyses of adjectives, such as the one found in Chomsky (1965), on p. 102, in which be is not treated as a verb, but rather as a terminal element of the base component, no simple statement of rule is possible, as far as I the restriction on the complex NP can see. However, under a new analysis of adjectives, which I have proposed in some detail elsewhere (cf. Ross (1966c)), the restriction is easily stated. In this new analysis, which is independently motivated by a number of constructions, be is treated as a real verb which takes a sentential object. Using the feature [4. Adj:16, the underlying structure of John is has as shown in (3.25). (3.25) S NP VP John Au(*(MV I Pres NP V I r +v 1 ///N.N.. it S -,Adi -,' 1 NP be John Aux ? MV [ +V 'happy Q 56 (I have used a question mark for the auxiliary of the embedded sentence to indicate my uncertainty as to whether it should appear' at all there, and if so what node it should dominate) Under the analysis which is implicit in (3.25), the restriction which is necessary to exclude the sentences in (3.20), (3.22a), (3.23a), and (3.24a), while allowing (3.18c), (3.19c), (3.21) a complex (3.22b), (3.23b), and (3.24b), can be stated as follows: up, NP may permute to the end of the first sentence it permutes over no true verb (i.e., dominated by an NP. (3.26) 1 +v providing 1 ))unless that verb is LAdj Ji More formally, the rule is awlex NP Shift X Y NP OPT 1 2 3 1 0 3 + 2 Condition 1: 2: 2 dominates S BLOCKS if 3 = X 4.+V Adj 1 where there exists no + X 2 NP which +V 1 7 dominates [-Ad . J-12. Notice that (3.26) will generate (3.20b) that we were it trouble a man who had a kind face? * I'told It might seem that this sentence could be excluded on the basis of the very general output condition on performance, which is stated in (3.27): 0 57 Grammatical sentences containing an internal (3.27) NP which exhaustively dominates unacceptable. S are 8 (3.27) would explain why (3.20b) is unacceptable -- it contains an internal NP which exhaustively dominates the sentence Some condition like (3.27) seems to be that we were in trouble, note that (3.27) also explains why the necessary in any case: a-sentences of (3.28) to (3.33) are worse than the corresponding b- or c-sentences. (3.28) a. * Did that John showed up please you? b. Did the fact that John showed up please you? c. (3.29) Did it please you that John showed up? a.?* That that John showed up pleased her was obvious. b. ? That the fact that John showed up pleased her was obvious. c. That it pleased h3r that John showed up was obvious. (3.30) a. ? *For whether she died to remain unclear would spoil the play. 1 ib. ? For the question as t° whether she died of to remain unclear would spoil the play. c. For it to remain unclear (as to) whether she died would spoil the play. 58 (3.31) a. 2* I want that Bill left to remain a secret. b. I want ale fact that Bill left to remain a secret. c. I want it to remain a secret that Bill left. (3.32) a. b. * What what I ate cost almost broke me. What the thing which I ate cost almost broke me. c. What the thing cost which I ate almost broke me. (3.33) a. * I went out with a girl who that John showed up pleased. b. ? I went out with a girl who the fact that John showed up pleased. c. I went out with a girl who it pleased that John showed up.' In each of the a-sentences, (3.27) applies and explains their unacceptability. In the b-sentences, (3.27) does not apply, because a head noun (fact, suestion,orlAn0 has been added to the internal sentence that produced the unacceptability in the a-sentences, so that they are no longer exhaustively dominated by NP. And in the c-sentences, extraposition has applied, and the offending sentences_are no longer exhaustively dominated by NP. 59 But although (3.27) will explain why the a-sentences as a class are worse than the b- or c-sentences, it will not explain why (3,29a); (3,30a); and (3.31a) are slightly better than the others, which means it is not sufficient. to be right, in many cases, 9 And although (3.27) seems I do not think it can explain the ungrammaticality of (3.20b), which I find to be absolute word salad. Sentences (3.28) to (3.33), while ponderous and taxing to read, are This means that some still,decipherablet but (3.20b) is baffling. other condition must be placed on (3.26); what I believe to be the correct one is given in (3.34) (bat (3.34) Condition 3: cf. 6,3, 3 Lis 4), (3.26) BLOCKS if Y NP where 3 lej 0 [E. ÷ he (3.34) seems to produce the right results in many cases: it allows (3.15c) and (3.16c), but excludes (3.20b). Furthermore, it correctly prevents (3.35a) from becoming (3.35b), and (3.36a) from . becoming (3.36b). (3.35) a. I loaned a man who was watching the race my binoculars. b. * I loaned my binoculars a. man who was watching the race. (3.36) a. She asked a man who was near the window whether it looked like rain. b. * She asked whether it looked like rain a man who was near the window. 60 However, Condition 3 also incorrectly excludes (3.17c) -- We c s elected_presideraLmfatherj who had just turned 60, for president . Is an VIP. At present I see no way arovad'this wrong result. Nevertheless, it seems beyond dispute that a rule like (3.26) must appear in the grammar so that complex NP displaced from their underlying positions. can be This rule will be optional, and it must be supplemented by some output condition which will stipulate that if a sentence contains an un-permuted complex NP near the end" of its .VP, the acceptability of the sentence is lowered. Thus, for instance, the sentences of (3.37) must all be designated to be unacceptable in varying degrees. (3.37) a. * We called my father, who had just turned 60, up. b. ?* We elected my father, who had just turned 60, president. c. ? All those speeches made my father, wilt had just turned 60, mad. d. * They gave my father, who had just turned 60, it. However, there are.many more sentence types than those in (3.37) which must be taken into account before this output condition can be stated in its fullest generality. follow: Some of these 61. (3.38) a. He figured it out. b. * He figured out ,it. He f4gwrollrhnt cint d. e. * He figured out that. He figured Ann out. f. ?* He figured out Ann. (3.39) g. He figured something out. h. ? He figured out something. i. He figured the answer out. j. He figured out the answer. a. b. I sent him that. c. ? I sent him Andy. d. (3.40) * I sent him it. I sent him something. a. ?* We elected the man who he had brought with him president. b. ? We made the reports which he had brought with him available. c. They gave the reports which he had brought with him to me. Once again, I must emphasize that these judgments, which are not sharply defined in any case, may only hold for my own speech. Nevertheless, I, would expect similar phenomena to exist in most dialects. ti 62 r 3.1.1.3.2. It seams to me that such facts of acceptability as those indicated in (3.37) - (3.40) can most readily be accounted for by 'a theory constructed along the following lines. First of all, all the sentences in (3.37) - (3.40) should be generated by the grammar and designated as being fully grammatical. exception of Complex NP. With the Shift, (3.26), no conditions having to do with complexity will be imposed on any rule, and the same thing applies to conditions having to do with pronouns. This means that neither of the conditions on Particle Movement, (3.9), will appear, and both (3.37a) and (3.38b) will be generated. Similarly, the Dative Rule will not be restricted so as not to apply if the direct object is a pronoun: will also be generated. (3.37d) and (3.39a) 10 Instead of restricting the operation of particular V)h.\I, rules, I propose that an output condition, much like (3.27), be stated, which imposes an ordering upon the constituents which follow the verb of the sentence which contains them, and lowers the acceptability of sentences whose constituents are not arranged in accordance with this condition. It will be remembered it rendered unacceptable that (3.27) had a cimilar effect: perfectly grammatical sentences which contained an NP which exhaustively dominated the node. S. The output condition which I propose ia (3.41) is highly tentative, for I have not done much research on this exti:cnely 63 difficult problem. (The lower the number before a constituent in. (3.41), the closer it must be to the verb.) (3.41) Out ut Condition on PostVerbal Constituents 1. Direct object pronouns 2. a. Indirect object pronouns. sb. Demonstrative pronouns and integers used as pronouns'(give me two) 3. Proper names 4. a. Particles (ue in call up) b. NP with no postnominal modifiers 5. Reduced directional phrases (out in let out) 6. NP 7. Single adjectives like available in make like president in elect him president thLreport.L available 8. Indirect object phrases and directional phrases 9. Non-complex NP with postnominal modifiers 10. Complex NP 11. company in. kelkac22111EL The ordering in (3.41) is doubtless wrong in many particulars, but it incorporates some generalizations which cannot be expressed if conditions on rules, such. as the ones stated on (3.9), are used instead of it. For instance, to say that direct object pronouns occupy the first place in such an ordering as (3.41) is to kruirrONINfflimmInwvirimPonnerwr 11 64 simultaneously exclude both (3.38b) and (3.39a); but in a system which makes use of conditions on rules, one condition would be needed to exclude each. Furthermore, in this latter system, there is no way to indicate that both of the sentences to be excluded are unacceptable for the same reason, but (3.41) does make this claim, which I believe to be a true one. I will now attempt to justify (3.41), insofar as that is possible in my present state of ignorance. In many cases, particularly in the higher numbers of (3.41), I have put one constituent before another on the basis of very scant evidence. Firstly, (3.41) is only a partial ordering, and a number in it which is followed by the letters a and b indicates that for me, there seems to be no preferred ordering of the a-constituents with respect to the b- constituents. case in two instances: This is the I find no difference in acceptability between I called an old friend up and I called old friend (these are the two constituent types mentioned in 4 of (3.41)), nor between the sentences give me that! and give'that to me! (2 of (3.41)). Secondly, (3.41) makes the prediction that violations of the hierarchy which arises from permutations of constituent types which are close to one another in terms of (3.41) will lead to smaller losses of acceptability than permutations of constituent types wh:l.n are far apart in (3.41), and this 111 65 For instance, prediction seems to be borne out in a number of cases. the sentencelsoliatin (3 follows 4) is better than I tried to figure out that (2 follows 4). I also find Le_ t the dogs which are barking out (5 follows 10) somewhat better than Knock the dogs which are barking out (4 follows 10). These two sentences provide the motivation for distinguishing in (3.41) between the reduced directional adverbs discussed in footnote 11 and true particles. In addition, I find that while constituent types 4a and 4b are equally acceptable in either order, constituents of type 5 are more comfortable to the right of constituents of type 4b than to the left of them. So knock out'the sentry! is as is natural as knock the sentry out!, whereas let'out somewhat less natural than let'the sentr,- out only motivation for ordering constituents of types 6, 7 and 8 as I have is that it seems to me that complex NP A (type 10) can precede 8 more readily than it can precede 7, and 7 more readily than 6. This is exemplified in (3.40): (3.40a), which is the least acceptable for me, has the order 10-6; (3.40b), which is slightly better, has the order 10-7; and (3.40c), which is'almost, if not totally acceptable, has the order 10-8. Constituents of type 9, for example, the slam, are ordered closer to the verb than complex NP somebody.Fho is strong. NP amebo4k like This explains why (3.13b), which has the order 9-4, is better than (3.13a), which has the order 10-4. The same explanation can be given for the difference in acceptability 66 between (3.14a) and (3.14b). Finally, I have included in type 11 such words as company in 1=2_211mm, through in see (someonc)..shrought.to in a122.L(sol__neone)to and 'on in zLi...ieoneLsa_utsoti, because for me these words must always end their VP, has been extraposed around. them. unless a relative clause In the sentences below, the a-sentences are the least acceptable, the b-sentences, in which a complex NP precedesa constituent of type 11, are somewhat more acceptablP* and the c- sentences, in which Extraposition from NP has applied, are the most acceptable of all, although. they are still awkward. (3.42) 12 a. * He kept company some girls who had been injured in the wreck. b. ?* He kept some girls who had been injured in the wreck company. c. ? He kept some girls company who had. been injured in the wreck. (3.43) a. * I insist on seeing through all the students who started out the term in my class. 13 b. ?* I insist in seeing all the students who started out the term in my class through. c. I insist on seeing all the student' through who started out the term in my calss. 67 (3.44) a. * The doctor brought to the passengers who had passed cut from the fumes. * Tha Anntnie rickaa..46u.A.a wuy had passed out from the fumes to. c. ? The doctor brought the passengers to who had passed out from the fumes. (3.45) a. * He tries to put on everyone who he doesn't like. b. ?* He tries to put everyone who he doesn't like on. c. ? He tries to put everyone on who he doesn't like. These sentences raise many problems I cannot deal with.. Firstly, I cannot explain why (3.43c) should seem more acceptable than the other c-sentences, or why (3.44b) should seem less acceptable than the other b-sentences. Secondly, it may be the case that the ?-sentences are so bad that they should not be generated at all -- this would entail restricting (3.26) so that complex NP immediately to the left of such words as company,, through, etc. could not undergo the Complex NP Shift Rule. More damaging is the fact that the hierarchy in (3.41) predicts that all the b-sentences should be the most acceptable of all, in fact perfectly acceptable, but in no case are they anything better than barely acceptable. This means that the hierarchy must either be supplementary output modified or that it must be supplemented by some containing condition which lowers the acceptability of any sentence a complex adhered to. NP near its end, even though the ordering in (3.41) is So, for example, in (3.46), even though the object NP (3.26), Complex of the verb watch is complex and very lengthy, rule NP Shift,, cannot move it over the VP talk because of Condition 2 on (3.26). (3.46) * I watched the Indians who the man who had been my advisor in my freshman year had advised me to study when I got to Utah talk. Notice also that the unacceptability of such sentences as (3.46) and of the b- sentences in (3.42) (3.45) can be reduced by adding material to the end of the sentence: (3.46) who had ? I watched the Indians who the man been my advisor in my freshman year had advised me to study when I got to Utah talk, because I was fascinated by the way their view of the world seemed to be constrained by the structure of their language. (3.42b") 2 He kept some girls who had been injured in the wreck company, and meanwhile I scouted around to see if I could find a phone. 69 (3.43b') ? I insisted on seeing all the students who started out the term in my class through, after they had all chipped in to buy me a going-away present. (3.44b') ?* The doctor brought the passengers who had passed out from the fumes to, but many of them suffered relapses at various times during the night. (3.45b'). ? He tries to put everyone who he doesn't like on, by pretending to be deaf. These sentences show that it will be very hard to state in formal terms just what "near the end of an S" means, for it secns that the acceptability of sentences like the b-sentences and sentence (3.46) must be assigned by a quasi-continuous function of the length and complexity of the_object NP and the length auj,cpmplexity of And (3.41) is at best a. first approximation of such what follows. a function. 3.1.1.3.3. One final important question which must be raised is the following: what is the theoretical status of such output conditions as (3.27) and (3.41)? In the case of the former, it seems that although it has not yet been formulated adequately, it is not being overly optimistic to hope that a more adequate version of (3.27) may turn out to be universal. But it is out of the 70 question that the particular content of a condition such as (3.41) could be universal, for in (3.41), the constituent types are definedwithreferencetoconstituentslikeParticle_Reduced Directional Phrase, comDany in he:to.alma, etc., all of which are peculiar to English. One might wish, therefore, to make a theoretical distinction between (3.27) and (3.41), referring to universal conditions as "performance filters," and to all languageparticular phenomena, such as those discussed in connection with (3.41), as ordinary_rules_of particular grammars. In my opinion, it is correct to draw such a distinction, but I would like to emphasize that if (3.41) is to be added to the grammar of English, it will be a rule of a type wl-tch is completely different from other transformational tiles, First of all, where other rules change one. PMarker to another, (3.41) does not: merely changes the acceptability index of PMarkers. it Secondly, "violations" of (3.41) do not produce total unacceptability (except in extreme cases), but rather a partial loss of acceptability, with the amount of loss a function of the input tree and the structure of the rule. It is easy to see that other rules are entirely different in this respect: if an ordinary rule applies to a tree it should not have applied to, or does not apply when it should have, it is rher the case that an unintelligible string is produced 02.1QE111.115.1.1011L1:1221111.1.1.SLD, or if intelligible (though ungrammatical); the strings produced do not 71 vary in amount'of deviance according to the input structure'(that is, the forced me for me to wash myself is as deviant as I forced vou for you to wash the veQetables.) These considerations suggest that if (3.41) is to be put into the grammar of English, it should be segregated from the normal type of transformational rules, to whose output it applies, and placed in a component by itself, a component which I tentatively propose to call the stylistic component. Of course, (3.41) will not be the only rule in this component, but at my present state of knowledge, I can only suggest two other rules that seem to be likely candidates for inclusion in it. The first is the Scrambling ...Ill in Latin and other "free word order" languages, which will be discussed separately in § 3.1.2 below, and the second is the condition which must be imposed on prenominal adjectives with respect to their closeness to the noun they modify. In the case of the latter problem, if adjective sequences were to be constrained in deep structure, an entirely new system of selectional restrictions would have to be created, and this system would only be used to generate the permissible sequences of adjectives, as far as I know. In other words, to attempt to account for order-of-adjectives phenomena in deep structure would require setting up an elaborate and totally ad hoc mechanism, which would greatly increase the class of languages characterized by the theory of generative grammar, but unnecessarily, for the extra descriptive power would be used to 72 On the other hand, if another output solve only one problem. condition, highly similar to (3.41), were to be added to the stylistic component, which the discussion above has demonstrated is likely to be necessary in any event, then the theory would not be weakened at all. Furthermore, it seems to me that the type of phenomena which the two. conditions would account for are phenomena of the same type. That is, in both cases, we have to do with constituents which occur in a 4.rlierred order. not that'let out John! It is and'a spotted young; &m are to be categorically ruled out, but rather that let John out!. young spotted doR are more natura1. 14 and a So it seems to me that it would be wise to separate into disjoint parts of the grammar rules which must produce constituents in an order from which any deviations produce ungrammaticality, 15 from rules which produce constituents in an order which, within limits, is variable. The only possible reason that I know of to question the decision to relegate constraints on the order of adjectives to the stylistic component is the possibility that NP with different orders of adjectives may not be synonymous, in which case, of course, order constraints would have to be stated in the base. the It has been suggested by Quine (cf. Quine (1960) p. 138) that NP abiLlumplcalL3nlazdesignates a butterfly that is \both European and big, while the NP 2..12E2211111IITtalfly may designate a butterfly hich is in fact small, but is big for European standards. I am not sure of the validity of this example, 73 and I have not studied the problem closely enough to be able to say whether such examples are sufficient to refute my proposal to pbonnrqpnn in thA ntyliatic component; or not. I mention the problem here only to call it to the attention of the reader. 3.1.1.4. To summariLe briefly what I have touched on in this digression, I have suggested that to put two conditions on the previously proposed Particle Movement Rule , was to miss the generalization that both conditions were merely extreme cases of a rule relating the length and complexity of constituents of verb phrases to their ordering after the verb. generalization, To capture this have proposed adding a stylistic component to the set of components of a generative grammar, and stating in it language-particular output conditions, such as (3.41), which capture the notion of preferred order, and reduce the acceptability iI of sentences whose constituents are in an order other than the specified by the stylistic rules. It was in.the ordering given in (3.41) that the notion of node deletion, the main topic of S 3, played a rale, for the constituent types 9 and 10 were shown to function differently with respect to the other constituent types of (3.41), and these two types can be conveniently distinguished in constituent structure terms if the principle of S-pruning which was stated in (3.6) is r 'e use of. 74 3.1.2. The second case which seams to require some notion of node deletion has to do with Latin word order. In Latin, as in languages like Russian, Czech, etc. the order of major elements within a clause is free, within certain limits. NP may precede or follow the follow the V, etc. VP, Thus the subject the object NP may precede or In Latin poetry, it was even possible for adjectives to be separated from the nouns they modified. Robin Lakoff has kindly provided me with the following example from Horace (Carmine (Odes I), 5) (3.47) Quis mut.: What may a grad to slender you boy puer in rose on rose I r perfusus liquidis urget odoribus drenched liquid makes love to (with) scents grato, Pyrrha, sub antro? delightful Pyrrha in a cave 'What slender boy, drenched with perfumes Is making love to you, Pyrrha, On a heap of roses, in a delightful cave?' 75 Words in (3.47) joined by lines are discontinuous constituents which have been derived from contiguous constituents in a slightly deeper structure by a rule of roughly the following form: (3.48) **Scrambling X , NP V: N V Adj 1 VP 1t' N V Y Adj Adv `Adv J OPT 1 2 3 4 1 3 2 4 Condition :16 S i dominates S i dominates 2 if and only if 3. Rule (3.48) scrambles major constituents,*sublectIl the restriction that the be in the same clause. For instance, (3.48) will convert (3.49a) into (3.49b), (3.49) a. Hom3 bonus amat aminam pulchram. b. Pulchram hom3 amat aminam bonus. 'The good man loves the beautiful woman.' because for the purposes of scrambling, adnominal adjectives behave as if they were in the same clause as the nouns they modify. But note that this fact entails that node deletion has occurred, for in the underlying structure, adnominal modifiers are not in the same 76 The deep structure for (3.49) is clause as the noun they modify. The latter is converted into the former by that shown in (3.50). a rule of Relative Clause Reduction cognate with the one proposed in Smith (1961). (3.50)17 P i ....**"-- homB 1 NP 'amat Adj all 1 est N7' 0 Camin am 1 bonus NP VP I. rNN V Adj 1 tla .. . I 1 est pulr,hra The Relative Clause Reduction Rule will delete altest and ma./ est from the embedded relative clauses in (3.50). If the S-pruning principle of (3.6) were not in the theory of grammar, the circled S-nodes in (3.50) would not be deleted, and Scrambling would not be able to apply to the adjectives bonus and 2ulchram to permute them with the elements of the main clause of t3.50), for the adjectives would be in clauses of their own. But the fact that (3.49b) is grammatical indicates that'Scramblim must affect them, and thus this fact constitutes further evidence for the correctness of principle (3.6). 77 For my present purposes, I am not t:,,fix-sy concerned the.; (3.48) is too strong, for the problems involved in specifying exactly the correct subset of the strings which will be generated by (3.48) are far too complicated for me to even mention them here, let alone come to grips with them. In § 3.1.1.3 above, I suggested that rules like (3.48) be placed in the stylistic component, because they are formally so unlike other transformational rules. In the first place, since '(3.48) can apply an indefinite number of times to its own output, every sentence will have an infinite number of derivations. It seems tmong to use normal rules of derived constituent structure to assign trees to the output of this rule, for the number of trees that will be assigned to any sentence, although it will be bounded, very large, and there will be no correlation between the number of derived trees and perceived ambiguities, as there is in happier circumstances. In short, it is clear that rules like (3.48) are so different from other syntactic rules that have been studied in generative grammar that any attempt to make them superficially resemble other transformations is misguided and misleading. They are fo.-ally so different from previously encountered rules that the theory of language must be changed somehow so that Scrambling_ can be placed in a different component from other syntactic rules, thereby formally reflecting the differences I have been discussing. It is possible that'Scrambling should be effected the stylistic component, as I suggested in § 3.1.1.3.3, but it in 78 should be emphasized that. there are as many formal differences between Scramblinaand output conditions like (3.41), which I also suggested should be stylistic rules, as there are between Scrambling and transformational rules like Extraposition from NP. But it does seem, in some ill-defined sense, that 121.412221naand output conditions like (3.41) both have to do with such low-level matters as taste or idiolect, which have often been grouped under the heading of stylistics; so that it may yet be appropriate to assert that they both belong in the same component of a grammar. But at present, our knowledge of constraints on Scrambling, or on conditions like (3.41), or in fact on any stylistic problems whatsoever, is so limited that nothing but speculation is appropriate. One final point should be made with reference to Scrambltalg It may be possible to formulate this rule in a partially universal way, so that it is only.necessary to specify in a particular grammar whether it applies or not. This suggestion must be modified somewhat, for it appears that languages with "free word order" may differ among themselves as to the contents of the second and third terms of the .........MScraklina2111. Thus although it appears that in Latin, adjectives can be permuted away from the noun they modify, this possibility either does not exist at all in Russian or is severely limited there. This suggests that the theory of language must be constructed in such a way, that universal:skeleton rules can be stated. AM. 79 that the The skeleton for the universal scrambling rule would state subject NP can precede or follow the VP, can have that the. VP its constituents arranged in any order, and possibly a few other universal conditions. In the grammar of any "free word order" language, it would then only be necessary to state that the scrambling skeleton rule could be applied, and to list any language. particular additions to the skeleton. For example, in both Latin and Russian, it would be necessary to note that scrambling could apply, and in Latin, it would be necessary to specify in addition that adjectives can be scrambled. I should point out that such important traditional concepts as "free word-order language" can only be reconstructed by introducing some such notion as that of skeleton rule into linguistic theory, for, as I pointed out, the grammars of languages which exhibit "free" word-order do not all contain the same rule -the rules in each which effect the scrambling are slightly different. Therefore, it is necessary to factor out that part of the various scrambling rules which is language-independent and to state this skeleton once in linguistic theory. Then the notion "free word-order language" can be equated with the notion "language having a grammar making use of the Scrambling skeleton." All the points discussed in this section are highly conjectural, but they do not materially affect the point at hand, .1 80 which is that in order to state the version of the Scrambling Rule, no matter in what component it appears, nor how much of it can.be factored out and put into a universal skeleton rule, some net4cof tree - pruning must be in the theory. 3.1.3. A closely related phenomenon provides an additional piece of evidence.for (3.6): In the phenomenon of case-marking. Latin,. as in many other languages, noun phrases must be marked for case in various contexts. The exact number of cases which are distinguished in any particular language is not my concern here: important thing is that when an NP is marked with some case, say accusative, then all markable elements of that NP feature the [4.' Accusative] added to them. must have the In Latin, determiners, adjectives, possessive .adjectives, participles, some numerals, and the head noun of the--NP are markable, and nothing else is. particular, elements of clauses contained in an markable. NP In are not Thus if the Relative Clause Reduction Rule does not apply to the rightmost circled pulchra cannot be marked S of (3.50) above, the adjective (+ Accusative]: sentence (3.51), which would be the result of such a marking, is ungrammatical. (3.51) * homE qui est bonus amat aminam quae est ,J.chram. However, as sentence (3.49a) shows, once the Relp,,ive Clause Reduction Rule has applied,'2u2slabecomes markable, and the accusative form nulchram is produced. Once again, these facts can be 81 accounted for simply if some principle of node deletion is invoked. The case-marking rule, which distributes the case feature with which the whole NP is marked onto all markable elements dominated by it, must be constrained so that no elements are marked which are dominated by an S which is in turn dominated by the NP question, as the ungramraticality of (3.51) clearly shows. in Therefore, in order for puichra to become markable, after the alse est of the rightmost relative clause is (3.50) has been deleted, and the S-pruning principle circled node S no longer branches, some must delete it. Facts corresponding to these can also be found in Germanic, Slavic, and Balto-Finnic, so it is inaly that the solution to the Latin case-marking problem is at least partially universal. might remark in passing, however, that there are many unsolved problems which have to do with the case-marking rule. Consider, for example, sentence (3.52) and its approximate labeled bracketing, (3.53): (3.52) Puer amat puellau quae est similis deae. 'The boy loves 'a girl who is similar to a goddess.' 82 S (3.53) NP VP V puer NP amat puellam NP VP lae Adj NP 1 est similis N dae If the Relative Clause Reduction Rule applies to (3.53) to delete the alae est of the relative clause, principle (3.6) will delete the circled node S, as was the case with the P-marker (3.50), and the adjective sim, no longer contained in a clause dominated by the object NP of 0.53), will become similem, as in (3.54). (3.54) Puer amat puellam similem deae. The problem is to specify how the case marking rule is to be constrained so that deaelgoddess' (dative singular) will not become deam 'goddess' (accusative singular); for if this occurs, the sentence will no longer be grammatical (cf. (3.54')). (3.54') * Puer amat puellam similem deam. It might be proposed that the case-marking rule should not only be restricted from marking elements in clauses which are dominated by the NP being marked, but also from marking elements in NP which are dominated by the NP being marked. This, then, , 83 would be a kind of A- over -A restriction which only applies to the case-marking rule. It can easily be seen how this condition will cq1 vro.r.r, pi.GI,G4416 uc.c.4%. 4,-,nnrrtIntitt converted t'A'AtInM even if Relative Clause Reduction applies, and it can also be used to prevent (3.55a) from being converted into (3.55b) (3.55) puella amat mad. frarem. a. 'The girl loves a friend's brother.' b. * puella amat amIcum frarem. because at the time the case-marking rule would apply, the sentence (3.55a) would have approximately the structure shown in (3.56), (3.56) N NP i puella 1 amat Det '%, N .1 1 NP fr"iter amYcl and since amIcl 'a friend (gen.)' is an NP dominated by an NP, the A-over-A restriction.on the case-marking rule would prevent it from being changed to am. Once again, the same facts obtain in Germanic, Slavic, and Balto-Finnic. 84 However, it seems that this limited A-over-A restriction is both too strong and too weak. It is too strong in that it would exclude (3.57) below (3.57) ,puella amat meum fratrem.. 'The girl loves my brother.' unless meum 'my'.had somehow ceased to be dominated by NP, for otherwise the structure of (3.57) at the time ease- marking applies would be exactly that shown in (3.56), except that*meus would appear in the place of amici. In traditional grammar, words like meus are called "possessive adjectives," a term which aptly characterizes their behavior under case-marking rules, but which provides no explanation as to how they have come to behave differently from NP in the genitive case, like amIcl. I have no explanation for the facts at present, but Postal has suggested a promising new analysis of pronouns which may provide a key to the answer (Postal (1966)). Postal argues convincingly that personal pronouns such as I, you, he, etc., should be treated as underlying articles (actually, in the deepest structure, these articles, as well as words like the, a, some, etc., which have been traditionally categorized as articles, would all be represented as features on the noun they modify) which modify the pronoun one, and that they acquire their derived status as nouns because of a rule which deletes one and leaves its article (i.e., he, she;ve etc.) as the only 0. node still dominated by the node N which dominated one in the deep structure. I will not recapitulate here the various arguments Postal advances in support of this analysis: is sufficient to assume their correctness. for my purpos.:s, it For if Postal's analysis is correct, and pronouns are articles at some stage it their derivational history, it may be-possible_to_save the A-over-A condition on case-marking from being too strong. L § 3.2 below I will discuss briefly the possibility of there be; ng a principle. similar to (3.6) which would delete the node NP conditions. under certain At present there is only weak evidpte for NP deletion, and I do not know how the principle effecting it should be formulated, if indeed such a principle should be added to the theory of grammar at all. But it seems to me that it may be possible to formulate it in such a way that if the structure Genitive], underlying a pronoun is assigned the case feature somehow this structure is changed to meet the conditions for NP pruning, and the NP dominating it is deleted. The A-over-A restriction on the 'ase- marking rule could then be kept. the NP amid' frater 'a friend's brother' were marked Thus, if Accusative], hater would change to frame, but amI would not change to amIcum for amid' would be dominated by NP, on case-marking would be in effect. and the A-over-A condition On the other hand, if'meus'frater 'my brother' is marked (.1.. Accusative], the rule distributing one case which is assigned to the whole NP to the markable elements dominated 86 by the NP, NP will affect both 'mews and fraer, for neither is a and the correct form, meum frarem will result. This proposal is highly programmatic at present, for it depends crucially on an exact formulation .of the NP pruning principle, and such a formulation is not at present available.18 Although it does not seem possible at present to formulate a case-marking rule which is generally adequate, it seems to be true that in all languages which mark for case, elements in clauses dominated by the noun phrases being marked are not markable. I do not know whether in all case languages with a rule for reducing relative clauses, the unmarkable elements of.the full clauses become markable after the clauses have been reduced, as is the case in Latin, Slavic, Germanic, and Balto-Finnic, but I suspect this to be true too. Notice that if the former hypothesis is correct, another rule whose statement would require quantifiers (cf. fn. 7 above) caa For if the hypothesis does not be relegated to linguistic theory. hold universally, then the case-markag rules for languages where it does hold would look roughly like this: (3.58) [2 X - Y - Z [ flasylipi 1 OBLIG 1 2 3 4 1 [ 2 3 4 +casej Condition: It is not the case that NP > S k and S k > 2. 87 Here I have assumed that an earlier rule, which assigns a case to a whole NP on the basis of its syntactic function, has adjoined the node (+case ] (this is a variable ranging over (+ Accusative], [4. Dative], etc.) to the entire assumption. NT, but nothing depends on this The'important fact to notice is that subscripts, which are logically equivalent to quantifiers, must be used to condition. state the This is not to say that it is necessarily true that rules like (3.58) are not language-specific, but rather that if Unitier-5:, ty my hypothesis that elements of clausLs areeot markable proves to be wrong, it will be necessary to abandon at least in part the restriction that transformations must be stated without making use of quantifiers over P-markers( vj. f6.4..g.1 Xn summary, whether or not it turns out to be true that in all case-marking languages, full and reduced relative clauses behave differentially with respect to the case-marking transfc'lationp the fact that it is true of Lztin, Slavic, Germanic and Balto-Finnic supports the hypothesis that a principle for S-pruning must be in the theory of grammar, for the case-marking facts in these languages can be most economically explained on the basis of the differences in constituent structure which such a principle, ould produce. '777""'"7"r2,"-nrrillff 88 3.1.4. The fourth example in 70ihiCh node deletion plays a role, which has,to do.with the placement ofclitics in SerboCroatian, was diseoveted by Wayles Browae (e f. Btovitle (1960). A5 Brovrae points out, there exists a rule in SerboCroatian which moves to the second position in their sentence all of the clitics (these are a number of short words like pronouns the copula, a morpheme indicating the coniitional, etc. -- an exhaustive listing of these words is not necessary here.) The clitics occur in a certain order there, but what this order is is not relevant here. For example, wince the words le 'it' (acc.) and mi 'I' (dat.) are clitics, if no prior rules were applied to sentence (3.59), which has approximately the structure shown in (3.60), a rule of Clitic Placement would convert (3.60) to the structure underlying (3.61). (3.59) Ivan tell. Ivan wanted V ata :le da Ivan that Ivan read it 'Ivan wanted Iv= to read it to me.' (3.60) mi. to me. 89 Ivan Zeli da (3.61) je Ivan Cita. 'Ivan wanted Ivan to rad it to me. NP However, when the subject 19 is identical to some of the embedded sentence of the matrix sentence (just which NP NP is not relevant for this example), a rule which I will refer to as zaial NP Deletion optionally deletes the subject of the embedded sentence, simultaneously deleting the complemetizer da 'that' and ,V 1. kcitatf). converting the main verb (cita) into an infinitive if this occurs, as Browne points out But the clitics 4e and mi must be moved to the position immediately preceding :ieli 'wanted', for if 1gui NP Deletion has applied, the sentence which must be produced is (3.62). (3.62) Ivan mi je deli vcitati. It will be observed that the position of the clitics le and mi before the main verb of (3.62), ieli provides compelling motivation for Spruning, for if the circled occurrence of the node S in (3.60) is not deleted by (3.6) after the operation of Egui NP Deletion has caused it to cease to branch, Clitic Placement will apply vacuously to (3.60), for je and mi will already occupy Thus unless node second poE lion in the most deeply embedded S. deletion applies, they will not move at and.(3.62) will not be generated. The clitics must be moved so that they become'the second element of the first sentence above them. (Actually, they 90 are adjoined to the right side of the first element of this sentence, Thus, in and are phonolo2ically in the same word as this elements (3.62) 11.2121..je is a phonological word.) It is of theoretical interest that, given the presently available theoretical conventions, it is only possible to specify formally that the clitics may not be moved out of the first sentence above them by using subscripts on rule conditions (or, equivalently, quantifiers on P-markers), as in (3..63) below. (3.63) -Clitic Placement2° X -[Y (-r ciitic] Z W Si Si OPT 1 2 3 4 5 6=====-4>. 1 2+4 3 0 5 6 Conditions: (1) 2 is a single node (2) If Sj > 4, it is not the case that Si > Sj. It would of course be absurd to hope that such a rule as (3.63) could be universal, so the question is, must the restriction that conditions on transformational rules be Boolean conditions on analyzeability be given up? And if so, must all possible combinations of subscripts in conditions be countenanced? I believe the correct answers to these questions to be a qualified yes and a definite no, respectively. I will argue be/ow, in 91 discussing the notion of 1)oundint, that a new convention must be introduced into the theory of grammar: it must be made possible to refer to the right and left boundaries of the first sentence up or of the first sentence down from any term of the structural index of a transformation. If this convention is made available, I think that the unlimited'power of quantificational conditions on rules need not be countenanced. However, I cannot argue these claims-at this point in the exposition. I will return to them in § 5. It should be obvious, however, that whether or not my proposed convention is or is not strong enough to obviate the need for quantificational conditions, and whether the rule for Clitic Placement should be stated as in (3.63), or in a new formulation which makes use of my proposed convention, the argument for S-pruning, which is my main concern here, remains valid. Unless principle (3.6) applies to delete the circled S in (3.60), after Ecui NP Deletion has deleted da and Ivan, it will be necessary to add an ad hoc rule to derive sentence (3.62). fact constitutes This confirming evidence of the strongest kind that principle (3.6) must be in the theory of grammar. 3.1.5. The fifth example involving S-pruning has to do with sentences containing'as - b. Tom drives as that man drives. Tom drives 'as that man does. !77-7r!!!!Z7111.1 92 c. Tom drives like that man. I wish to argue that (3.64b) is derived from (3.64a) by the deletion under identity of the verb in the as-clauseo and furthermore, that (3.64c) is derived from (3.64b) by the deletion under identity of the auxiliary in the as-clause. If only an NP follows'asv it is obligatorily converted to like. There are, of course, dialects in which (3.64a) and (3.64b) are impossible unless like has been substituted for'as there too. Poi me, in casual speech, (3.644 and (3.64b) are only possible with like, although I believe the as-versions are the ones sanctioned for more formal purposes. Note there is a difference in relativizability between the first two sentences and the last one. That is, relative clauses on the noun man cannot be formed from (3.64a) or (3.64b), although this in possible in the case of (3.64c). (3.65) a.. * I know a man who Tom drives as drives. b. * I know a man who Tom drives as does. c. I know a man who Tom drives like. I think the ungrammaticality of the first two sentences of (3.65) can be explained on very general grounds if the structure shown in (3.66) is postulated to be the approximate underlying structure for sentence (3.64a) (and thus; derivatively, for the other two sentences of (3.64) too), ...16,6,1K .. 6,00* 93 VP Tom drives the .tat Art N NP V 1 thatman'drives I P in ;ATP Art some After the relative clause rule and a. rule deleting the preposition in have applied to (3.66), sentence (3.67) results: (3.67) Tom drives the way that that man drives. A later rule will have to convert the way that to as or like, depending on what follows, and if this rule can be ordered late, the fact that'that man in (3.64a) and (3.64b) is not relativizable can be reduced to the fact that'that'man is not relativizable in (3.67). And this latter fact follows from a very general condition, which was stated in approximate form in (2.26) of § 2.4.1, and which will be. gone intoin'greater detail in the Complex NP Constraint. § 4.1, It prevents the relativization of any element contained in a relative clause. This condition is met even Ira, 94. if the verb drive in the relative clause of (3.67) is deleted, under identity with the verb in the main clause, .yielding (3.68), a structure which may later be converted into (3.64b). Toms drives the way that that man does. (3.68) But if the deletion proceeds further, and even the word does of (3.6P' is erased, then the circled node S in (3.66) will cease to branch and will be deleted by principle (3.6). this deletion, the condition ceases to be met, and With the NPthat man becomes relativizable. Although the details of this explanation of the differences among the sentences of (3.65) will not become clear until the condition I have made use of is given final formulation in 4.1, I think that enough has been said here to prove the point at hand -- that the explanation depends in a crucial way upon the notion of node deletion. Assuming that I am correct in supposing all the sentences in (3.64) should be derived from the same underlying structure, the fact that (3.64c) behaves differently than (3.64a) and (3.64b) with respect to the relative clause transformation suggests that the former sentence differs from the latter two in constituent structure. Principle (3.6), if adopted, would provide such a difference, so (3.6) is supported by the facts of (3.65). 3.1.6. The final three sets of facts which support (3.6) come from areas of grammar which I understand so poorly that I will not 95 even speculate as to what the full analyses in each case are, but merely suggest that when full analyses are.available, they will make S-pruning principle like (3.6). use of an The first of these sets of facts has to do with comparatives, and bears a strong resemblance to the case discussed immediately above, in § '3.1.5. Although boil of the sentences in (3.69) are grammatical, as the sentences in (3.70) show, the NP that man is only relativizable in (3.69b), which has been derived from (3.69a) by deleting'is. (3.69) a. b. (3.70) John is taller than that man is. is taller than that man. a. * I-know-a-man-who John is taller than is. b. I know a man who John is taller than. Facts parallel to these in all respects can also bs shown to hold for the comparison of equality. (3.71) . (3.72) a, John is as tall as that man is. b. John is as tall as that man. a. * I know a man who John is as tall as is. b. I know a man who John is as tall as. Although more efforts have been expended on the comparative than on any other construction, and although there exist a wide variety of proposed analyses to choose from (cf., e.g. Smith (1961), Lees (1961), Hale (1965), Hale (to appear), Lakoff (1965),-Ross (1965) and Qualls (to appear)), it seems to me that no satisfactory deep structure 96 has been arrived at, although the range and complexity of examples that have been taken into consideration is extremely wide. I cannot, therefore, explain in detail why it is that (3.70a) and (3.72a) are ungrammatical, while (3.70b) and (3.72b) are not, but it does seem likely that the eventual explanation of this fact will hinge on the fact that the node .S which dominates the phrase that man 'is, in (3.69a) and (3.71a) will have been deleted by (3.6) when the word is is deleted by the transformation which converts (3.69a) and (3.71a) to (3.69b) and (3.71b) respectively. 3.1.7. The second set of facts which seems to depend on S-pruning also has to do with comparatives and with the way they interact with the rule which permutes an adjective from a reduced relative clause to prenominal position (this rule was discussed and given a preliminary formulation in § 2.3 above), Assuming that the adjectives in (3.73) - (3.75) are all derived from the same underlying structure, which is ems moot point, (3.73) a. Mary has never kissed a man who is taller than John is. b. Mary'has never kissed a man who is taller than John. (3.74) a. Mary has never kissed a man taller than John is. b. Mary has never kissed a Man taller than John. (3.75) a. * Mary has never kissed a man taller than John is. 97 b. Mary has never kissed a man taller than John. the ungrammaticality of (3.75a) is presumably to be explained by constraining the rule which accomplishes the shift of the adjective to prpnominal positi-.1 go that enmparpd adiativag pay only undergo this rule if the than-clause does not contain a sentence. Principle (3.6) asserts that this is not the case for (3.74b), although it is the case for (3.74a), and thus provides a basis for explaining the difference in grammaticality of (3.75a) and (3.75b). I believe the facts of the comparison of equality to parallel these facts (cf. the sentences in (3.76)), (3.76) a. 7* Mary has never kissed as tall a man as John is. b. Mary has never kissed as tall a man as John. but for some obscure reason, (3.76a) does not seem to me to be as clearly ungrammatical as (3.75a). These constructions raise many interesting problems which cannot be gone into here, and so little is known about them that it may turn out that the explanation which I have proposed for the differences between (3.75a) and (3.751%) and between (3.76a) and (3.76b) is incorrect; but at the present state of knowledge, Wiese differences seem to be connected with S-pruning in some way, and thus to provide weak support for principle (3.6). 3.1.8. The last case which seems to require S-pruning has to do with contrastive stress in Hungarian, Kiefer has noted (cf. Kiefer (1966)) that there exist adverbs in Hungarian which cannot be contrastively stressed. At present, this fact is totally isolated, unexplained, and, as a matter of fact, not statable within the present theory of grammar.- Not7eiloinh-is-now known about these adverbs for it to be possible to predict how the theory will have to be changed to accommodate this fact, but there is one indication that S-pruning will figure into the solution. IA J Jr La Asia 4.1( is Kiefer notes that the adverb-dllandodn one of those which cannot bear contrastive stress*in normal circumstances. That is, in the Hungarian equivalent of a sentence such as (3.77), plandofin could not be contrastively stressed. (3.77) Valoiki dllaadolm drveket hozott fel. Somebody constantly arguments brought up. 'Somebody constantly brought up arguments.' Lut it is also a fact that if an NP in Hungarian is contrastively stressed, the first lexical element of that NP is the phonological carrier of the contrastive stress for the entire NP. And if the structure underlying (3.77) is embedded as a relative clause on the noun*ervet 'argument', reduced, and shifted to prenomnal position, as in (3.78);*dilandodn can become the first lexical element of an NP and, if that NP dllandogn will bear that stress, is contrastively stressed, 99 (3.78) rosszik Az dilandoan felhozott drvek The constantly up brought arguments wrong were. "'he COft5Lalitay brought up arguments ware wrongs It seems reasonable to me that whatever the precise constituent structure reconstruction of the phrase "in normal circumstances", which funderlined above, may turn out to be, it will depend to some extent on whether the tdVerb to be stressed is immediately dominated by the,node S or not, or possibly it will depend on the number of nodes intervening between the adverb in question and the "first sentence up." If either of these conjectures proves correct, then it will probably prove useful to invoke some principle of S-pruning like (3.6), so that-the reduced relative clause gllandogn felhozott 'repeatedly brought up' will no longer .be dominated by the node (3.78). in S in But here again, as in the case of the examples discussed Si 3.1.6. and 3.1.7, there are so many unsolved problems that S-pruning is involved. it is impossible to be certain that 3.1.9. To summarize briefly, in §i 3.1.1. - 3.1.8, I have discussed eight cases which all support, some more strongly than others, the hypothesis advanced in § 3.0 -- that principle (3.6) should be added to the theory of grammar. There is an additional class of cases having to cl4 with conjunction)which space limitations forbid me to go into here, but which will be discussed at length in Lakoff and Ross (in preparation b). The analysis of Cont. on ...,Tyrlrrirry-11ffr,f17111111.07471,4116 V-- 100 Reduction 22 which we propose there depends crucially on pruning rules, in particular on a rule fir pruning non- branching thus constitutes further evidence for (3.6) . S, which Therefore, I feel that it is safe to conclude that pruning rules must appear in the theory of grammar, at least for the node S. The fragmentary evidence which suggests that rules which prune NP and VP may § 3,2. be necessary is discussed imediately below in At present I know of no reasons other than intuitive 3.2. ones for arguing that the node NP must be deleted; and the only argument except for intuition for deleting VP which I know of is connected, in a minor way, with the analysis of theContjaictim Reduction Rule which will be presented in Lakoff and Ross (op. cit.), but which cannot be gone into here. Yuki Xuroda first suggested the possibility that other constituears than t might be deleted. His idea was that if the head of a phrase (the Ilead of of VP, NP is V) is deleted, the phrase should be deleted with it. 23 N, This idea seems to be a promising approach to the problem of establishing some constituent structure difference between mews and'amici (cf. § 3.1.3 above), so that the case of the first can be changed, but not that of the second, but there are problems with it in fn. 18. aside from those mentioned Thus, presumably phrases like the brave keep their status as an the dead, thelust, NP) even though the underlying head noun, 101 I have no argument for this other than ones, has been deleted. intuition, but it does seem strongly counter -intuitive to claim, as Kuroda's principle would seem to force us to, that the phrase the brave in (3.79) is not dominated by NP. (3.79) The brave are not afraid to die. The intuition that the brave is a constituent of some kind in (3.79) NP, is strong, and if it is not an what is it? conjunction conducted by Lakoff and me, it has In 1-esearch on seemed to us that a necessary, though not a sufficient, ^onAitiva for node deletion So if Kuroda's principle is supplemented is that the node not branch. by the general condition that only non branching nodes delete, the difficulty connected with (3.79) can be avoided,. But there still remain problems Which Kuroda's principle is not strong enough to handle adequately. Thus, in footnote 2 above, it was pointed out that it may eeem counter-intuitive to call the word yellow in the his'yellow cat a VP. NP But if my proposed analysis of predicate adjectives is correct (cf. (3325) above), then yellow will be the head of a rule can this VP in the deep structure, so by what VP be pruned? In short, while there is strong evidence that a principle of S-pruning is needed in the theory of grammar, and even evidence that supports the formulation of this principle which was given in (3.6), the evidence that NP and VP must be deleted is weak, and no adequate formulation has been found of principles by which their deletion might be effected. 102 Chapter 3 FOOTNOTES 1. I would like to acknowledge here my indebtedness to several of my friends and colleagues, whose ideas and counterexamples have greatly infliiide-ed-the-formulation of the principles in this chapter Paul Postal, in a lecture for a course he conducted in the spring of 1965, first brought to my attention the counter-intuitiveness of much of the derived constituent structure (1.c.s.) which was assigned by the then current theOry. which. is discussed in This counter-intuitiveness, § 3.0, provided the original impetus for constructing a systematic theory of node deletion. To Yuki Kuroda I owe the important idea that node deletion might not be restricted to the node .S, as I had originally proposed, but should rather be generalized to affect all branching nodes. in His proposal will be discussed briefly § 3.2 below, in connection with the problem of deletion of the node NP. I have profited from my discussions with Susumu Kuno about the problems of case-marking, and especially from many long conversations with George Lakoff about the consequences for :Jaciple) of node deletion of an analysis of conjunction which will be presented in Lakoff and Ross (in preparation b). 103 2. It may also seem counter-intuitive to label the word a VP, although this intuition is not so clearcut, to me, at least. 3. For some discussion of this analysis of imperatives, cf. Katz and Postal (1964). An important critique of this analysis, containing a large class of constructions that have hitherto not been taken into account is given in (Bolinger CL94 4. For a detailed discussion of many problems in verb-particle constructions and references to earlier work on particles, cf. Fraser (1965). 5. For some discussion of this rule, cf. Smith (1961). 6. Postal and Lakoff have pointed out that words which traditionally categorized as verbs and ad1ectives are better considered to be subcategories of the same lexical category, Predicate which, follo /ing Lakoff (cf. Lakoff (1965)), I will designate with the feature ( +V]. What were traditionally called adjectives are designated with the feature bundle (Add], and what were traditionally called 'verbs are designated by [lib 104 7. 0/ -Adj It should be emphasized that the use of a subscript on in Condition 2 conceals a hornet's nest of problems. 1 Ir the first place, there is only one other rule which I know of the rule which which can only be stated by using subscripts: scrambles major constituents in a clause in so-called "free word -order languages" like Latin, Serbo-Croation, Russian, etc. This rule will be discussed in i 3.1.2. Secondly, it is evident that the subscripts in the condition on (3.26) are used in a way which is logically equivalent to using quantifiers. That is, Condition 2 has the following logical structure: (for all ( ±ldjii) (there is an NP j) (Y X1 + 11-v 6 Ar i NPi dominates + X2) if and only if alr L-Adj manin Aside from these two rules, it has previously been thought possible to restrict conditions on transformational rules to Boolean conditions on analyzability (cf.:Chomsky (1965), p. 144). George Lakoff and I will argue in our forthcoming monograph (Lakoff and Ross (op. cit.), that it must also be possible to state conditions in terms of immediate domination, a notion which can only be defined log.;.c.u.ly with quantifiers, if the only primitive notion in the theory is domination (cf. 6 2, fn. 6 above). That is, to say that A immediately dominates B to say that there euists no node Z. such that A dominates and Z dominates B. However, I would be opposed to the is Z letoluNIMPliec,..* Ali, e 105 suggestion that the restriction to Boolean conditions on zItalyzability be dropped entirely, for to drop it would be to greatly increase the set of possible rules and thereby to weaken the theory. It may be possible to restrict quantifiers to conditions on very late transformational rules, which is much to be preferred to all^wing such It seems likely that restrictions on any rule whatsoever. bath (3.26) and theanyjakaliacan come very late in the ordering, but too little is known about.this at present. 8. I here make use of the distinction between grammaticality and acceptability discussed by Chomsky (1965), § 1.2. By "nternal", I mean "embedded", in the technical sense defined in Chomsky (1961) -- that is, an NP is internal to a sentence if it.is both preceded and followed by non-null parts of that sentence. I have used the word "internal" here because it seems to me that in recent work, the word "embedded" has been used in a sense different from Chomsky's original one -a sense which must be excluded for the purposes of (3.27), For example, it is often said that C\e sentence Bill was sick is shmbedded",,in the sentence kreryone t1,.21.athlLIzt Bill was sick, even though it*is not internal to it (in my sense). O 106 9. Sentences like the following, which (3.27) would predict to be unacceptable,"but which are in fact far more acceptable than (3.28a) (3.33a), Bill said (that)for her to enlist would ue impossible. Jack thinks (that) what he's eating is scrambled eggs. constitute counterevidence to (3.27). At present, I do not see how to modify it so that these sentences will not be produced with as low an acceptability index as is assigned to (3.28a) - (3.33a). 10. The'Dative'Rule relates sentences like Lsata4=12Docac andimye a book to Mau.. It is thoroughly discussed in Fillmore (1965). Emmon Bach has recently pointed out (cf. his note "Problominalizatioe University of Texas mimeograph, 1967) that ..ertain facts about the Dative Rule and'Pronominalization in German lead to an ordering paradox. The same holds true of English, which I will discuss here. It has been usual to make the Dative Rule obligatory if the direct object is a pronoun, thus excluding (3.37d) and (3.39a). (Here I have assumed that sentences Mar are basic and that sentences with'to are derived from them, but nothing depends on this assumption.) This presupposes the ordering below: PPWITT'AVIIVIROMI, grarfolfprwanrIt 107 'Pronominalization Dative But there are sentences whidl suggest that the reverse ordering is necessary: I gave Mollyi her book. * I gave heri M011y'si book. I gave Molly'si book to heri. * I gave heri book to Mollyi. It will be seen that the pronoun always follows the noun it refers to in these sentences. This means that the ordering or the rules must be, "Dative Pronominalization for if the reverse order obtained, the first of the four, sentences could be converted into the fourth. But if Dative is optional and precedes Pronominalization, how can the following derivation be prevented? I gave the girl who. - .wanted _the book the booki BASE: (: Da_ tive optionally does not apply Pronominalization applies ( * I gave the girl who wanted the booki its. 108 The only solution I can find within the current theory it.to postulate a second'Dative Rule which applies only when the direct object has become a pronoun. Obvinusly howevel., the current theory is wrong and must be modified. The modification I propose is taken up immediately below. 11. Fraser (op. cit.) made the interesting discovery that a subclass of what had previously been thought to be verbparticle combinations, verbs like le_ t out,'take in, loa_ d on ...-elbaw off, etc., should really not be treated as verb-particles at all. Rather, verbs like these should be considered to be derived from verb phrases like_1et'Utl.outlaLsom2211111, sal....L.1;toscm,...11(eitixiethin, 'load (it) on (to'somethinal elbowitt....g.iin), etc., where the prepositional phrase in parentheses is deleted bythe rule which converts of John smokes something, to John smokes, ancrl an-rove somethi tol.uprove, a rule which seems to be required in been studied P. wide variety of cases, but which has never intensively. Fraser points out several facts about these verbs which show clearly their diffarenceT from ordinary verb-particle combinations: 1) The prepositions of these verbs will conjoin '(she took boxes in and'out), particles will not ( *1 'showed her u and off) 43 Similarly, it seems counter- intuitive to claim, with the present theory, that the correct structure to assign to a NP like his yellow cat, is one roughly like the one shown in (3.5). NP (3.5) Det Postart Art () VP NP Adj N Poss yellow he Once again, recent research in syntax has called into question many facets of the analysis implicit in (3.5) (cf. Postal (1965a) and Lakoff and Ross (in preparation b)), but at present I am only interested in the fact that it seems incorrect to claim that the words his and ze12.2z are sentences. theory, an NP In the present like the one diagrammed in (3.5) would, correctly I think, be derived from an underlying clauses: 2 NP with two relative the cat which I'have which'isx22122. The motivation for deriving possessi...cs and prenominal adjectives from relative clauses is well-known enough not to need recapitulation here 109 2) These verbs do occur in action nominalizations, while verb-particles do not *(his brinit/aol. the trays 1% 41 OVWG into but 111 t 00±). pasi.aormr.A.a.aw. J.LIA,A.0 Livua out of the window,may always occur with these verbs (hei.et her out into the garden, they were "loading them on from the warehouse, he elbowed -.1.t off into the well they took it in up the -stairway`, but there are verb-particle constructions which exclude them (*I burned it up from Boston) *I'showed her` asp out of the 'window, *Shei?a "whiled the morning away into the well). 4) If a verb stem occurs with one of these prepositions from reduced directional phrases, it will occur with many more. Thus,.since throw out is one of these verbs, it is to be expected that other directional prepositions will also occur with 'throw (e.g., over, under, down,'220'offiacross, on, in,lway, around). The same is true of verbs like 112210., take, send, Shoot,liand, etc., but no such prediction is possible with true verb particles. Thus, although figure out exists, there is no :fijure'off.i'Dgure*in,0 etc. 110 Alter the unspecified deleted from a VP NP and second preposition nave been like'let'the cat autiaLpomethingL the remaining prepositionlout, is optionally moved to the left, around the object 12. NP, and adjoined to the verb. Sentences like (3.42); (3.44), and (3.45) point up a very interesting fact: there are well-formed deep structures which no sequence of rules can convert into fully acceptable surface structures. Trivial examples of this kind have been known for same time.- one such example is any well-formed deep structure which would result in a surface structure so long that it could not be scanned in one lifetime -- but to the best of my knowledge, it has not been noted previouSly that short sentences which have this property also exist. Such sentences provide evidence of the strongest-kind_for_output conditions like (3.41) for without such conditions, a grammar would have to claim that one of the versions of (3.42), (3.44) and (3.45) is fully acceptable, a claim which is simply,:not true. 13. Sentence (3.43a) is acceptable, of course, if the main verb see through is taken to mean (approximately) "not be fooled by", but not if it means "continue to support until some specified end point." IA. The most detailed treatment of this problem which I know of it given ..ta a paper by Zeno Vendler, "The order of Adjectives," Transformations and niscourse Analysis Project, paper number 31, University of Pennsylvania mimeograph. Mark Liberman has recently pointed out that the word one is ambiguous in the sentence James bou ht a wonderful old brick -house and/1 bought a wooden one. One can mean simply 'house, but it can also meauvouderful old house. Since it is desirable to restrict pronominalization to constituents, this suggests that the input structure of.the above sentence, when one has the latter meaning, must be the one underlying the unacceptable string *James bou ht a brick wonderful old'house and I bou ht a wooden wonderful old house. The rule which inserts the pronoun one matches the double - underlined phrases and optionally replaces the right-hand phrase with one. Ifone is not inserted, some rule which scrambles prenominal adjectives optionally applies to the adjectives in both of the conjoined sentences, and some output condition will then evaluate the acceptability of the output string, Liberman's observation seems to me to provide extremely strong evidence for modifying the theory of grammar so that it contains some kind of stylistic component, for I can see no way of accounting for it within the present theory. 1 112 15. As a case in point, consider preverbal pronouns in Prench. I1 ,x' a des autres is grammatical, whereas**1.1 'des autres is totally ungrammatical: 16. On the theoretical implications of using subscripts in conditions on rules,s.cf. fn. 7 above. 17. In diagram (3.50), I have, for expository purposes only, -Aot given what T. believe is the correct labeled bracketing. In Latin,as in Engliah,there is reason to think that the underlying structure of sentences containing predicate adjectives is roughly that shows in (3.25), 18. Unfortunately, there are facts in Latin and Russian which will remain unaccounted for, even if some principle for can be worked out. pruning NP For in these two languages, third person pronouns in the genitive case do not become "possessive adjectives"- (i.e., their case is not changed by the case- marking rule). Thus, while mews frater 'my brother' becomes meum fratrem in the accusative case, eius hater 'his brother' becomes eius fratrem, not the parallel *eum fratrem. But in German, third person genitive pronouns*do inflect like adjectives, so it is clear that while many features of the case-marking rule may be universal, these interact with language-particular features in a way that is at present inexplicable. 113 19. It has been realized for a fairly long time that the notion of identity which is required in the, theory of grammar must include identity of reference (hints of this are present in Chomsky (1962), p. 238, and a specific proposal for formally indicating coreferentiality is made in Chomsky (1965) p. 145147). In addition,.as Lees-pointed-out (cf. Lees (1960), p. 75), identity of strings of words is not sufficient; rather the requisite notion must be defined as identity of constituent structure. The example Lees uses to .point out this interesting fact is the following. Since both sentences a and b below occur, a. Drowning cats are hard to rescue. b. Drowning cats is against the law. if string identity were sufficient to correctly predict what non-restrictive relative clauses can be formed, it should be possible to embed sentence b into sentence a, for both share the string drowning cats. But the ungrammaticality of c shows that the stronger type of identity which was proposed by Lees must be adopted. c. *Drowning cats, which is against the law, are hard to rescue. In fact, there are examples which show that an even stronger notion of identity is necessary: a constituent which is to be pronominalize:, by virtue of its identity to some other constituent. 114 must be identical in deep structure to that constituent. Examples which illustrate this point involve syntactically ambiguous sentences which are derived from different deep structures but have the same d.c.s. Several such sentences are given below. d. I know a taller man than John. e. When did Bill-promise-to-call me? f. The shooting of the pTisoners shocked me. In d, one reading derives from a deepstructure containing the deep structure of John knows a tall. man, the other from one containiag the deep structure of John is tall. In e, when can -s modify promise or call, and in f, prisoners can have been derived from an underlying subject (the prisoners shot something) or from an underlying object (someone shot the prisoners). If any of the sentences in d, e, or f is pronominalized as in 20 h, or i, g. He told Peter that I know a taller man than John, but Peter didn't believe it. h. I divulged when Bill promised to call me, but I did so reluctantly. i. I'll talk to John on Friday about the report that the shooting of the prisoners shocked me, and to .his wife on Saturday. it is clear that reference has.been made to the deep structures of d, e, and f, for the sentences in g, h, and i are only ambiguous 1_15 in two ways, not four. The problems that deep structure ideAtity raise for linguistic theory are extremely complex. They will be taken up in detail in Lakoff and Ross (op. cit.). (1(.044 20. g 6', a, 3.'1.640. At present, rule (3.63) is not stated correctly, for according to the specification of elementaries given in the structural change there, the clitics are adjoined to the first element of the first sentence above- them_as_ sisters. Thus they will not, without some special provision for the introduction of word boundaries, be part of the first word of the sentence. What seems to be necessary is that the clitics be adjoined to the. first element of the sentence by a new type of adjunction: daughter adjunction. What must happen is that the leftmost branch of (3.60), which I have reproduced here and labeled a, must be converted into either b or c depending on how the word boundary rules are formulated. c. b. a. S NP NP N Ivan Ivan This rule is the only one I know of where daughter adjunction is required, and I am reluctant to argue, on the basis of this rule alone, for a change in the number of kinds of elementary 116 operations which the theory of grammar provides. At present I can see no other course to follow, but I will postpone proposing such a radical change in the theory until more is known about Clitic Placement or until other rules are found whose statement requires daughter adjunction. 21. The reasons for arguing that manner adverbs are not constituents of VP, as was proposed in Chomsky (1965), but rather of S, are presented in Lakoff and Ross (1966). 22. This is the rule which reduces such sentences as John knows the answer and Bill knows answer, and Otto sells the Buicks and sells Buicks and Fords, etc. 23. answer to John and Bill know the (C( Otto sells Fords to Otto 2,111 I) 3-4") 6.1.2.3). In an unpublished, untitled paper written in the fall of 1965. ''''' 1444u 117 Chapter 4 CONSTRAINTS ON REORDERING TRANSFORMATIONS 4.0. In this chapter and the next one, I will propose a set of constraints, some universal, some lairm6ge-particular, which I will show to have roughly the same effect as the te-aver-A, principle. That is, I will show that with these constraints, it is possible to account for the six constructions in § 2.2 which Constitute evidence for the principle, while avoiding the counter-examples of § 2.1. The A-over-A, principle was postulated to be a constraint on trans- formaticual operations of all kinds, but I will attempt to show, in Chapter 6, that the_constraints of Chapters 4 and 5 (and hence, the principle as well) should only apply to transformations which exhibit certain well-defined formal properties. The constraints of Chapter 4 only affect what I will refer to informally as reordering transformations -transformations which have the effect of moving one or more terms of the structural description around some other terms of it. (The precise Two definition of this notion will, not be given until Chapter 6.) examples of reordering transformations are the Question Rule and the Relative Clause Formation Rule, which are stated very schematically in (4.1) and (4.2) below. - _#PRITAWRerAttelliMPIRmIRFAMwwvirmrsownersolegmen~... . WHIRMORIMONITIPPRIMIMPIWIRIPWpmspiawwwww , . 118 (4.1). Question Q- X - NP Y . OBLIG 1 2 3 4 1 1+2 n 4 Condition: (4.2) 3 dominates WH + some Relative Clause Formation W ? NP (s X - NP 11 JNP - OBLI 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 4+3 0 5 6 Condition: 2 a 4 I will use ungrammatical questions and relative clauses to illustrate the effects that the constraints of this chapter have on all reordering transformations. In Chapter 6)1 will present a list of all the other reordering transformations I know of, and show that they obey the same constraints. NP Constraint 4.1. The Com-,lex 4.1.1. It is to Edward S. Klima that the essential insight underlying my formulation of this constraint is due. the NP Noticing that that man could be questioned in (4.3b) , but not in (4.3a) (cf. (4.4)), Klima proposed the constraint stated in (4.5): 119 (4.3) (4.4) a. I read a statement which was about that man. b. I read a statement about that man. a. * The man who I read a statement which was about is sick. b. The man who I read a statement about is sick. (4:5) Elements dominated by a sentence which is dominated by a noun phrase cannot be questioned or relativized. If Klima's constraint is used in coninaction with the principle for S-deletion stated in (3.6), it can explain the difference in grammaticality between (4.4a) and (4.4b), for it is only in (4.3a) that the NP that man is contained in a sentence which is itsel: contained in an NP: when (4.3e) is converted into (4.4b) by the Relative Clause Reduction Rule, the node S which dominates the clause which was about that man in (4.3a) is pruned by (3.6) . Although I do not believe it is possible to maintain (4.5), for reasons I will present immediately below, it will be seen that my final formulation of the Complex NP Constraint makes crucial use of the central idea in Klima's formulation: the idea that node deletion affects the potential of constituents to undergo reordering transformations. This hypothesis may seem obvious, at the present stage*of eevelopmeLt of the theory of grammar, but when Klima first suggested it, when the theory of tree-pruning was much less 120 well-developed than it is at present, it was far from being obvious. In fact, this idea is really the cornerstone of my research on variables. 4.1.2. As I intimated above, however, I find that (4.5) must be rejected, in its present form. in (4.6) : For consider the NP that man, as (4.7) shows,, it is relativizable, (sthat the police were going to I read (4.6) Li P interrogate that manjs . 1 NP the man who I read that the police were going (4.7) to interrogate and yet the that-clause which contains it would seem to be a noun phrase, as I have indicated in the bracketing of (4.6). Presumably, the approximate deep structure of (4.6) is that shown in (4.8), (4.8) V NP %lad it thec.1_.cewereoitointerrogate that man and unless some way.is found of pruning the circled node S or the 121 boxed node NP of that man. in (4.8), condition (4.5) will prevent the relativization There is abundant evidence that the first alternative is not feasible: (4.9) ,a. I read that Bill had seen me. b. * I read that Bill had seen myself. (4.10) a. Evidence that he was drunk will be presented. b. Evidence will be presented that he was drunk. (4.11).a.ThatUll.;,ms unpopular distressed himi. b. That he i 1 was unpopular distressed Bill.. The Reflexivization Rule does not "go down into" sentences (cf. Lees and Klima (1963), Postal (1966b)); thus the fact that (4.9a) is grammatical, while (4.9b) is not, is evie:nce that that-clauses are dominated by S at the time that reflexivization takes place. Similarly, the fact that that-clauses may be extraposed, as is the case in (4.10b) , indicates that they are dominated by the node time that this rule applies. pronominalization 2 S at the Finally, the fact that backward into that-clauses is possible (cf. (4.11a)) also argues that they must be dominated by the node implausible that the circled node S S. So it seems should be deleted by some principle which supplements (3.6); and there is no independent support for such an additional pruning principle in any case. Therefore, the only other way to save (4.5) is to claim that the boxed node NP must be deleted in the process of converting (4.8) into the surface structure which underlies (4.6). 122 Can the node NP be deleted? In § 3.2 above, I discussed briefly Kuroda's proposal to generalize the notion of treepruning in such a way that arty non-branching node whose head had been deleted world be pruned. Jihile it is possible to propose such a generalized version of (3.6), there is as yet no syntactic evidence which indicates that node deletion must prune out occurrences of NP or VP. The complex problems involving case - marking with respect to amici and eius on the one hand and meus on tLe other, which I discussed in 5 3.1.3 above, might be solvable if use were made of some principle, of NP deletion, but this has yet to be worked out in detail; and unless some other evidence can be found for NP pruning, invoking it to delete the boxed NP in (4.8) is merely ad hoc. For there are many pieces of evidence which show that that-clauses are dominated by NP at some point in their derivation. (4.12) a. That the defendant had been rude was stoutly denied by his lawyer. b. What I said was that she was lying. c. Bill told me something awful: that ice won't sink. d. Muriel said nothing else than that she had been insulted. That-clauses passivize (4.12a) , occur in pseudo-cleft sentences (4.12b), after the colon in equative sentences (4.12c), and after than in sentences like (4.12d): in all of these 123 contexts, phrases can occur which are unquestionably noun phrases (e.g., Little Willy, potatoes, flyingplane's, etc.), and Lakoff and . Ajt I argue that the syntactic environments defined by (4.12) can on 11.'"P be filled with noun phrases (cf. Lakoff and Ross (in preparation a)). If our arguments are correct, then that-clauses must be dominated by NP at some stage of their derivation. that the late rule of It Deletion 3 , But it might be claimed which deletes the abstract pronoun it when it immediately precedes a sentence, could change phrasemarkers in such a way that the NP node which dominated it S would undergo pruning before Question and Relative Clause Formation had Not enough is known about rule ordering at present for this applied. possibility to be excluded, but it should be noted that even if it should prove to be possible to order It Deletion before all reordering transformations, thereby accounting for the grammaticality of (4.7) by providing for the deletion of the boxed NP of (4.8), it would still be necessary to explain wh-7 there is no difference in grammaticality between (4.13a) and (4.13b), (4.13) lee a. ti/frit This is a hat which I'm going to see to it that my wife buys. b. This is a hat which I'm going to see that my wife buys. After the verb se_; e... ...koL, the deletion of it is optional (in my dialect), and therefore, by the previous argument, while the 124 that-clause in (4.13b) might not be dominated by in (4.13a) still would be. NP NP, the that-clause So unless some additional convention for pruning could be devised for this case too, (4.5) would not allow Again, I must reiterate that there is no the generation of (4.13a). known evidence for pruning NP under any other circumstances, so the ad hoc character of the explanation which is necessitated if (4.5). is adopted is readily apparent. But there is an even more compelling reason to reject as I pointed out in (4.5) than the ones above: § 2.4.1 above, it is in general the case that elements of reduced relative clauses and elements of full relative clauses behave exactly the same with respect to reordering transformations. following examples: This can be seen from the NP which are in the same position as Maxime ia the sentences of (4.14) cannot be questioned (cf. the ungrammaticality of (4.15)), (4.14) a. Phineas knows a girl who is jealous of Maxim. b. Phineas knows a girl who is behind Maxime. c. Phi:leas knows a girl who is working with Maxime. (4.15) a. * Who does Phineas know a girl who is jealous of? b. * Who does Phineas know a girl who is behind? c. * Who does Phineas k--,ow a girl who is working with? . 125 nor can they be questioned,even after the relative clauses of (4.14) have been reduced (this is evidenced by the ungrammaticality of (4.16)). (4.16) a. * Who does Phineas know a girl jealous of? * Who does Phineas know a girl behind? c. * Who does Phineas know a girl working with? It was facts like these which motivated the condition stated in (2.26) above, which I repeat for convenience here. (2.26) No element of a constituent of an NP which modifies the head noun may be questioned or relativized. In the light of the facts of (4.15) , and (4.16), it would appear that it is the grammaticality of (4.4b) which is problematic, not the ungrammaticality of the sentences in (4.16). And there are parallel facts which have to do with Reflexivization, which I will present in interpretation. § 4.1.6 below, which also support this So condition (4.5), which takes the differences between the sentences in (4.4) to be typical, would seem to to 126 0- projection to an incorrect general conclusion from a case where special circumstances obtain. In the next section, I will give some evidence which allows the formulation of a broader-based generalization. 126 The sentences of (4,17), which only differ in that the 4.1.3. NP object of believe has a lexical head noun in the first, but not Aiffor nn rn rolnrivixnhilityi nn the cnrrenpondine *in ?i,. caonnA sentences of (4.18) show. (4.17) a. I believed the claim that Otto was wearing this hat. b. (4.18) I believed that Otto was wearing this hat. a. * The hat which I believed the claim that Otto was wearing is red. b. The hat which I believed that Otto was wearing is red. If the analysis proposed by Lakoff and me (op. cit.) is correct, the d.c.s. of (4.17a) will be roughly that shown in (4.19): (4.19) NP V . I NP believed the . claim th51"EVP Otto was wearing_ ` -=', - - this hat 127 Whether or not we can show it to be correct that abstract nouns followed by sentential clauses in apposition to them have exactly the same -(NP-SL, /IL structure that we argue relative clauses have, it is clear that these constructions are highly similar. Condition (4.20), the'Complex NP Constraint, is formulated in an effort to exploit this similarity to explain the ungrammaticality of sentences like (4.18a) and (4.15) on the same basis. (4.20) The Complex NP Constraint No element contained in a sentence dominated by a noun phrase with a lexical head noun may be moved out of that noun phrase by a transformation. To put it diagrammatically, (4.20) prevents any constituent A from being reordered out of the shown in (4.21), NP (4.21) Li-N +Lex] S in constituents like the NP 1 128 as the X's on the two arrows pointing left or right from A designate. (Vote that (4.20) does not prohibit elements from reordering within the .a..minatea emntannct such reorderings. and in ram fact 1-1 c,1rr. are Some will be discussed in manly 0 riles which effect § 5.1 below.) I have assumed the existence of a feature, [4- Lex] , to distinguish between lexical items like claim in (4.17a) or _girl in (4.14) on the one hand, and the abstract pronoun it of (4.13a) on the other. Since it is possible to move elements out of sentences in construction with the third of these, as (4.13a) attests, but not out of sentences in construction with the first two ((4.18a) and (4.15) ere ungrammatical), it will be necessary for the theory of grammar to keep them distinct somehow. The featurej+ Lexical] may not turn out to be the correct one; I have chosen it not only on the basis of the facts just cited but also with regard to the following parallel case in Japanese. 4.1.4. In Japanese, and I believe in all other languages as well, no elements of a relative clause may be relativized. relative clauses invariably precede the noun they modify. Japanese Superficially, they appear to be formed by simply deleting the occurrence of the identical NP in the matrix sentence. is embedded as a modifier onto the NP Thus when the sentence (4.22) sono sakana wa 'this fish', which is the subject of (4.23), (4.24) results. 129. (4.22) kodomo ga4 sakana child fish o tabete iru, eating is 'The child is eating the fish,' (4.23) Sono sakana wa ookii. That fish big 'What fish is big: (4.24) Sono kodomo That child ga tabete iru sakana wa eating is ookii. big fish 'That fish which the child is eating is big.' The deep structure of (4.24) is that shown. in (4.25)5. (4.25) VP NP V NP sono NP NP N E sakana V 1 k. N I sakana tabete iru ookii 130 In the derivation of (4.24) from (4.25), when the Relative Clause Formation Rule applies, the only apparent change that occurs in (4.25) is that the boxed node NP It would disappears. thus appear t6at the English version of the Relative Clause Formation Rule, which was stated in (4.2), is fundamentally different from the Japanese version, for in the former, the embedded identical NP is reordered and placed at the front of the matrix sentence, while in Japanese, the embedded NP is merely deleted. But there are two facts which lead me to believe that this dissimilarity is only superficial. First of all, the Japanese Fo I V, 01,1441A Relative Clause tztramm Rule is subject to the Complex NP Constraint and also to the Coordinate Structure Constraint, which will be discussed in § 4.2, and I will show, in Chapter 6, that simple deletion Secondly, transformations are not subject to these two conditions. in Japanese, as in all other languages I know of, the crossover condition, which Postal has proposed, obtains. This condit...on, as Postal Iririnally stated it, prevents any transformation from interchanging two coreferential NP. Since the Passive Rule effects such an interchange, reflexive sentences cannot be passivized, as was noted by Lees and Klima (cf. Lees and Klima (1963)). (4.26) a. Rutherford understands himself. b. * Rutherford is understood. by himself. c. *. Himself is understood by Rutherford. 131 The condition can be generalized, however. Subjects of sentences which appear as the object of say can normally be relativized: that this is true of the NP pudding in (4.27a) can be seen from the grammaticality of (4.27b): (4.27) a. The man who ordered ice cream said the puddingi would be tasty. b. The pudding which the man who ordered ice (-ream said would be tasty was a horror show. But if (4.27a) is changed so that the coreferential NP the puddingi appears not only as the subject of would but also as the deep object of ordered, ana if backward pronominalization has applied, yielding (4.28), (4.28) The man who ordered iti said the puddingi would be.tasty. then, for many speakers, the subject NP of the embedded sentence is no-longer relativizable. (4.29) * The puddingi which the man who ordered iti said would be tasty was a horror show. While (4.29) is an acceptable sentence if. the pronoun it refers to some other NP, it is ungrammatical if it has the same referent as the head noun of the subject of (4.29). These facts can be explained by generalizing the cross- over condition as shown in (4.30): 132 (4.30) The Cross over Condition No NP mentioned in the structural index ----of a transformation may be reordered by that rule in such a way as to cross over a coreferential NP. This condition is strong enough to excludc (4.29), for in carrying out the Relative Clause Formation Rule to form (4.29), it would have been necessary to move the subject of would be tasta, leftwards over the coreferential pronoun it. This also explains why the pronoun he in (4.31a) can refer to the same man as the head NP the man but cannot do so in (4.31b) . (4.31) a. The mans who said h el was tall. * Theimml. who he. said was tall However, (4.30-is too strong -- it would incorrectly prevent (4.32a) from being passivized, and (4.32b) could not be generated. (4.32) a. The sheriffi denied that gangsters had bribed him.. 3. b. That gangsters had bribed himi was denied by the sheriff. At present, I know of no way to weaken (4.30) to avoid this wrong result. The crossover condition also obtains in Japanese: the Japanese version of the Passive Rule, which converts (4.33a) to (4.33b), 133 (4.33) a. sono hito wa sakana o that man aratta washed fish 'That man washed the fish.' b. sakana wa sono that fish ni hito arawareta was washed man 'The fish was washed by the man.' cannot apply to reflexive sentences. (4.34a) cannot be passivized, as the ungrammaticality of (4.34b) shows. (4.34) a. sono hito wa zibun aratta o that man 'That man washed himself.' b. * zibun wa sono hito ni arawareta I* That man was washed by himself.' The crossover condition, by its very nature, applies only to transformations which reorder constituents, so the fact that grammatical and ungrammatical pairs of Japanese relative clauses can be found which parallel those in (4.31) is a second indication that the Japanese rule of Relative Clause Formation also involves reordering, and not merely deletion. (4.35)a.kare.ga nagai he 'The tall to itta hito.. that said man an who said he was tall.' 134 b. * hito. 1 ga man nagai to itta hitoi tell that said II man lic'Theman.whohe..said was tall 1 . ' 1 The fact that the first occurrence of hits 'man' in (4.35b) cannot have the same raZerent as the second one indicates that the term 'cross over', which was used in the statement of (4.30), cannot be taken sirply to refer to the linear order of words in the sentence, for the underlying structure of (4.35a) is that shown in (4.36) . (4.36). As (4,35) shows, the boxed NP the circled NP cannot. can be relativized, although If I am correct in attributing these facts to the cross `over condition, which (4.34b) shows to be necessary in t..../ Japanese in any case, then, if the rule of Relative Clause Formation ,, 135 in Japanese operates is such a way as to move the identical NP in the matrix sentence to the right end of the.embedded.sentence, in L.w vuc A.* 4. vpposle w.recu.honA-2 from 4.4,a4. In wha.",,...--1-1 it moves 4.. 7 '0« I 4 ',Is A.Laki.i.4. L4 notion of "crossing over" must be defined in such a way as to take into consideratiOn not only the one-dimensional linear ordering of constituents, but also their two-dimensional hierarchical arrangement. At any rate, whether or not my contention that the Japanese version of Relative Clause Formation involves reordering is correct, it is a fact that elements of relative clauses cannot be relativized. For example, sentence (4.24), in which the NP kodom ga the child' appears as the subject Of a relative clause, cannot be embedded as a modifier of the subject NP of (4.37), as is shown by the ungrammaticality of (4.38). (4.37) kodomo ga byooki sick child is 'The child is sick: (4.38) * sono tabete iru sakana ga ookii k.odomo ga byooki da. that eating is fish big child sick 1* The child who ED fish (he) is eating is big is sick.' A Furthermore, there are Japanese sentences)like (4.39))which parallel those in (4.17); and, just as is the case in English, while elements can be relativized from the object clause of (4.39b), which corresponds to (4.17b) to (4.17a). , this is not possible in (4.39a), which corresponds This can be seen from the ungramaaticality of (4.40a) and the grammaticality of (4.40b). is. 136 Otto ga kono boosi o kabutte ita to (4.39) a. Otto this hat iu syutyoo o watakusi wa sinzita. wearing was that say claim believed I 'I believed the claim that Otto was wearing this hat.' Otto ga kono boosi o kabutte ita koto b. Otto this hat o watakusi wa sinzita. believed I wearing was thing 'I believed that Otto was gearing this hat.' , (4.40). a. *Otto ga kabutte ita to Otto syatyoo o watakusi ga sinzita wearing was that say claim I believed hat '*The hat which I believed the claim that Otto was wearing is red.' b. Otto ga kabutte ita koto o watakusi ga sinzita boosi wa akai. Otto wearing was thing I believed hat red 'The hat which I believed that Otto was wearing is red.' The underlying structure for (4.40b) is roughly that shown in (4.41). 8 t boosi wa aKaie red 137 (4.41) rNP Ar N Nrf..-/.4." 1 V akai VP NP VP V boost sinzita watakusi N VP ri.N Lex NP V koto kabutte ita boosi Although it is not clear to me what the deep structure for sentences like (4.39a) should be, it seems reasonable to assume that at the time the Relative Clause Formation Rule applies, the major difference between this structure and the structure which results from the deep structure of (4.39b) (the deep structure which appears in (4.41) as a relative clause on boosi 'hat') would be that the lexical noun syutyoo 'claim', would appear in place of the nonlexical. noun koto 'thing'. Thus the circled NP (4.41) is relativizable, because the Complex NP boosi 'hat' in Constraint only prohibits elements which are contained in a sentence dominated by a 138 NP with a lexical head noun from reordering, and the Japanese nouns koto, mono, and no (if this last should be analysed as a noun at all), which all mean roughly 'thing', are presumably non-lexical. But nouns like mutr.22 'claim' are lexical, and therefore the Complex NP Constraint must prevent elements of sentences in apposition to them from reordering out of these sentences, as the ungrammaticality of (4.40a) shows. To summarize briefly, what I am proposing is that the facts presented as evidence for the..A.Tover-A principle, in Cases and B of A § 2,2 - namely that elements of relative clauses cannot be relativized or questioned, and that in general, elements of clause' in apposition to sentential nouns.also cannot -- should both be accounted for by (4,20) -- the Complex NP Constraint. The fact that elements of clauses in construction with "empty" nouns like it (cf. (4.13a)) and koto 'thing' (cf. (4.40b)) can be relativized, whereas this is,not possible in clauses in construction with nouns like _girl (cf. (4.15)), claim (cf. (4.18a)), kodomo 'child' (cf. (4.38)), and svutvoo 'claim' (cf. (4.40a)), necessitates that the constraint be stated with reference to some such feature as [± Lexical]. Ibelieve the Complex NP Constraint to be universal (but cf. fn. 8), although there are problems with it even in English. These will be taken up in the two sections immediately following,: 139 4.1.5. The first difficulty with (4.20) concerns sentences like those in (4.42), (449) T am making_the c1 aim that the company n, squandered the money. I am discussing the claim that the company squandered the.money. Most speakers find NP in the position of the money not to be relativizable in (4.42b), but to be so, or at least more nearly so, in the. case of (4.42a). .(4.43) a. ? The money which I am making the claim that the company squandered amounts to $400,000. b. * The money which I am discussing the claim that the company squandered amounts to $400,000. Sentence (4.43b) can be made even more ungrammatical by prefixing the noun claim with some possessive modifier, (4.44) ** The ropey which I am discussing Sarah's claim that the company squandered amounts to $400,000. and many speakers feel that while (4.43a) nay not be fully grammatical, sentences like those in (4.45),.whose only significant difference from (4.43a) lies in the definiteness of che article on the sentential noun, are completely grammatical. 140 (4.45) a. The money which I have hopes a feeling that the company will squander amounts to $400,000. b. The money which I will have a chance Lo squander amounts to $400,000. c. TIT money which I w 11 make a proposal or us to squande that we squander amounts to $400,000. If any of these sentences are grammatical, either condition (4.20) must be modified or abandoned, or the two sentences in (4.42) must derive from quite different sources. As it stands, (4.20) O will block the generation of all the sentences in (4.43) each case, the (4.45): in NP being relativized is contained in a sentence in apposition to a lexical head noun. There is some evidence that the second alternative may be correct, i.e., that (4.20) can be preserved as is. I have not yet been able to solve various problems of rule ordering that arise in connection with this alternative, and it is only in the hope that the following incomplete analysii may suggest a correct way of distinguishing between (4.43a) and (4.43b) that I present it here. Harris has proposed (cf. Harris (1957)) that sentences like those in (4.46) be directly transformed into the corresponding sentences ti (4.47), by a rule which he calls the modal transformation. 141 (4.46) (4.47) a. I snoozed. b. Sam progressed. c. Bill gave me $40. L Max shoved the car. e. I feel that Arch will show up. a. I' took a snooze Sam made progress. c. Bill made a gift to me of $40. d. Maxgave-the car a shove. e. I have a feeling that Arch will show up. Since the surface structures of (4.46a) and (4.47a) seem to be those shown in (4.48c) and (4.48b), respectively (the situation is similar with respect to the other sentences of (4.46) and (4.47)), (4.48) S a,3 VP ' V I 1 snoozed b. VP NP I NP V took a snooze 142 Harris' rule cannot be stated within the currently available theoretical framework, for at present, only transformations which decrease structure can be formulated. contains only one NP, The P-marker in (4.48a) but the one in (4.48b) contains two, so the present theory would not allow a direct transformational relation which converted the former into the latter (the opposite direction would be possible, of course). So, at present, in the theory of generative grammar, one could only claim (a) that the sentences are only semantically related, or (b) that (4.48b) is converted into (4.48a), or (c) that the deep structure of (4.48a) is contained in the deep structure of (4.48b), as shown in (4.49): (4.49) IP NP I took S 'it IP I YP V I snooze Proponents of this last approach would presumably argue that after the embe-'ded subject in (4.49), 1, had been deleted by Equi-NP Deletion, the verb'snooze TIould be substituted for the 143 abstract pronoun, it, and the indefinite article would be segmentalized yielding the structure in (4.48b). do not know whether any of the above analyses is correct, or whether structure-building transformations, which could convert (4.48a) directly ii to (4.48b), should be countenanced within the theory. But whatever analysis is adopted for the sentences in (4.47), it should also be adopted for expressions like make the claim that S, have hopes that S, have a chance to used in (4.42) and (4.45) above. VP, etc., which were If analysis (a) is correct, then both sentences in (4.42) would come from roughly the same deep structure, (4.50). (4.50) NfP I r am making discussing the NP N andered 9 , -....... 4-4,......-. , i But the fact that the NP the money is relativizable in (4.42a) but not in (4.42b) seems to argue against this analysis, for how can this difference be accounted for, if both sentences have roughly the same deep structure? Furthermore, thete is another fact about the sentences in (4.42a) and (4.45a) which sets them off from other sentences containing sentential nouns with clauses in apposition to them. George Lakoff has pointed out to me that the rule which optionally deletes the complementizer that in clauses which follow a verb cannot apply if the verb has been substantivized. So, while both (4.51a) and (4.51b) are grammatical, only the a-version of (4.52) is possible. (4.51)___a. (4.52) Kleene proved that this set is recursive. b. Kleene proved this set is recursive. a. The proof that this set is recursive is difficult. b. * The proof this set is recursive is difficult. It seems to be the case that it is only in modal constructions like make the claim that S, have hopes that S, etc. that the complementizer that can be deleted after a sentential noun. (4.53) a. ? I am making the claim the company squandered the money. b. I have hopes the company will squander the money. 145 c. I have a feeling the company will squander the money. ---d. * I made a proposal we squander the money. As (4.53d) shows, it does not seem to be the case that that can be deleted in all modal constructions -- what the restrictions but...the...fact that it generally can be are I do not know at present deleted in these Constructions is another piece of evidence that argues they should be analyzed differently than such sentences as One final fact deserves mention here: to the best of my knowledge, it is only in modal constructions that sentential nouns which are related to transitive verbs cannot occur with a full range or possessive modifiers. In sentences like those in (4.54), where the main verb of the sentence containing 'claim is not make, any possessive NP can modify claim. - (4.54) a. Your Dick's claim that semantics is generative etc. is preposterous. Myron's b. We are discussing their. etc. flying saucers are real. claim that 146 But after the verb make, and only after it, the possessive modifier must refer back to the subject of make, if it is possible to have such a modifier_at_all: 9 (4.55) Myron is making = claim that dead * Suzie's * Dr. No's { etc. is better than red. The same is true of all modals, as the sentences in (4.56) demonstrate. (4.56) a. * I have Tom's feeling that the company will squander the money. b. * Myra took Betty's snooze. c. * Bill made Sarah's gal to me of $40. d. * Max gave the. car Levi's shove. These three facts -- that the Complex NP Constraint is not operative in modal constructions; that the complementizer that is generally deletable there, and the fact that.possessive modifiers must refer back to the subject of the modal verb -- indicate clearly that sentential nouns like claim. hooe, etc. which occur in these constructions must be derived differently in modal constructions than they are elsewhere. It is tempting to propose changing the theory so that (4.48a) could be directly converted into (4.48b) by a structure-building 147 rule of Modalization. Then the fact that elements are relativizable in complement sentences after make the claim, have hopes, etc. and the fact that that can be deleted there could be handled by ordering the rules as follows: Relative Clause Formation, That Deletion, .11111111 Modalization. Unfortunately, this solution will not work, for if there is a rule of Modalization, Passive must follow it: (4.57) The claim that plutonium would not float was made by the freshman. But if Passive follows Relative Clause Formation, such sentences as (4.58) will not be derivable. (4.58) The man who was arrested by Officer McNulty went mad. Furthermore, if Passive follows That Deletion, what is to prevent derivations like that shown in (4.59)? (4.59) a. Jack is claiming that you won't need it. That Deletion b. Jack is claiming you won't need it. Modalization c. Jack is making the claim you won't need it.---H>Passive d. * The claim you won't need it is being made; by Jack. 148 These difficulties, which I have not been able to overcome, have kept me from reaching a solution to the problem posed by the modal construction for the Complex NP Constraint. seems clear that the complex sentential But since it NP which occur in modal constructions must be derived from some other source than the sentential NP in other constructions, I have hopes that it will be possible to preserve the Complex NP Constraint in the way it was stated in (4.20). At any rate, I will not settle for merely an ad hoc rider on (4.20) until the grammar of modal constructions is considerably better understood than it is at present. 4.1.6. The second difficulty concerning (4.20) arises in connection, with the sentences in (4.3) and (4.4), which I will repeat below for convenience.. (4.3) (4.4) a I read a statement which was about that man. b. I read a statement about that man.' a. * The man who I read a statement which was about is sick. b. The man who I read a statement about is sick. As I pointed out in § 4.1.2, it is not in general the case that elements in reduced relative clauses can be relativized or questioned: the fact that the sentences of (4.15) and (4.16) are equally ungrammatical supports this contention. How then can it be that the object of about in (4.3b) can be relativized, if (4.3b) derives 149 from (4.3a) byway of the rule of Relative Clause Reduction? The tentative answer to this question which I would propose is that the re' zion between the sentences of (4.3) must be much more complex than has hitherto been suspected. I suspect that (4.3b) is nearer to being basic than (4.3a) is, and that in any case, (4.3b) is not derived from (4.3a) by means of the rule of Relative Clause Reduction. There are a number of peculiar facts about sentences containing nouns like statement, some of which I will take up below, which suggest the correctness of this idea. First of all, such sentences behave uniquely under reflexivization. As was shown in Lees and Klima (1963), the second of two identical noun phrases is replaced by a reflexive pronoun, subject to the condition that both sentence", to use their term. NP's be in the same "simplex They do not state how this restriction clear from is to be expressed foimally, but their meaning will be the following examples: (4.60) You're going to hurt yourself one of these a. days. I spoke to Bill about himself. b. (4,61) a; * That .Tom saw me surprised myself. b. * He said that himself was hungry. Reflexivization must be blocked in (4.61), for in both cases, there is a node S which dominates one occurrenceof the two NP's which does not dominate the other. Since this is not true of 150 2 (4.60), Reflexivization must apply. Consider now such sentences as those shown in (4.62) (4.62)a.Ireadhim.1 a statement which was about himi ?himself l l I read him, a statement about b. 1 1 .... himseitj I am not sure, but I believe (4.62a) is better, in my own speech, with a non-reflexive pronoun than with a reflexive pronoun. If there are dialects in which both of the sentences in (4.62a) are fully grammatical, I can provide no explanation of such facts, for in the overwhelming majority of cases, Reflexivization cannot go down into relative clauses, and I would not know how to characterize formally the relative clauses in sentences like (4.62a) in such a way that Reflexivization could go down into them, but not into clauses like the one shown in (4.63). I know a man who hates (4.63) me myself Therefore, for the purposes of this study, let us assume, perhaps falsely, the existence of a dialect in whiw reflexive pronouns are absolutely excluded in (4.62a) and are absolutely necess (4.62b). in How could we explain such facts? Given that a meta-rule of S-pruning like (3.6) must be included in linguistic theory,. on the basis of the independent evidence presented in § 3.1, it might be argued that the explanation 151 must depend in some way on this meta-rule. That is, one could assume that (4.62b) is derived from (4.62a) by the rule of Relative Clause Reduction. Reflexivization would be blocked in (4.62a), because in (4.64), which shows the approximate structure of (4,62a) node S dominates the second occurrence of the not the first, so the two , the circled NP he (1112), but are not in the same simplex sentence. NP's VP NP NP I read him NP Art N a statement NP NP I about Then, of course, as in the cases discussed in 3.1.3, him §§ 3.1.1 - when the Relative Clause Reduction Rule deletes which was in (4.64), the circled S will no longer branch and will be pruned by (3.6), thus bringing it about that the two occurrences of he (him) are in CAe same simplex sentence, so that Reflexivization can convert the sewnd one into himself. 152 - - d a or --, 0 or - ood 417. ; at., . -7 ....or ...*. ;A. -- . - " ...CT. ow, , -. -do. T . . / no L. anc cannot, as far as I. can see at present, be patched up to overcome these inadequacies. The first difficulty arises in connection with several facts which were first pointed out in two careful studies of reflexives made by Florence Warshawsky (cf. Warshawsky (1965a,b)). She pointed out that whether or not reflexivization occurs in sentences like (4.62b) is correlated in some inexplicable way with the type of determiner which precedes statement. In (4.65a), where the determiners are indefinite, reflexivization seems to be obligatory, in most dialects, whereas in (4.65b), where the determiners are possessives, they do not occur (in most dialects). With the definite articles the, this, that (4.65c), there seems to be great dialectal variation. To my ear, the sentences sound odd with or without reflexives. (4.65) a. I read him two (several, some, no) statements about himself. b. * I read him Judy's statement about himself. c.?* I read him the (this, that) statement about himself. Clearly, no principle like (3.6) can account for the facts in (4.65) by itself -- additional conditions of some sort must be imposed on the rule of Reflexivization (these sentences will be discussed again in 6.4) below). But, it might be argued, at least the principle of (1' 153 S-pruning makes it possible to state the Reflexivization Rule in such a way that reflexives are excluded from (4.62a), while at least some of them are allowed in sentences like (4:65a) and possibly (4.65c). This argument seems appealing until it is realized that normally Reflexivization does not go down into reduced relative clauses. For example, if the relative clause in (4.66a) is reduced to the phrase behind me, the NP me cannot be converted into a reflexive. The same is true of the reduced clauses jealous of you and watching me in (4.77b) and (4.78b). (4.66) (4.67) a. I know two men who are behind me. b. I know two men behind me (*myself). a. You are too flip with people who are jealous of you. b.. You are too flip with people jealous of you (*yourself). (4.68) a. I screamed at some children who were watching me. b. I screamed at some children watching me (*myself) . In fact, excluding the problem as to whether reflexive pronouns can appear in relative clauses of the type contained in (4.62a) , I would hazard a guess that not only do rules of reflexivization universally not go down into relative clauses, they also do not go c into reduced relative clauses. For instance, in German, if the 154 relative clause die'ihmaieb sind 'who are kind to him' in (4.69a) is reduced to form (4.69b), the personal pronoun'ihm 'him' (dat.) is aot converted to the reflexive pronoun'sich 'himself'. (4.69) Hans verknallt sich nur a. Hans falls in 112dchen, die who only for girls, ihm lieb sind. him kind are. 'Hans only falls for girls who are kind to him.' Hans-verknallt_sich nur b. Hans falls in ihm Liebe Madchea. only for him kind girls. 'Hans only falls for girls kind to him.' If'sich is substituted for'ihm in (4.69b), as in (4.70), the sentence produced has a different meaning and is unrelated to the sentences in (4.69). (4.70) liebe Maddhen. Hans verknallt sich. nur in sich Hans falls only for themselves kind girls. 'Hans only falls for girls who are kind to themselves. Thus, the most obvious explanation of the facts of (4.62), an explanation making use of the rule ordering shown in (4.71) (4.71)* Relative Clause Reduction Reflexivization and of some convention of S-pruning, would seem to be inadequate for the same reason that (4.5) cannot adequately account for the difference in grammaticality of the sentences in (4.4). Normally, 155 Reflexivization does not go down into reduced relative clauses, so the fact that reflexives can occur after about in (4.62 -) suggests that the about-phrase is not clausal in origin. Warshawsky (op. cit.) points out that Jaany of the nouns which can appear in the blank in (4.72) are relarad to verbs. (4.72) Nax showed me a , Gf himsel:. labout A few of the verb-related nouns that occur in tais environment are listed in (4.73a).; several for which no corresponding verb exists are given in (4.73b). (Warshawsky gives much more extensive lists of these nouns, which she calls "picture nouns".) (4.73) a. description, statement, report, claim, tale, drawing, painting, photograph, etching, sketch b. story, column, satire, book, letter, text, article, sentence, paragraph, chapter, picture Warshawsky points out that the verbs associated with the nouns of (4.73a) are all verbs of creation, and the nouns systematically ambiguous with respect to whether they denote an abstract cx.ation or some physical object upon which this creation is represented. Further, she notes that certain of these verbs human subjects (cf. (4.74)), can occur only with 156 (4 .74) { Michael *Michael's photograph {painted the duck sketched drew I %. pond. but that others could have either human subjects or picture noun subjects. Michael Michael's (4.75) report statement description story article book ?picture iltold of the conflict described the country stated that we were at fault I. This list property is unlike any other grammatical fact I have It is worth pointing out that it is not the case encountered, that any abstract noun can serve as subject of these verbs -- only picture nouns can, as is shown by the ungrammaticality of (4.76). (4.76) sthe space between my eyes entencehood * Harry's' civil rights Marilyn's arrival f told of the conflict described the country stated that we were at fault 11 ,etc. The fact that the deverbal nouns in (4.73a) behave the same way as the apparently basic nouns in (4.73b) with respect to relativization and questioning (cf. (4.4)), reflexivization (cf. (4.62)) and with respect to the curious selectional facts pointed .out in (4.75) : 157 provides strong evidence for treat!ng all picture nouns alike. Warshawsky sug,:ests that verbs may be basic for picture nouns, and that hypothetical verbs (cf. Lakoff (1c.w65)) such as to story, to column, etc. be postulated as underlying the nouns of (4.73b). This proposal seems quite reasonable, but in the absence of a detailed analysis along these lines, little more can be. said about it at present. r- In passing, it should be remarked that there are a number of prepositional phrase adjuncts to noun phrases which exhibit similar behavior r 'icture nouns. As (4.16b) shows, it is not in general the case chat elements of postnominal prepositional But this is the case in tae sentences phrases can be questioned. of (4.77), as (4.78) shows. (4.77) (4.78) to fo a. I gave Tom a key b. Harold has books by some young novelists. c. Billy is looking for a road into the cavern. a. Which door did I give Tom a key b. Which novelists does Harold have boo that door. to 2 for by? c. ? Which cavern is Billy looking for a road into? Considerations of the same sort as were discussed above would suggest that NP like a key to this door and a road into the cavern should not be derived from ?a key which is to this door and ?a road which is into the cavern, which are at best grammaticality in any -vent of dubious But what their deep structures might be 158 is at present an unsolved problem. 4.1.7. To conclude this discussion, the constraint which I stated in (4,20) correctly prevents elements of relative clauses from being questioned or relativized. and The remarks of footnote 8 § 4.1.5 above indicate that this constraint is stated too strongly at present, and the remarks in § 4.1.6 show that the differences between the sentences of (4.4), although they appear to fall within the scope of (4.20), are in fact much more complex than has been realized. Complex NP I know of no other counterexamples to the Constraint, and I therefore submit it for inclusion in the list of putative linguistic universals, subject to whatever modifications are necessary to avoid the extra strength pointed out in footnote 8 and4.1.5. 4.2. The Coordinate Structure Constraint 4.2,1. In XP § 2.2, in Case F, it was pointed out that conjoined cannot be questioned: this Was attested to by the ungrammaticality of (2..18) and (2.19), which I repeat here for convenience. (2.18) * What sofa will he put the chair between some table and? (2.19) * What table will he put the chair between and some sofa? The impossibility of questioning the circled NP nodes in diagram (4.79) can be succeasfully accounted for by invoking the A-over-A principle, (4.79) but this principle does not prevent the circled NP nodes in diagrams (4.80) or (4.81) from being questioned or relativized. (4.80) He_ nr (4.81) and S VP the the plumber nurse /4 Dolished her trombone But all of the circled nodes must somehow be restricted from being moved, as the ungrammatical sentences of (4.82) show. (4.82) a. *.The lute which Henry plays and sings madrigals is warped. b. * The madrigals which Henry plays the lute and sings sound lousy. c. * The nurse who polished her trombone and the plumber computed my tax was a blonde. d. * Which trombone did the nurse polish and the plumber computed my tax? e. * The plumber who the nurse polished her trombone and computed my tax was a hefty fellow. f. * Whose tax did the nurse polish her trombone and the plumber compute? 161 I. know of no principled way of excluding such 'structures as those shown in.(4.80) and (4.81) from being introduced as relative clauses, i.e., at the node S in (4.83), NP (4.83) NP so it appears to be necessary to add the following constraint to the meta-theory: The Coordinate Structure Constraint (4.84) In a coordinate structure, no conjunct may be moved, nor may any element contained in a conjunct be moved out of that conjunct. 4.2.2. I propose to define the notion coordinate structure as eny structure conforadng to the schematic diagram in (4.85). (4.85) and or { . A A .... 162 Of course, since (4.85) is intended to be a universal definition, it must be understood as containing not the English morphemes and and or_ but rather a mnre abstract_ language-independent 10 representation of these terms--. Furtheralore, the conjlinc.tion should be understood as either preceding all its conjuncts, as in English, French, or as following them, as in Japanese. Coordinate structures contain at least two conjuncts, but may contain any higher number of them. As for the deep structure position of the conjunction with respect to the conjuncts, there are many reasons for believing that the structure of (4.86) is not that shown in (4.87), but rather that shown in (4.88), where each occurrence of the conjunction and forms a constituent with the following sentence instead of being coordinate with it, as in (4.87). Irma washed the dishes, and Sally dried, and (4.86) Floyd loafed. (4.87) Irma washed the dishes a d Sally dried and Floyd loafed 1,!..PIORMIOPPTPPRVIITITRMRPOPWPWWIrfP.Prr..-,..Fgrrewns.frogro..-. 163 (4.86) S Irma washed the dishes and Sally dried and Floyd loafed One'syntactic reason is that if a conjoined sentence like (4.89) is broken up into two sentences, as in (4.90), the conjunction always goes with the second sentence, as in (4.90a), never with the first, as in (4.90b). John left, andhe didn't even say goodbye. (4.89) (4.90) a. John left. And he didn't even say goodbye. b. * John left and. He didn't even say goodbye. A second syntactic reason is in that languages in which coordinating conjunctions can become enclitics, which are then inserted into one conjunct (this is the case with - que 'and' in Latin, and with the word aber 'but' in German), these enclitics are always associated with the following conjunct, never with the preceding one. Thus (4.91) may be converted into (4.92a), but not into (4.92b). (4.91) Sie will tanzen, aber ich will nach Hause gehen. 'She wants to dance, but I want to go home.' 1 164 (4.92) a. Sie will tanzen; ich will aber nach Hause gehen. b. * Sie will aber tanzen; ich will nach Hause gehen. 11 A third syntactic reason for, regarding (4.88) as the correct structt is the following: since the Appositive Clause Formation Rule must convert sentences like (4.93a) into (4.93b)C-tj. (4.93) a. Even Harold failed, and he is the smartest aoy in our class. b. Even Harold., and he who is the smartest boy in our class, failed.. there are very general theoretical grounds for arguing that the string and he is the smartest boy in our class in (4.93a) is a constituent, for except for this case, transformations can be constrained so that only constituents may be adjoined. Phonological evidence indicates strongly that the bracketing of the subject NP of (4.94) must be that shown in (4.95a), and not that shown in (4.95b) or (4.95c), Tom, and Dick, and Harry all love watermelon. (4.94) (4.95) a. ((Tom) (and Dick) (and Harry)) all love watermelon. b. ((Tom) (and) (Dick) (and) (Harry)) all love watermelon. 165 ((Tom and) (Dick and) (Harry)) all love c. watermelon, far intonational pauses come before coordiftatiag conjunctions, not after them or equally on both sides of them. So there is good evidence to indicate that the correct structure of (4.86) must be that given in (4.88). structure arise? But how does this Lakoff and l (op. cit.) propose that there be a phrase structure rule schema like (4.96) in the base, (4.96) S and that later the and or copied and Chomsky-adjoined (and, or S , where n > 2 or which Is introduced by (4.96) be 12 to each of the indefinitely many S's that are introduced by (4.96) by a rule of Conjunction Copying. So the deep structure of (4.86) would be approximately that shown in (4.97), which the rule of Conjunction Copying will convert to (4.98). (4.97) an NP VP IP Irma NP was led the Sally dishes VP V dried VP 111.3 NP something Floyd, V loafed 166 (4.98) and and Irma washed the dishes Sally dried something Floyd loaf To derive (4.88) from (4.98), the first instance of and is deleted by a general rule which I will not state here.. It is deleted obligatorily if the conjuncts are sentences, as is the case in (4.98), but it may optionally be converted into both if the car.juncts are NP, VP, or V. The rules for conjunction with or are similar in all respects, except that the initial or may be converted into either in front of all conjuncts. Languages like French, where the first conjunction does not have a suppletive alternant, provide further motivation for this analysis: (4.99) a. Et Jean et Pierre sont fatigu6s. andJohn and Peter are tired. 'Both John and Peter are tired.' b. Ou Jean ou Pierre doit le faire. Or John or Peter must it do. 'Either John or Peter must do it.' One final point in favor of this analysis should be mentioned: the semantic interpretation of conjunctions, under this analysis, is much more in line with the traditional logical analysis of 167 conjunctions, which treats them as n-place predicates, than would be the case if the previously accepted analyses were adopted. 4C /A 071 4n nA, mA ec 4%. .0%0 4-1-tn .--r ..... nc IL RAI ...--e, 1.11p. That is, Pn-Milnet-inng and and or are only different semantically from such two-place relations as see, etc. in that the former can have an indefinitely large number of arguments, while the latter is binary. But if some such structure as (4.87) is postulated as the deep structure of (4.86), quited:ssimilar projection rules will have to be constructed to interpret (4.87) semantically, and the fact that and, or, and see are semantically similar, in that all are relations, will not be expressed formally. 4.2.3. Given the above definition of coordiLate structure, the first clause of the Coordinate Structure Constraint will exclude (2.18) and (2.19), while the second will exclude all the sentences of (4.82). The latter sentences could neither be excluded by the A-over-A principle nor by the Complex NP Constraint of § 4.1, so it appears that condition (4.84) is necessary for reasons which are independent of the problems raised by (2.18) and (2.19). Thus (4.84) can be used to explain their ungrammaticality, just as the A-over-A principle was. It should be pointed out that there are instances of the morpheme and which must be derived from different sources than the two major sources discussed in Lakoff and Peters (1966). la 3 For 168 instance, as (4.101) shows, there is a difference in relativizability between (4.100a) and (4.100b), even though both sentences in (4.100) appear rn contain gtructnrpg thnr are onnrclinnte_ by definition (4.85). (4.100) a. I went to the store and bought some whisky. b. I went to the store and Nike bought some whisky. (4.101) Here's the whisky which I went to the store a. and bought. b. ' Here's the whisky which I went to the store and Mike bought. However, as George Lakoff has pointed out to me, there are clear syntactic indications that the relative clause in (4.101a) is not an instance of ordinary sentence conjunction. First of all, it is only with non-stative verbs as the main verb of the second conjunct that sentences lik- (4.101a) can be constructed. (4.102) a. Tony has a Fiat and yearns for a tall nurse. b. * The tall nurse who Tony has a Fiat and yearns for is cruel to him. Secondly, the second conjunct cannot be negative: (4.103) a. I went to the movies and didn't pick up the shirts. b. * The shirts which I went to the movies and didn't pick up will cost us a lot of money. 169 Thirdly, there are restrictions on the tenses that may appear in such sentences as (4.101a) hbtu.ease - ) 111 eve:ytin """ UW. . MT) 4.4 Thus. (4.104a) parallels (4.100a) the ryln4clev, is 'Int- T.P1ativi7Ab1e as (4.104b) indicates. (4.104) a. I went to the store and have bought some excellent whisky. b. * The excellent whidcy which I went to the store and have bought was very costly. The fact that (4.100a) , on one reading, is synonymous with (4:105a) , which contains a purpose clause, and the fact that the ungrammaticality of (4.102b) , (4.103b) , and (4.104b) is matched by correspondingly ungrammatical purposeclauses (cf. (4.105b), (4.105c), and (4.105n) respectively) suggests that the reading of (4.100a) which allows the formation of the relative clause'of (4.101a) be derived from whatever the underlying structure is that underlies (4.105a). Note, by the way, that relativization is also possible in (4.105a)\ as (4.106) shows. (4.105) a. I went to the store to buy some whisky. b. * Tony has a Fiat to yearn for a tall nurse. c. * I went to the movies not to to not pick the shirts up. d. * I went to the store to have bought some whisky. ,.1r.rrrprovenvbe.... 170 Here's the whisky which I went to the (4,106) store to buy. limc= arc of.tvar .kubl.auceb aiLu wiL.Lcu a similar 1:11e of argument suggests should not be derived from coordinate nodes in deep structure, For example, consider the sentences in (4.107): (4.107) a. She's gone and ruined her dress now. b. I've got to try and find that screw. c. Aunt Hattie wants you to be nice and kiss your granny. As I have no plausible analysis for these sentences, I will merely point out, that they are not subject to (4.84): (4.108).__a.___ Which dress has she gone and ruined now? b. The screw which I've got to try and find holds the frammis to the myolator. c. Which granny does Aunt Hattie want me to be nice and kiss? The fact that the sentences of (4.108) and sentence (4.101a) are grammatical might mean that (4.84) is simply wrong, but the facts I presented in (4.102) - (4.106) suggest that this may not be so, at least with regard to (4.101a) . Rather it may be tb case that none of thesie sentences contain coordinate structures at the time when questions, relative clauses, etc. are formed, but only are converted into coordinate structures later, or that .they never contain coordinate structures at all. In fact, I know of no other test for coordinate 171 structure than the one (4.84) provides, and it therefore seems quite reasonable to me to assume that one of the last two possibilities mentioned above is correct. It is perhaps worthwhile to show how (4.84) can provide a test for coordinate structure. (4.109i) can be converted into (4.1091) by the rule of Gamin/ (Ross 1967d)): (4.109) a. The boy works in a skyscraper and the girl works in a quonset hut. b. The boy works in a skyscraper and the girl in a quonset hut. The structure underlying these sentences is that shown in (4.110). (4.110) and NP works works 1 in ..1r.r.0.71.11.1F,T,,,, skyscraper 172 When Gappiag applies to (4.110), deleting the second occurrence of the verb works, it might be proposed that either the node VP which immediately dominates it or the circled node should be pruned, or both. S There is no evidence which argues for or against retention of the circled node VP, but if the circled S were pruned, (4.110) would cease to be a coordinate structure, under 441e, the definition given in (4.85), andlboxed become movable. NP),,, in (4.110) should The fact that they do not (cf. (4.111)) (4.111) a. * Which boy works in a skyscraper and the girl in a quonset hut? b. * The skyscraper which the boy works in and the girl in a quonset but belongs to Uncle Sam. c. * The girl who the by works in a skyscraper and in a quonset but has a dimple on her nose. d. * Which quonset but does the boy work in a skyscraper and the girl in? is most simply accounted for by assuming that (4,110) retains its coordinate structure even after appina. has putative convention which pruned the circled applied, i.e., that the S was incorrect. It can 'iso be shown that coordinate structure can disappear, in the course of a derivation. So, for instance, Lakoff and Peters (op. cit.) argue that (4.112) should be derived from (4.113) by 173 a sequence of optional rules which convert an occurrence of and to with and then adjoin the with-phrase to the main V? of the CAnt'Arle.P, 13 Billy went to the, movies with (4.112) ..Yy tmic. check. (4.113) NP went to the movies and Bid a luscious check The circled NP is not relativizable unless Conjunct Movement has applied (cf. (4.114)): (4.114) a. The luscious chick who Billy went to the movies with will wed me ere the morn. b. * The luscious chick who Billy and went to the movies will wed me ere the morn. Similarly, in the conjoined structure (4.115), (4.115) and VP NP Sofia Pietro /4 :bought The circled NP \ a Ferrari from me can only be relativized if the second conjoined sentence has been inserted into the first as an appositive clause. (4.116) a. * The Ferrari which Pietro bought from me and Sofia adores him cost him a bundle. b. 14 The Ferrari which Pietro, who Sofia adores, bought from me cost him a bundle. These two facts illustrate a perhaps obvious point: whether or not a constituent can be moved deends not on deep structure, but on derived structure.. 4.2.4. 4.2.4.1. not apply. There is an important class of rules to which (4.84) does These are rule schemata which move a constituent out of all 175 In Lakoff and Ross the conjuncts of a coordinate structure. (in preparation b), an analysis of conjoined sentences is explored which takes the process which converts such sentences as (4.117a) into (4.117b) as being the fundamental process in conjunction. (4.117) a. Sally might be pregnant, and everyone believes Sheila definitely is pregnant. b. Sally might be, and everyone believes Sheila definitely is, pregnant. We propose a rule of Conjunction Reduction which Chomsky-adjoins to the right or left of the coordinate node a copy of some i.onstituent which occurs in all conjuncts, on a right or left branch, respectively, Thus this rule converts (4.118), and then deletes the original nodes. whlch underlies (4.117), into (4.119). . (4.118) everyone V be Neves pregnant re 176 (4.119) V pregnant an NP Sal i.y 'VP NP A NP mizht be everyone 1 believes it NAP Sheila S VP definitely is It is important to note that Conjunction Reduction must work "across the board" -- the element adjoined to the coordinate node must occur in each conjunct. Thus (4.120a) can be converted to (4.120b), but not (4.121a) to (4.121b) . (4.120) a. Tom picked these grapes, and I washed these grapes, and Suzie will prepare these grapes. 1 177 b. Tom picked, and I washed, and Suzie will prepare, these grapes. (4.121) a. Tom picked these grapes, and I washed some turnips, and Suzie will prepare these grapes. b. * Tom picked, and I washed some turnips, and Suzie will prepare, these grapes. It appears that the rule of Relative Clause Formation must also apply "across the board "; the relative clause in (4.122) would seem to have to derive from a structure with an embedded disjunction, as in (4.123), (4.122) Students who fail the final exam or who do not do the reading will be executed. (4.123) will be executed NP students or VP students fail the final exam NP students VP do not do the reading. 178 rather than sentence (4.124), whose main clause is a disjunction, because (4.124) is not synonymous with (4.122) . Students who fail the final exam will be (4.124) executed or students who do not do the reading will be executed, It is obvious that there are many rules which do not necessarily apply across the board -- passives can be conjoined with Actives (cf. (4.125a)) , and Particle Movement and Extrapositica, may apply in some conjuncts but not in others (cf. (4.125b) and (4.125c)). (4.125) a. John has been captured by the cops and I'm of b. he'll talk. I heated up the coffee and Sally wiped the table off. c. That Peter showed up is a miracle and it is doubtful that he'll ever come again. 4.2.4.2. At present, since I only know of two rules which can convincingly be argued to apply across the board, it is perhaps too early to look for formal properties of rules which correlate with the way the rules apply. Nonetheless, I find it significant that both of the across-the-board rules operate in such a way as to remove elements from conjuncts, while rules like Passive, Particle Movement, Extraaosition, and many others like them which could be cited, me-ely 179 rearrange items wit'ain a conjunct. It is evident, even from the informal description of Conjunction Reduction which was given above, that this rule moves elements out of conjuncts, but it is not evident from the statement of Relative Clause Formation which was givenin (4.2) that this rule must also move elements out of conjuncts. Under the normal interpreta- tion of the elementary operation of sister-adjunction, which is symbolized by ' +' in the structural change of (4.2), when one term is sister-adjoined to a variable and that variable is null for some particular structure, nothing happens to that structure. That this convention is necessary can be seen from the following consideration: The rule of Extraposition-sister-adjoins the sentence to a variable, as can be seen from the formal statement of this rule in (4.126). (4.126) Extraposition Y X - [it NP OPT 1 2 3 4 1 2 0 4+3 With the abw7e condition on sister-adjunction, if (4.126) were to applj to (4.127), no change would be effected: the sentence in apposition to it would stay within its NP. 180 VP NP \NP V claimed that Bob is a nut Thu6. che next rule in the ordering, It Deletion, could be formulated as shown in (4.128). (4.128) It Deletion X - [it - S] NP Y OBLIG 1 2 3 4 1 0 3 4 However, if the convention I have suggested were not in effect, "vacuous extraposition "15 would be possible, and the embedded sentence could be moved out of its NP and attached some- where higher up the tree, as in (4.129) (just where it would attach is not relevaim for my argument, and I have drawn two dotted lines from the extraposed S in (4.129) to indicate two possibilities). 181 (4.129) 11., eggs .11=10 S %\ I that Bob was a nut it claimed But if (4.127) can be converted into (4.129), then (4.128) will have to be modified as shown in (4.130), for otherwise this rule would not delete the it in (4.129), and the ungrammatical (4.131) would result. (4.130) X - it - S - Y OBLIG 1 (4.131) 2 3 4 0 3 4 > * I claimed it that Bob was a nut. But there are many sentences which show that (4.130) is far too strong: it requires the deletion of it 16 before any sentence whatsoever, and it is easy to construct sentences where this extra power leads to wrong results. In (4.132a), for instance, the it. which ic; thc cLject of claim will 110 deleted, hicAr,_Auge it precedes the clause [and I think so too) , and the ungrammatical (4.132b) 182 will result. (4.132) a. Although Bob may not be a nut, many people have [and I think so too]s. b. * Although Bob may not be a nut, many people have claimed and I think so too. To .avoid converting (4.132a) into (4.132b), while still requiring the it in (4.131) to delete, some method would have to be found of indicating that the sentence that Bob was a nut is somehow "appropriate" as an environment for the deletion of the it of (4.131), but that this is not the case with respect to the sentence and I think so too in (4.132a) . In the absence of independent evidence for such a convention of appropriateness, it seems more desirable to me to reject the definition of sister-adjunction which gives rise to these difficulties by allowing "vacuous" extraposition, and to impose the suggested condition on this operation -- that if a term is sister-adjoined to a null variable, no change in the d.c.s. will result. Now let us return to the problem of the proper formulation of the rule of Relative Clause Formationc out to me that Robin Lakoff has pointed Ws in the position of the boy in (4.133) cannot be relativized (cf. (4.134)). (4.133) (4.134) The. boy and the girl embraced. * The boy who and the girl embraced is my neighbor. 183 The fact that (4.134) is ungrammatical should be accounted for by the Coordinate Structure Constraint, but since this constraint only prevents constituents from being moved, it must be the case that the formulation of the rule of Relative Clause Formation which was NP (4.2) specifies that the identical given in (4.2) is wrong. shall be sister-adjoined to a variable, and since this variable is null in the case.of (4.133), by the argument given above, this NP would not be moved by (4.2), and thus the constraint would not be in effect. identical 17 But if (4.2) is reformulated as in (4.135), the NP will be moved, whether it is the first constituent of the relative clause or not. (4.135) Relative Clause Formation ,- -NP NP s X - NP Yi S NP Z OBLIG 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 4# [3 0 5] 6 Condition: 2 v: 4 The symbol '#' denotes the operation of Chomsky-adjunction, and the brackets in the structural change indicate that the adjoined term is not to be adjoined to term 3, but rather to the node which dominates the sequence of terms enclosed in the brackets, in this case, the node S. Thus (4.135) cony .7ts (4.136a) into (4.136b) . 18 > 184 NP (4.136) a. / the , 'oily: crn NP V4 V I /',ZN NP saw lay. the NP b. NP t'he 1.2sLy. NP NP "\\VP V I saw And since (4.84) would prevent the circled NP being raised and Chomsky-adjoined to the circled node in (4.137) from S by rule (4.135), 185 sentences like (4.134) would be blocked. NP (4.137) the VP bob V and NT' embraced Therefore, except for the possibility that the ungrammaticality of (4.134) can be explained by rule ordering, along the lines suggested in footnote 17, it seems that it is necessary to formulate such away that it becomes the rule of Relative Clause Formation in formally similar to the rule of Conjunction Reduction which Lakoff and I have proposed. Both rules would have the effect of moving and possibly elements contained in conjuncts out of those conjuncts, it is this formal property that the fact that they are both acrossthe-board rules must be attributed to. 186 4.2.4.3. There are other problems in grammar which are reminiscent of the across-the-board application of the two rules just discussed. These have to do with the necessity of excluding such sentences as those in (4.139), while allowing those in (4.138). (4.138) a. When did you get back and what did you bring me? b. (You) make yourself comfortable and I'll* wash the dishes. c. (4 139) Did Mery show up 1::;.1 did you play chess? a. * Sally's sick and w at did you bring me? b. * (You) make yourself comfortable and I got sick. c. * What are you eating or did you play chess ?19 At first glances, it might seem possible to distinguish between (4.138a) and (4.139a) by claiming that the question Rule must also be formulated in such a way as to Chansky-adjoin the questioned element to the sentence which it is moved to the front of. Support for such a proposal comes 7rom the fact that it is not any more possible to question the NP the bov in (4.133) than it was possible to relativize it. (4.140) * Which boy and the girl embraced? The facts of (4.134) and (4.140) are similar, and I think that it is correct to maintain that the'Question'Rule must be 187 reformulated in the same way as the rule of 'Relative Clause Formation was reformulated in (4.135), so that the questioned element, too, will be Chomsky-adjoined to the sentence. Also; since it seems likely that yes-no questions should be derived from whether- clauses whose initial element, after having been Chomski-adjoined, is later deleted, sentence (4.141) 'could be excluded, while (4.138c) was allowed. (4.141) * I'm hungry an-, did you play chess? orj Promising though this approach seems, it is not capable of being strengthened to account for a wide range of additional facts. For instance, in Japanese questions, the questioned element is not moved from its original position in the structure. Thus to question the object of the verb mita 'saw' in (4.142), (4.142) Zyoozyi wa sakana fish George o mita. saw 'George saw a fish.' it is sufficient to replace the word sakana 'fish' with the question word nani 'what' and add the question, morpheme ka to the end of the sentence, as in (4.143) (4.143) Zyoozyi wa nani o mita Ica. 'What did George see?' But the fact that (4.143) cannot be conjoined with a declarative like (4,144), as the ungrammticality of (4.145) shows, (4.144) neko ga nete cat iru. sleeping is 'The cat is sleeping. 41 188 (4,145) * Zyoozyi wa rani o mita ka (to) mite neko mi ga nete iru. loVhat did George see and the cat is sleeping.' while two questions'can be conjoined (cf. (4.146)), Zyoozyiwa nani o mi (4.146) George what aeko wa rani o tabetaka? see cat what ate 'What did George see and what did the cat eat?' indicates that the attempt to exclude sentences, some of whose conjuncts are declaratives and others questions) by making the English rule of Llpuestion an across-the-board rule cannot be a successful solution to the problem in universal grammar of ensuring that only the "right kinds" of sentences get conjoined. It would seem that the non-sentences of (4.139) must therefore be excluded not by transformational constraints, but rather by deep structural ones. In fact, there is evidence within English which supports this claim. Thus it seems that even questions like those in (4.147), which contain more than one WH-word but presumably have no history of reordering at all in their derivations, cannot be conjoined with declaratives (cf. (4.148)), although they can be conjoined with normal questions (cf. (4.149)): (4.147) a, Who ate what? b. What exploded when? c. Who gave what to whom? Kwa WtrO 111411%.0 189 (4.148) a. Where did you go and who ate what? b. What exploded when'md who was hurt? c. How long did this fit of generosity last and who gave what to whom? a. * I saw you there and who ate what? (4.149) b. * What exploded when and I warned you it would? c..* Who gave what to whom and I'm sickened at this sentiment. As far as I can see, cnly some kind of deep structure constraint can be used to exclude (4.149). true --ith respect to (4.138b). Moreover, the same is In one sense of this sentence, it is synonymous with (4.150). If you make yourself comfortable, (4.150) I'll wash the dishes. But there is another sense of (4.138b) which is a command, or a suggestion; and if the word please is inserted into (4.138b), the result has only this sense. (You) please make yourself comfortable (4.151) and I'll wash the dishes. The fact that sentences like (4.139b) and (4.152) are ungrammatical *(You) please make yourself comfortable and (4.152) , the cat is dead I've studied Greek Jack left . a , "I+ - . 190 cannot be accounted for by an appeal to some across-the-board rule which has not applied to all conjuncts, because the only rule in question, Imperative, only applies to the first conjunct to delete the subject Ou. It therefore seems that only some deep structure constraint on what tenses can be used in sentences which are conjoined to commands can exclude (4.139b) and (4.152). Notice, incidentally, that it is not in general the case that'if the first sentence of a conjoined sentence is in the future tense all subsequent conjuncts roust also be: (4.153) Harry will be in the Marines next year and Herman was drafted last night. Exactly what the nature of deep structure constraints on conjoined sentences is is an interesting topic which has been studied far too little and which I can contribute nothing to at present. Why, for instance should there be a difference between (4.138c) and (4.139c)? Whatever the answer to this and similar questions turns out to be, my basic point remains. valid: there are both transformational and deep structural constraints which must be formulated to apply to all conjuncts in a coordinate structure. 4.2.4.4. Sentences such as those in (4.154) raise problems which may be related to across-the-board constraints. 191 (4.154) a.. Sasha is gobbling down blintzes faster than I can reheat them. b. I want to peruse that contract before filing it away. c. Fred tore the curtain in roiling it up. Although the sentences are so complex that positive judgments are difficult to come by, I believe it to be the case that when relative clauses are formed from the sentences in (4.154), both the NP's blintzes, that contract and the curtain themselves and their anaphoric pronouas may seem to be relativized at once, as is the case in the sentences in (4.155). (4.155) a.?? The blintzes which Sasha is gobbling down faster than I can reheat are extremely tasty, if I do say so. b. ? I suspect thatthe contract which I wanted to peruse before filing away may have some loopholes. c. The curtain which Fred tore in rolling up was the kind gift of my maternal Aunt Priscilla. I believe it is theoretically possible to relativize any number of NP's at once, although the resulting sentences are somewhat less than felicitous: the a-sentences below have been 192 converted into relative clauses in the corresponding bsentences. (4.156) a. I want to peruse that contract before damaging it while filing it .away. b. ? The contra: which I want to peruse before damaging while filing away is written on Peruvian papyrus. (4.157) a. ? I warlt to peruse that contract after copying it by treating it in milk while pressing it between two pieces of marble in flattening it out. b. ? *The contract which I want to peruse after rlopying by treating in milk while pressing between two pieces of marble in flattening out is a beautiful piece of art. Whether or not such tortured constructions as this last are to be accorded some degree of Englishness is not of great importance for this study, since I ca101ot even propose a rule which 6 will generate less questionable examples, such as (4.155) and (4.156e). What makes these sentences similar to the ones discussed in 5 4.2.4.2 above is the fact that not only does it seem possible to relativize some NP simultaneously from a number of clauses, but it does not seem possible to relativize an NP clauses. from only the second of these Thus if the anaphoric pronouns of (4.154) are replaced by ---"""."4"..."ne"rynnrwrn......7-..7.- 193 different NP, as in (4.158), these NP cannot be relativized, as (4.159) shows. (4.158) a. Sasha is gobbling down bliatzes faster than I can reheat the fishballs. b. I want to peruse that contract before filing away the deed. c. Fred tore the curtain in rolling up the wallpaper. (4.159) a. * I think Anita may have poisoned the fishballs which Sasha is gobbling down blintzes faster than I can reheat. b. * The deed which I want to peruse that contract before filing away is probably a forgery. c. ? *The wallpaper which Fred tore the curtain in rolling up had a pleasing geometrical pattern. The sa.:t..1.1arity stops here, howe:er; for, bafflingly, it is possible to relativize NP in just the first of these clauses (cf. (4.160)): (4.160) a. The blintzes which Sasha is gobbling down faster than I can reheat the fishballs are extremely tasty, if I dc say so. 19' b. I suspect that the contract which I want to peruse before filing away the deed may crspo InnphniA.q, c. The curtain which Fred tore in rolling the wallpaper up was the kind gift of my maternal Aunt Priscilla. Notice that it is similarly possible to relativize just the NP's blintzes, that contract and the curtain in (4.154): (4.161) a. The blintzes which Sasha is gobbling down faster than I can reheat them are extremely tasty, if I do say so. b. ? I suspect that the contract which I wanted to peruse before filing it away may have some loopholes. c. ? The curtain which Fred tore in rolling it up was the kind gift of my maternal Aunt Priscilla. These facts suggest that it may be incorrect to attempt to derive the sentences in (4.155) directly from (4.154) by some kind of modified across-the-board rule. The sentences in (4.161) may be a necessary first step in this derivation, with a rule of pronoun deletion applying optionally to (4.161) to produce (44155). This idea is given additional support by the fact that there are differences in acceptability among the sentences of (4.155) which are exactly reversed in the sentences of (4.161). That while (4.155a) is far more awkward for me than (4.155b), which in turn is slightly more awkward than the fully grammatical (4.155c), in (4.161), it is the a-version which is fully grammatical, the b-- version which is slightly doubtful, and the c-version which is the most dubious of all. These differences can be accounted for if it is assumed that the rule of pronoun deletion which transforms (4.161) into (4.155) is obligatory in the case of (4.161c), optional in ahe case of (4.161b), and not applicable in the case of (4.161a). This attempt at explanation does not yet have much force, for I have no idea what features of the environvent the optionality of this vile depends upon, nor how to state the rule, but perhaps it is at least a correct line of attack on this problem. 4.2.5, In summary, I have tried to show in the above sections that Case F of can be excluded by a constraint of geat §2.2 generality, the Coordinate Structure Constraint, which is needed independently of the other constraints of this chapter. It is more powerful than the A-over-A principle, which cannot exclude sentences like (4.82). It can be used as a criterion for coordinate structure, and on this basis, it was argued in § 4.2.3 that nodes which are coordinate in deep structure may cease to be so in the course 196 of a derivation and that nodes which appear to be coordinate in surface structure may not be. The statement of the constraint in (4.84) was ...... Q.^ nron^evell. CINY 1410 canto. of thn !`'1 ACC of across-the-board rules, which must operate in all conjuncts simultaneously. A tentative hypothesis about the formal properties of such across-the-board rules was advanced. At present, I know of no rules which are not subject to the Coordinate Structure Constraint, except for the rule of in i 6.2.4 which I will discuss itive below, so I propose that this constraint be added to the theory of grammar. 4.3. The Pied Piping Convention 4.3.1. In this section, I will suggest a constraint which can successfully account for the evidence for the A-over-A principle which was presented in case D and case E of § 2.2, and a convention which will provide for the generation of all the relative clauses in the sentences of (4.163). These must all be derived from (4.162), the approximate structure of sentence (2.3), which I have repeated here, for convenience. (2.3) The government prescribes the height of the lettering on the covers of the reports. ........."ofowrs,:-, ,"-----.7.1.--.- :=,:"«.-.7Z7 ".,..".="' -""'"'", 197 (4.162) N1) /IN the government 1 rescr es NP the heisia, 'the lettering, n "the covers of. (4.163) a. IILL929TU. Reports which the government prescribes the height of the lettering on the covers of are invariably boring. ,..4.7,7,...-..1.779.,171.74M+IRTF7717...1= d'47+-27 198 b. Reports the covers of which the government prescribes the height of the lettering on almost always put me to sleep. c. Reports the lettering on the covers of. which the government prescribes the height of are a shocking waste of public funds. d. Reports the height of the lettering on the covers of which the government prescribes should be abolished. It can be seen that if the structure in (4.162) were embedded as a relative clause modifier in a noun phrase whose head noun is report, the rule of Relative Clause Formation, as it is stated in (4.135), would only produce the relative clause in (4.163a). If an attempt were made to modify the structural index of (4.135) in such a way that the new rule would derive either (4.163a) or (4.163b) from (4.162), the revised rule would be that.shown in (4.164): 0 (4.164) W NP NP - NP X - Y]S i s [NPNP P NP2NP NP Z OBLIG 3 1 2 1 2[45]10 Condition: 2 m 5 4 5 6 0 0 61 7 199 To derive the relative clause in (4.163c), the further complication of the rule shown in (4.165) would be necessary, 1 r NP (4.165) - NP [NpNP P 0 1 NP [ X- S NP P. NP P NP NP Y1 I -S Z NP NP11 OBLIG 1 2 1 2[4 5]#[3 3 4 5 6 0 0 6] Condition: 2 as 5 and deriving the clause in (4.163d) would entail adding a fourth line to the disjunction inside the braces in (4.165). But since there is no upper bound on the length of a branch consisting entirely of like NP 1 NP's, in (4.162), in order to give a finite formulation - NP 7 of this rule, which must be able to generate clauses like those of (4.163) to any desired degree of complexity, either some abbreviatory notation, under which the sequences of terms within the parentheses of (4.164), (4.165), etc. can be collapsed, must be added to the theory of grammar, or some special convention must be. Of these two, the latter is weaker, for to add a new abbreviatory notation to the theory is to make the claim that there are other cases, unrelated to the case at hand, where rules must be collapsed according to the new notation. No such cases exist, to my knowledge, so I propose the 7 200 .convention given in (4.166) as a first approximation to an appropriate universal convention. Any transformation which is stated in such (4.166) a way as to effect the reordering of some specified node NP, where this node is preceded and followed by variables, can reorder this it. NP or any NP which dominates 20 By the term "specified" in (4.166), X mean that node NP, containing many NP in a branch nodes, which is singled out from all other nodes on this branch by virtue of some added condition on the rule in question, such as the condition on the rule of Relative Clause Formation that the NP to be relativized be identical to the NP which the clause modifies, or the condition on the rule of Question that the questioned NP dominate WM-some. This convention, then, provides that any reordering transformation which is stated as operating on some NP singled out in some such way may instead operate on any higher NP. Thus the formulation of Relative Clause Formation which was given in (4.135), when supplemented by 0.166), will all^ti for the adioining to the front of the sentence of the specified the reports, or NP6, of the reports, or NP5, NP7, the covers of the reports, etc., so that all of the clauses in (4.163) will be generated. That (4.166) is too strong, in that it does not exclude the ungrammatical sentences of (4.167) need not concern us here; 201 (4.167) a. * Reports of which the government prescribes the height of the Lettering on the covers are invariably boring. b. * Reports on the covers of which the government prescribes the height of the lettering almost alway put me to sleep. c. * Reports of the lettering on the covers of which the government prescribes the height are shocking waste of public funds. there seems to be a constraint, in my dialect at least, which prohibits noun phrases which start with prepositions from being relativized and questioned when these directly follow the NP they modify. Thus (4.168) can be questioned to form (4.169a), but not (4.169b). He has books by several Greek authors. (4.168) (4.169) a. Which Greek authors does he have books by? b. ?*By which Greek authors 2.oes he have books? I will not attempt a more precise formulation of this restriction here: instead, I will point out two further inadequacies in the formulation of (4.166). Firstly, if the structure shown in (4.170) were to be embedded as a relativeclause on an NP whose head noun were'the boy, 202 (4.170) NP watched Bill 'the ha the Coordinate Structure Constraint would not allow the formation of (4.171)7 (4.171) However, the circled node * The boy who I watched Bill and was vain. NP is dominated by the boxed node NP, and convention (4.166) would allow this higher node to be preposed, which would result in the ungrammatical (4.172). (4.172) * The boy Bill and who(m) I watched was vain. The ungrammaticality of this sentence indicates the necessity of revising (4.166) in such a way that if an NP NP dominating the specified is coordinate, neither it nor any higher NP can be moved. I will incorporate such a revision into the final version of the convention, which will be stated in (4.180). 203 The second inadequacy of (4.166) can be seen in connection with P-marker (4.173).4. (4.173) VP won't like while it is true that the circled node NP the hat can be.relatiized as (4.174) shows, (4.174) They will give me a hat which I know that 1 won't like. once again, (4.166) would allow the preposing of the boxed node NP, and the ungrammatical (4.175) would be produced. 204 (4.175) * They will give me a hat that I won't like which I know. The modification of (4.166) that seems to be revired here is that if a branch of a P-marker has an occurrence of the node between two occurrences of the node NP, S only the lower one can This restriction does not extend to the node be reordered. intervening VP, however, as can be seen from the following example. The approximate structure of the German sentence in (4.176) is that shown in (4.177). Ich babe den Hund zu finden zu versuchen angefangen. (4.176) I have the dog to find to try begun 'I have begun to try to find the dog.' (4.177) ich anciefanc,e1 VP NP i2 zu versuchen NP en hund zu rrnaen O PmerrITWIM.prow 205 If the structure which underlies (4.177) has been embedded as a relative clause on the subject. NP of the structure -1-J-- // 1'70\ UnUeL3.y.i.u6 vt J../Uvit 1 Der Hund ist ein Bernardiner. (4.178) 'The dog is St. Bernard.' a the rule of Relative Clause Formation must produce all three of the clauses in the sentences of (4.179). (4.179) a. Der Hund, den ich zu finden zu versuchen angefangen habe, ist ein Bernardiner.21 b. Der Hund, den zu finden ich zu versuchen angefangen habe, ist ein Bernardiner. c. Der Hund, den zu finden zu versuchen ich angefangen habe, ist ein Bernardiner. 'The dog which I have begun to try to find is a St. Bernard.' In (4.179a), only the specified node, NP3 in (4.177), has been preposed, while in (4.179b), the phrase dominated by contains NP , NP2, which has been preposed, and in (4.177c), the largest NP, 3 NP.. 1- by two had been preposed. VP Note that these three NP nodes are separated nodes in (4.177), but that (4.166) still is operative. then indicates that it is only the node S, This as was claimed above, to which reference must be made in revising (4.166)." In (4.180), I have modified the convention given in (4.166) in such a way as to overcome the two inadequacies I have just 206 discussed. (4.180) The Pied Piping Conv2ntion23 1. Any Lransfotma4ioa which is stated in a way as to effect the reordering of some specified node NP, where this node is preceded and followed by variables in the structural index of the rule, may apply to this NP or to any non-coordinate NP which dominates it, as long as there are no occurrences of any coordinate node, nor of the node S, on the branch connecting' the higher node and the specified node. A A 4.3.2.0. The convention stated in (4.180) stipulates that any NP above some specified one may be reordered, instead of the specified one, but there are environments where the lower NP may not be moved, and only some higher one can, consonant with the conditions imposed in (4.180). In In other words, pied piping is obligatory in some contexts. 24 § 4.3.2.1, I will describe two environments in which pied piping is obligatory, whether the specified or to the left, and in § 4.3.2.2, in which pied piping cannot apply. NP is to be moved to the right I will cite several environments In § 4.3.2.3, I will discus the one environment I know of in which pied piping is obligatory if an NP 207 Is moved in one direction, but not if it is moved in the other. In § 4.3.2.4, I will show how the constraints on pied piping developed in thc.cp ,---pprinng interact with the rule of Coniunction Reduction, § 4.3.2.5, and in I will explore the question of the theoretical status of the various conditions on (4.180) which are discussed in §§ 4.3.2.1 - For English, and for many other languages, the following 4.3.2.1. constraint, which has the effect_ .of _making pied piping obligatory in the stated environment, obtains: . (4.181) The Left Branch Condition, No NP which is the leftmost constituent of 44 a larger NP can be reordered out of this NP by a transformational rule. In other words, (4.181) prohibits the NP shown in (4.182) from moving along the paths of either of the arrows. (4.182) (NP X]Np This constraint accounts for the following facts: if the structure shown in (4.183) is embedded as arelative clause modifier of a NP whose head noun is boy, only one output is possible -- (4.184a) 208 (4.183) VP NP NP we NP elected president 2 employer the duardian rs N (4.184) a. The boy whose guardian's elppl(,.17-we elected president ratted on us. b. * The boy whose guardian's we elected employer president ratted on us. c. * The boy whose we elected guardian's employer president ratted on us. Sentence (4.184c) is excluded by (4.181), because the rule of Relative Clause Formation has moved the lowest from the left branch of NP1. been moved filma this branch. In (4.184b), it is NP2 NP, that has Since the Left Branch Condition 209 prohibits both of these operations, only the largest (4.180) allows to be moved, NP which can be moved to the front of NP1, whan this hnppArlq, (4' 184x) is the result. the Parallel facts can be adduced for non-restrictive relative clauses, which differ from restrictives in being preceded They derive 'from coordinate and followed by heavy intonation breaks. sentences in deep structure, and they are formed by a different If commas are inserted into the sentences of rule than (4.135). (4.184), after box and j.ivesLzatcl, thus forcing a non-restrictive interpretation of the clauses, their grammaticality is unchanged. Another rule which is affected by this condition is the rule of Topicalization, (4.185), which converts (4.186a) to (4.1.86b). Topicalization (4.185) X - NP Y OPT (4.186) a. 1 2 3 21/(1 0 3] -------> I'm going to ask Bill to make the old geezer take up these points later. b. These points I'm going to ask Bill to make the old geezer take up later. If rule (4.185) is applied to (4.183), once again it will be seen that only NP 2 or NP 3 NP1 can be topicalized, as in (4.187a). If either is topicalized, as in (4.187b) and (4.187c), respectively, 210 ungrammatical sentences result. (4.187) a. The boy's guardikin'E employer we elected vvr,:::104 'tart r b. * The boy's guardian's we elected employer president. c. *.The boy's we elected guardian's employer president. A rule that was stated in (3.26), Complex NP Shift, which performs almost the same operation as. (4.185), except that it moves the NP in the opposite direction, is also subject to the This rule may apply to (4.183) to move Left branch Condition. NP1 over president (cf. (4.188a)),25 but neither can be so moved, as the ungrammatica:.. NP2 nor NP3 of (4.188b) and (4.188c) demonstrates. (4.188) a. We elected president the boy's guardian's employer. N b. * We elected employer president the boy's 1 guardian's. c. * We elected guardian's employer president the boy. Finally, the Question Rule is subject to the condition: if NP 3 je .A.183) is questioned, it cannot be moved to the front of the sentence alone -- pied piping must apply to carry it, as (4.189) shows. NI', with 211 (4.189) a. Which boy's guardian's employer did we elect president?. Do .11 il waxn Doy _ gudEu.t.du I -14* we employer president? c. * Which boy's did we elect guardian's -employer president? One of the facts which supports the analysis of predicate adjectives which is implicit in diagram (3.25) above is the fact that when adverbs of degree which occur in pre-adjectival or pre-adverbial position are questioned, the questioned constituent, how, cannot be moved to the front of the sentence alone, as in (4.190a) and (4.191a) , but only if the adjective or adverb is moved with it, as in (4.190b) and (4.191h). (4.190) a. * How is Peter sane?26 b. (4.191) *How sane is Peter? a. * How have you picked up TNT carelessly? b. How carelessly have you picked up TNT? These facts can be explained by (4.181) , if how is analyzed as deriving from an underlying NP, and the adjective sane and the adverb carelessly. are dominated by NP which questions are formed. at the stage of derivations at Note also that if the degree adverb that in (4.192) is questioned, pied piping must apply to move not only tall, but also a man to the front of the sentence. 212 Sheila married that tall a man. (4.192) (4.193) a. How tall a man .did Sheila marry? maryv a man? A4,1 c. * How did Sheila marry tall a man? These facts are accounted for if the structure of (4.193a) at the point when the aleakejla applies is that shown in (4.194), (4.194) Sheila married NP NP 2 R a WHi-some extent for (4.181) will not permit either NP3 of NP 1 ' man tall or NP2 to be moved out . One other set of facts deserves mention in connection with this analysis of adjectives. In German, it is possible to topicalize 213 adverbs -- thus the manner adverb genUsslich 'with pleasure' in (4.195a) can occur at the front of the sentence, as in (4.195b). II. Inc\ ve..4.7a, aueu a. we have DULL/L=LL 6eLLu:).L.J. the beans liesh.Qu.a.u/L6=LL. with pleasure gobbled up. 'We gobbled up the beans with pleasure.' GenUsslich haben wir die Bohnen verschlungen. If an analysis in 'which adverbs are treated as being derived from NP can be maintained, not only will it be unnecessary to complicate rule (4.185) to' derive (4.195b) from the structure which underlies (4.195a), but it will be possible to explain the following facts in addition. In German, the adverb fast 'almost' normally precedes the adjective it modifies, but it can follow it (cf. ;4.196)). The adverb sehr, 'very', however, only occurs pre-adjectivally (cf. (4.197)). (4.196) a. Walburga ist fast hUbsch. 'Walburga is almost pretty.' (4.197) b. Walburga ist hUbsch, fast. a. Liselotte ist sehr hubsch. 'Liselotte is very pretty.' b. * Liselotte ist hUbsch, sehr. These facts suggest that whatever rule it is that moves fast around hUbsch in (4.196) be made obligatory for degree adverbs like sehr. If this reordering rule adjoins the adverbs which are moved around the adjectives to the adjectives, and if this re :dering rule precedes the rule of T( calization, the fact that fast can be 214 topicalized with or without hUbsch (cf. that (4.198)), bute,sehr cannot be topicalized by itself (cf. (4.199)) is accounted for by the Left Branch Condition. (4.198) (4.199) a. Fast hUbsch ist Walburga. b. Fast ,ist Walburga hUbsch. a. .Sehr hUbsch ist Liselotte. b. * Sehr ist Liselotte hUbsch. Of course, it is possible to account for these facts concerning adjectives and adverbs in other ways than by assuming that both types of constituents are dominated by NP up to some point in derivations, but the analysis sketched here has the virtue of allowi g a simpler statement of the rules of apicalization and Question and of constraints like (4.181) than can otherwise be achieved, as far as I can see. However, since I have not made a detailed study of adverbs, it may be the case that this analysis will have to be excluded because it engenders complications in other parts of the grammar. In passing, it should be noted that Case D and Case E of § 2.2, which provide evidence for the A-over-A, principle, are special cases of the Left Branch Condition, which will block the derivation of the ungrammatical (2.11) and (2.15). Another environment in which pied piping is obligatory in German, French, Italian, Russian, Finnish, and in many other languages, is that stated in (4.200). No NP (4.200) EP may be moved out of the environment ]NP' In these languages, only sentences like (4.201) are possible -- sentences corresponding to those in (4.202), where a NP has been moved away from its preposition, are ungrammatical. (4.201) (4.202) a. On which bed does Tom sleep? b. The bed on which Tom slept was hard. a. Which bed did Tom sleep on? b. The bed which Tom slep on was hard. Kuroda has pointed out similar facts for English with respect to a certain class of nouns (cf. Kuroda (1964)). Kuroda pointed out that it is just with the class of nouns that cannot be pronominalized, i.e., nouns like time, al, manner, place, etc., that sentences like (4.202)are impossible. That is, the sentences in (4.203) cannot be converted into the corresponding ones in (4.204) by normal rules of pronominalization. (4.203) a. My sister arrived at a time when no busses were running, and my brother arrived at a time when no busses were running too. b. Jack disappeared in a mysterious manner and Marian disappeared in a mysterious manner too. c. I live at the place where Route 150 crosses Scrak River and my dad lives at the place where Route 150 crosses Scrak River too. 216 (4.204) a. * My sister arrived at a time when no busses were running and my brother arrived at oue too. b. * Jack disappeared in a mysterious manner and Marion disappeared in one too. c. * I live at the place where Route 150 crosses Scrak River and my dad lives at it too. Furthermore, prepositions cannot be left behind in such constructions either (cf. (4.205)). (4.205) a. * What time did you arrive at? b. * The manner which Jack disappeared in was creepy. c. * The place which I live at is the place where Route 150 crosses Scrak River. 27 The facts indicate that though the constraint in (4.200) does not obtain for English, the modified version shown in (4.206) does: (4.206) No NP whose head noun is not pronominalizable may be moved out of the environment (P ]NP The three constraints discussed in this section - (4.181), (4.200), and (4.206) - are all cases where the optionality which is built into (4.180) is abrogated in favor of higher NP is, if NP dominates NPj, nodes. That (4.180) in general allows either NP to 217 reorder, but the above three constraints limit this freedom: state environments in which only the higher NP they can reorder. In the next section, I will discuss two constraints which have the opposite effect. 4.3.2.2. After most verb-particle combinations whose object is a prepositional phrase, such as do away with, make up to, sit in on, ,get away with, etc., while the NP in the prepositional phrase is movable, the preposition may not be lamed with it. Thus though the sentences in (4.207) are possible, corresponding ones in (4.208) are not. (4.207) a. The only relatives who I'd like to do away with are my aunts. (4.208) b. Who is she trying to make up to now c. That meeting I'd like to sit in on. a. * The only relatives with whom I'd like to do away are my aunts. b. * To whom is she trying to make up now? c. * On that meeting I'd like to sit in. For some reason which I do not understand, there are other verbs which seem to be of exactly the same syntactic type for which such constructions as (4.208) are permissible. Thus the sentences in (4.209) are markedly better, for me, than those in (4.208). ...,A 218 (4.209) a. ? The abuse with which she puts up is phenomenal. b. For whose rights do you expect me to speak up? F^r pr4n^4ploa I havel npAppbr hpaltntAd to speak out. Similar facts obtain for such syntactic idioms as get wind of, make light of, get hold of, etc. Normally, in my speech at least, the preposition must be left behind for most of these idioms -compare (4.210) and (4.211). (4.210) a. One plan which I got wind of was calculated to keep us in suspense. b. Did you notice which difficulties she made. light of? c. (4.211) Who are you trying to get hold of? a. * One plan of which I got wind was calculated to keep us in suspense. b. ?*Did you notice of which difficulties .she made light? c. * Of whom are you trying to get hold? However, there are certain of these syntactic idioms for which the preposition seems to be movable, just ad was the case with the verb-particle combinations shown in (4.209). R 219 (4.212) a. The only offer of which I plan to take advantage will give me an eleven -month paid varnr4on. b. 7 In the countries of which I've been keeping track, the existing political systems are fantastically corrupt. c. The scenes to which the censors took objection had to do with the mixed marriage of a woman and a giant panda. I believe that sentences like those in (4.209) and (4.212) are the exception, rather than the rule, so presumably some constraint like (4.213) must be stated for English. (4.213) No NP with the analysis [P liP412 may be moved if it follows an idiomatic V -. A sequence, where A is some single constituent. The constituent A may 'be a particle (cf. (4.207) and (4.208)), an adjective (as in make light of, make sure of, etc.), a verb (as in make do with, let fly at, let go of, lathold of, yet rid of (if rid should be analyzed as a verb here)), lay claim to, hold sway over, siege to, Pay heed to, etc.), a noun (as in get wind of, set fire to,. lay make use of, lose track of, tekeshatot, take umbrae:7e at, etc.), or possibly a noun phrase (e.g., ,get the droacal, make no bones about, set one's sights on). a ....... . A.V..4.17. 220 There is a possibility, as Paul Kiparsky has pointed out to me, that the difference between (4.211) and (4.212) may correlate with whether the idiom in question has a single or a double passive. That is, in many cases, verbs like those in (4.212), where the preposition may be moved, allow either the first element after the verb or the object of the preposition to become the subject of the passive. (4.214) (4.215) a. Advantage will be taken of his offer. b. His offer will be taken advantage of. a. ? In this experiment, track must be kept of fourteen variables simultaneously. b. In this experiment, fourteen variables must be kept track of simultaneously. (4.216) a. Objection was taken to the length of our skirts. b. ? The length of our skikts was taken objection to. The sentences of (4.214) - (4.216) attest to the fact that the syntactic idioms of (4.212),. whose preposir$,ms are not subject to (4.213), have double passives. But the idioms in (" .%0), whose prepositions are shown to be subject to (4.213) by the v .grammaticality of (4.211), have only one passive, as can be seen f2-011 the ungrammaticality of the a-versions of sentences '(4.217) - (4.219). a 221 (4.717) a. * Wind was gotten of a plot to.negotiate an honorable end to the war in Vietnam. b. A plan to negotiate an honorable end to the war in Vietnam was gotten wind of. (4.218) a. * Light was made of her indiscretions. b., (4.219) indiscretions were made light of. a. * Hold has been gotten of some rare old manuscripts. b. Some rare old manuscripts have been gotten hold of. The correspondence between the class of syntactic idioms which allow passives like those in (4.214a), (4.215a), and (4.216a), and the class of idioms whose prepositions' are not subject to (4.213) is too close to be merely coincidental, but for me, at least, it is not exact. If it were, the differences in acceptability between the a and b-sentences below would not exist. (4.220) a. Use was made of Sikolsky's pigeon-holing lemma. b. The lemma of which I will make use is due to Sikolsky. (4.221) a. Tabs were kept on all persons entering the station. b. ??The persons on whom we kept tabs all proved to be innocent. 222 . ."- (4.222) a. * Faith was had in all kinds of people. b. ? The only representative in whom I have faith is still in the Bahamas. But I have not made a close study of all cases which run counter to Kipirsky's suggestions to see if they can be explained I believe that it will eventually become possible to incorporate away. this suggestion into a revised version of (4.213), even though I am unable to do so now. mug But it is clear that some other explanation be devised for the sentences of (4.209), which also constitute counter-evidence to (4.213). The whole problem of what syntactic properties various types of idioms have has been neglected grievously, -I suspect that intensive research into this .problem would yield rich rewards for many areas of syntax besides this one. In Danish, there are many environments in which pied 0 piping is blocked. Thus, while the preposition EL 'in' can be left behind or moved to the front of the sentence, when a manner adverb is questioned (cf. (4.223)), (4.223) a. Hvilken made gjorde han det pa? which way he did it in 'How did he do it?' b. pa hvilken made gjorde han det? way In which did he it. prepositions in a prepositional phrase which is immediately dominated by VP can never be moved to the front of the sentence: (4.224c) is I , 4 ...-T.,# i 223 ungrammatical. (4.224) a: Han fandt pa den historie. ha b. 4nvantorl t4Int- Qrnry Hvilken historie fandt which han pa? invented he story 'Which story did he invent?' c. * pa hvilken historie fandt han? This'means that in the grammar of Danish, the following condition must be stated: No (4.225) NP with the analysis (P NP] may be moved if it is immediately dominated by VP. The full set of facts in Danish is quite a bit more complex -- a more detailed presentation is given in Blass (1965). I will not attempt a recapitulation of all the facts of Danish, for my purpose here is not to suggest a complete analysis of all constructions involving prepositions in Danish or in English, but merely to demonstrate that just as there are environments where pied piping is obligatory (cf. § 4.3.2.1. above), so there are environments where it must be blocked. 4.3.2.3. The first condition on pied piping, (4.181), prevents the reordering of an NP on a left branch of the larger NP, matter in which direction the NP being reordered is to move. no Thus 224 neither the rule of Topicalization, which moves noun phrases to the right, can apply to NP3 or Shift, which moves them to NP the left, nor the rule of Comnlex in tree (4.183), as the NP2 And ungrammatical sentences of (4.187) and (4.188) demonstrate. the same is true of the other conditions stated in (4.200) and (4.206). § 4.3.2.1 -- The first of these asserted that it is impossible to "strand" a preposition in German, and various other languages, by moving its object German, when the NP NP away from it. Thus, in diesen Fasten 'this box' in (4.226a) is questioned, it cannot be moved to the front of the sentence O alone, as would be possible in English, (cf. the ungrammaticality of (4.226b)). When the Question Rule applies, (4.200) requires that the larger NP, in welchen Kasten, 'into which box' be . preposed, as it is in (4.226c) (4.226) a. Vladimir wollte das Buch Vladimir wanted the book Kasten] ] NP Np [in into (diesen this schmeissen. throw. box 'Vladimir wanted to throw the book into this box.' b. * Welchen XAsten wollte Vladimir das Buch Which box wanted Vladimir the book in schmeissen? into throw? I 225 welchen Kasten wollte Vladimir das In c. into which box. wanted Vladimir the 11 %in}, cni-min4ccestl? book throw 'Into which box did Vladimir want to throw the book?' Just as it is impossible to strand a preposition in German by moving its object NP away from it t) the left, so it is NP impossible to do so by moving the of a rule which moves NP to the right. An example to the right in German is the rule which converts sentences like (4.227a) into ones like (4.227b), which, though marginal, must be generated. (4.227) a. Er wollte denen ein wunderbares Bilderbuch geben. he wanted to them a wonderful picture book give. 'He wanted to give them a wonderful picture book. b. Er wollte denen geben ein wunderbares Bilderbuch. This rule corresponds roughly to the English rule of Luplex NP Shift, although the English rule is not so restricted as the German one. Since I have not studied the conditions under which such sentences as (4.227b) can be produced, I will not attempt a precise statement of the rule here; the formulation of Complex NP Shift which was given in (3.26) is adequate for my present purpose. Note that Conlex NP 'Shift, if applied to (4.226a), can only move the larger NP, in diesen Kasten (cf. (4.228)). If the 226 object of the preposition is moved, the impossible (4.228b) results. (4.228) a. Vladimir wollte'das Buch'schmeissen in diescn Kasten, b. * Vladimir wollte das Buch in schmeissen diesen Kasten. This shows that (4.200), just like (4.181), constrains transformations which move NP' to the right, as well as those which move NP to the left. In English, however, we find a different situation. While prepositions may be stranded if their object NP is moved to the left, they may not be if it is moved to the right. The rule of Tobicalization may strand the preposition to of (4.229a), as in (4.229b) or it may take it along, as in (4.229c). (4.229) a. Mike talked to my friends about politics yesterday. b. My friends Mike talked to about politics yesterday. c. To my friends Mike talked about politics yester:ay. cannot apply to the But Complex it can only apply to the larger (4.230) a. NP NP a friends in (4.229a): to my Mike talked about politics yesterday to my friends. b. * Mike talked to about politics yesterday my friends. 227 Thus it can be seen that the theory of grammar must be strengthened so that conditions making pied piping obligatory or impossible can make reference to the direction in which the specified NP is to be reordered. It will be necessary to add to English condition (4.231), which is a weaker form of (4.200). No (4.231) NP may be moved to the right out of the environment (P 11,11). It might appear that (4.213) would have to be modified along these lines, in the light of such sentences as those in (4.232), (4.232) a. ? They got wind, eventually, of the counterplot to fluoridate the bagels. b. ? Carrie did away, systematically, with her nephews from Chattanooga. c. ??She made light, not too surprisingly, of the difficulties-we might have at the border. d. ? I got hold, fortunately, of Lady Chatterley's ex. for superficially at least, the prepositional phrases which follow V - A syntactic idioms of the type discussed in connection with (4.213) seem to have been moved, possibly by the rule of Complex NP Shift. I suspect, however, that (4.213) does not have to be modified and that some other rule than Complex NP' Shift is being used in the generation of the sentences in (4.232). The rule in question is probably -related to the Scrambling Rule, (3.48); it allows sentence adverbs to be 228 positioned between any major constituents of a clause. 28 Note that the sentences in (4.232) are almost totally unacceptable if the commas are removed, but that no commas are necessary in such Shift as (4.233). clear cases of Complex NP (4.233) I gave to the officer in charge the blackjack. which I had found in the cookie jar. The sentences in (4.232) thus seem to be accountable for by other means than assuming the existence of a second condition on pied piping like (4.231), a condition in which the direction of reordering would make a difference. So although I know of no other facts which motivate the postulation of any other direction dependent conditions, the .facts discussed in connection, with (4.231) seem to require, at least for the present, a theory of language in which such conditions can be stated. 4.3.2.4. In this section,.I will point out one puzzling fact about the interaction between the rule of anlynction Reduction and two of the conditions on pied piping which were discussed above -the:Left Branch Condition and (4.231). In 5 4.2.4.1, I gave a brief, informal description of the rule which converts (4.118) into (4.119). Since the adjective appears on a right branch of both conjoined sentences in (4.118), it can be raised and Chomskyadjoined to the coordinate node 229 The same is true of the two Reduction. by the rule of occurrences of the NPa successful outinlatitketrack in (4.234), of 2_19 (4.234) a nc1S NP VP. am confident I NP I-1 NP 4 ,depends i. "of 'a successful outin (4.235) at the'track a'successful outin: at the trac /MO i am confident of y and my boss depends on, a successful outing at the track. Since (4.235) 1.4 grammatical, some condition must be built into (4,231) which weakens it so that it does not affect the operation of the rule of Con unction Reduction. would prevent the circled NP As (4.231) is ncwstated, it nodes in (4.234) from being raised, for they are contained in the boxed NP nodes, which start with _ 230 I do not understand why (4.231) should not constrain prepositions. Conjunction Reduction, for it is not in general true that conditions nn .mgerl yv4wfilft fin r- r-r--b not nywOar "rr"-J to rein4tinntinn PaAtirtinn" 7 fnllnwino --co example will show. Up to this point, I have only discussed examples of the operation of Conjunction Reduction where_the identical constituent was on a right branch, but the rule will also work on constituents which appear on left branches. Thus in (4.236), the circled noun phrases can be Chomsky-adjoined to the coordinate node -- the result is sentence (4.237). (4.236) an VP are intelligent NP are committed to freedom he University s. students the University (4.237) The University's students are intelligent , and (are) 29 committed to freedom. 231 'But note that if the input structure 'is; that shown in (4.238), Conjunction Reduction must be blocked. (4.238) an is committe freedom are intelligent the University's students the University's faculty_ The only identical nodes in (4.238) are the two occurrences of the boxed NP the University's. If Conjunction Reduction is allowed to apply to these nodes, the ungrammatical (4.239) results: (4.239) * The University's students are intelligent and faculty is committed to freedom. It is not necessary to add any condition to the rule of Conjunction Reduction to avoid generating (4.239): Condition, (4.181), will prevent the boxed the Left Branch NP's in (4.238) from being raised, because each is on the left branch of a larger 1114. These facts are indicativaclearly that it is not in general the case _hat conditions to 232 on pied pipirig are aot in effect for the rule of Conjunction Reduction, 50 it will be necessary to add a clause to condition (4.231), stating that this particular condition does not apply to the rule of Conjunction Reduction. For some reason, there is one environment in which (4.181) also behaves idiosyncratically with respect to Con unction Reduction -even though the constituents to be raised are on the left branches of larger are conjuncts of a coordinate NP NP's NP's, these constituents can be raised, if the larger NP. For example, the two circled' nodes in (4.240) can be raised and adjoined to the boxed NP node, yielding (4.241). (4.240) vp kisstlE P the boys (4.241) uncle the boz's aunt The boy's uncle and aunt were kissing. - -e 233 It is not necessary that the NP being raised and adjoined be immediately dominated by a conjunct: the NP shown in (4.242a) can be reduced to the one shown in (4.242b), by raising the two occurrences of the NP the the boy's aunt's b. N grandmother aunt's 234 I can think of no explanation for this strange fact -It will simply have to appear as an ad hoc rider on (4.181). to explain the otherwise extremely puzzling this rider can be used A4GXe-,..u4 &cu.. However, -1 /A ni.,3-N ucuwell. A.rie traTiMat.A.Ccu. v.1.4.1J4, .1-, and cam. ungrammarLed.i. (4.243b). .. 0.243) a. The boy wnose uncle and aunt's grandmother were kissing was furious. b. * The boy whose uncle and Tom's aunt's grandmother were kissing uas furious. The relative clause in (4.243a) comes from a sentence whose subject is the NP shown in (4.242a). If Conjunction Reduction applies before Relative Clause Formation, thus converting (4.242a) into (4.242b), then the circled NP the boy's in (4.242b) will be relativizable, because it will then no longer be contained in a coordinate structure. NP, Since it is on the left branch of the boxed when it moves, this larger NP will pied pipe with it, as (4.181) requires. But the relative clause in (4.243b) would have the shown in (4.244) as its subject: NP 235 (4.244) O grandmother NP Tom's Since the circled NP aunt's in this tree does not occur in all conjuncts, the rule of Conjunction Reduction cannot apply to it. relativization of this the boxed NP NP Therefore, when is attempted, (4.181) will specify that node in (4.244) must pied pipe, for the relativized is on its left branch. But the boxed NP NP being is a coniunct, and thus cannot be moved, by virtue of the Coordinate Structuxa Constraint, (4.84). And since there f.s a clause in the Pied Piping Convention, (4.180), which specifies that coordinate nodes cannot pied pipe (recall the ungrammaticality of (4.172)), the top NP of (4.244) will not pied pipe either. node is Thus the circled NP node frozen solidly in position -- (4.181) prevents it from reordering, and the way (4.84) and (4.181) have been stated prevent any NP node 236 above it from pied piping -- so the rule of Relative Clause Formation, if it applies to this circled NP, will Produce an ungrammatical The contrast between the sentences in (4.243) is thus only sentence. OD be explained on the basis of quite far - reaching theoretical constructs. What is the theoretical status of constraints like 4.3.2.5. (4.11), (4.200), (4.206), (4.213), (4.225) and (4.231)? It is obvious that (4.200), which prohibits the stranding of prepositions, is not universal, for prepositions may in general be stranded in English. (4.206), which prevents the stranding of prepositions the head of whose objects is not pronominalizable, is not universal either, for prepositions can be stranded in this environment in Danish, as (4.223a) shows. (4.225) is not universal, for the prepositions of English prepositional phrases directly dominated by VP can be stranded, as (4.245) shows. (4.245) Who are you gawking at? It may be that (4.231) is universal -- I know of no counterexamples at present. The Left Branch Condition, although it is in effect in such languages as English, German, French, Danish, Italian and Finnish, is not universal, for it is not in effect in Russian and Latin. Russian, the possessive adjective In culu 'whose' can be preposed in questions, whether or not the noun it modifies appears with it at 237 the front of the sentence. (4.246) a. Cuju knigu ty Clitajek? Whose book you are reading 'Whose book are you reading?' b. Cuju ty v citajes knigu? WIlose you are reading book 'lealose book are you reading?' The same applies to the interrogative adjective skolko 'how rcany't as can be seen in (4.247). (4.247) a. let Skolko a how many years to nim .by11.2 him were 'How many years old was he?' (=how many years did he have?) b. Skolko u nim byli let? how many to him were years 'How many years old was he?' In Latin, too, sentences which parallel (4.246b) can be found cf. (4.248). (4.248) Cuius legis whose you are reading librum? book 'Whose book are you reading?' As far as I know, it is only in highly inflected languages, in whose grammars the rule of Scramblins. appears, that the Left Branch Condition is not operative, but it is not the case that it is not operative ia 238 In Finnish, for example, sentences like (4.248) all such languages. At present, therefore, .1 am unable to predict are not possible. when a language will exhibit the Left Branch Condition and when not. Thus it appears that with the possible exception of (4.231), all of the constraints on pied piping which were discussed in §i 4.3.2.1 - 4.3.2.4 that exhibits them. must be stated in the grammar of each language But must each such condition be stated on each rule which it influences? Must the Left Branch Condition be built into the English rules of Relative Clause Formation, Appositive Clause and auestion? Formation, Topicalization,le) To repeat the Left Branch Condition on each of these five rules is to make the claim that it is an accidental fact about this particular set of five rules that they are all subject to (4.181).. I am making the App site claim: that any reordering transformation would be subject to (4.181) . To reflect this claim formally, the theory of grammar must be changed. At present, the theory only permits conditions which are stated on particular rules, like the identity condition on Relative Clause Formation, or meta-conditions, like the Complex NP Constraint, which are stated in the theory. But the constraints on pied piping which are under discussion cannot be correctly accommodated under either of these possibilities: they are not universal, and to state them on each transformation which they affect is to miss a generalization. What is necessary is that the grammar of every natural language be provided with a conditions box, in which all such language- 239 particular constra2,mts are stated once fol. the whole language. By a univercal convention of interpretation, all conditions in the 4onditions box will be underJtood to be conditions on the operation of every rule in the grammar. To give some concrete examples, for English, the conditions box will contain, among others, (4.181), (4.206) , 'and (4.231). (4.213) For French, Italian and German, it will contain (4.181) , (4.200) and (A.231). It should not be thought that only conditions on pied piping will appear in this box. In FiLnish, for example, it is the case that no element can be moved out of complement clauses which are introduced by etta 'that'. That is, while such sentences as (4.249a) are possible in English, no corresponding sentence is possible in Finnish, as the Ungrammaticality of (4.249b) shows. (4.249) Which hat do you believe (that) she never a. wore? b. * mita hattua z uskoit which hat ettei ham you believed that not she koskaan kayttanyt? ever used. Thus far, with one exception, which I will discuss in footnote 15 of Chapter in the conditions bc-A. of 5, all the constraints which I know to appear any language are constraints on reordering transformations, but there is of course no reason to expect that no 240 other types of constrai-its will be found to occupy condition boxes in other languages. 4.3.3. To recapitulate the discussion of pied piping, the existence of structures like (4.162), which allow for an in principle unbounded number of relative clauses to be formedrclearly indicates the need for a convention of some sort. Rather than devise some notational convention under which an infinite family of rules like those in (4.135), (4.164) and (4.165) could be abbreviated by some sort of finite schema -- a notational convention which would only be made use of to :candle these facts) I have chosen the convention stated in (4.180, which, though still somewhat ad hoc, is weaker than a new notational convention would be, and thus yields a more restrictive characterization of the class of possible transformations, and hence of the notion of natural language. In § 4.3.2 I discussed a number of cases where pied piping is obligatory and suggested that the theory of grammar be changed so that every particular gramma_' contairsa conditions box in which constraints of various types)which affect all rules of the grammar can be stated. Such constraints are intermediate in generality between particular conditions on particular rules and meta-constraints like the Complex /2 Structure Constraint. Constraint and the Coordinate 241 4.4. The Sentential Subiect Constraint 4.4.1. Compare (4.250a) with its two passives, (4450b) and (4.250c). (4.250) a. The reporters expected that the principal would fire some teacher. That the principal would fire some teacher was expected by the reporters. c. It was expected by the reporters that the principal would fire some teacher. Noun phrases in the that - clauses of (4.250a) and (4.250c) can be relativized, but not those in the that-clause of (4.250b), as (4.251) shows. (4.251) a. The teacher who the reporters expected that the principal would fire is a crusty old battleax. b. * The teacher who that the principal would fire was expected by the reporters is a crusty old battleax. c. The teacher who it was expected by the reporters that the principal woLad fire is a crusty old battleax. How can (4.251b) be blocked? A first approximation would be a restriction that prevented subconstituents of subject noun phrases from reordering, while allowing subconstituents of object noun phrases ... h. e '-'" irl i.r 242 to do so. But such a restriction would be too strong, as can be seen from the grammaticality of .(4.252). II nen% Vto4.04) Of which cars were Che Luods damaged by the explosion? The approximate structure of (4.252), at the time when the glie.asi.on Rule applies, is that shown in (4.253). (4.253) were damaged by the explosion It can_be seen that in converting (4.253) to the structure which underlies (4.252), the boxed NP, a subconstituent of the subject of (4.253), has been moved to the front of the sentence, so the suggested restriction is too strong, difference between 3Z But there is an obvious .252) and the ungrammatical ;.251b): the subject of the latter sentence is a clause, while the subject of the former is only a phrase. into account. The condition stated in (4.254) rakes this difference 21.3 (4.254) The Sentential Subject Constraint No element dominated by an -^",4 4W.IV4U %di 4.1.44Also S may be 44 41.0111 AIOUG iL P is dominated by an NP which itself is immediately dominated by S. This constraint, though operative in the grammars of many languages other than English, cannot be stated as a universal, because there are languages whose rules are not subject to it. Japanese, for instance, although the circled NP In in (4.256), which is the approximate structure of (4.255), falls within the scope of (4.254), it can be relativized, as the grammaticality of (4.257) shows. (4.255) Mary ga sono boosi o kabutte ita koto Mary that hat wearing was thing ga akiraka da. obvious is 'That Mary.was wearing that hat is obvious.' 244 S (4.256) NP , L____ N NP \\ akiraka da SA koto kabutte ita Mary sono 1 boosi (4.257) Kore wa Mary ga kabutte ita koto this Mary ga wearing was thing akiraka na boosi da. obvious is hat is. 'This is the hat which it is obvious that Mary was wearing.' That the languages whose rules I know to be subject to (4.254) far outnumber those whose-i-Ule-s-aie not so constrained suggests that a search be made for other formal properties of these latter languages which could be made use of to predict their atypical behavior a 245 with respect to this constraint. At present, however, whether or not (4.254) is operative within any particular language can only be . treated as an idiosyncratic fact which must be stated in the e.nnAitions box of the language in question. George Lakoff has pointed out to me that on the basis 4.4.2. of only the facts considered fir, it would be unnecessary to state the Sentential Subject Constraint, for it is a s2ecial case of (3.27), the output condition which makes sentences containing internal NP S NP unacceptable. Thus, since (4.251b) contains the internal clause that the principal would fire, and since this clause is dominated exhaustively by NP, condition (3.27) would account for its unacceptability. But the two arguments below seem to me only to be accountable for if condition (4.254) is assumed to be operative in the grammar of English. Firstly, consider sentence (4.258), and its associated constituent structure (4.259). (4.258) That I brought this hat seemed strange to the nurse. 1 246 (4.259) V If strange to I Relativizing either of the circled NP's in (A.259) will produce sentences which are not fully acceptable (cf. (4.260)), (4.260) a. * The hat which that I brought seemed strange to the nurse was a fedora. b. ? The nurse who that I brought this hat seemed strange to was as dumb as a post. because both relative clauses in (4.260) will contain the boxed NP .over S of (4.259) as an internal constituent. Conditi )n (3.27) will be adequate to characterizing both as being unacceptable, but it will not be able to account for the clear difference in status between (4.2600 and (4.260b). The latter sentence is admittedly awkward, but it can be read in such a way as to be comprehensible. The former . X47 sentence, however, seems to me to be beyond intonational help. I conclude that (4.260b) should ba labeled gi-emuatical but unacceptable, but that (4.260a) must be deemed ungrammatical. To do this, (4.254), or some more general constraint, must be assumed to be operative in English, as well as (3.27). The second argument for (4.254) concerns the following two sentences: (4.261)a. I disliked the boy's loud playing of the piano. b. I disliked the boy's playing the piano loudly. Lees gives a number of arguments which show these to be different. I will assume that the derived structure of (4.261a) is that shown in (4.262), and that of (4.261b) is that shown in (4.263). 32 248 (4.262) NP I .'/ disliked NP NP A NP P the piano of (4.263) V N."? playing ar.....t.ass 1 249 I have assumed that the word playing, in (4.262) has the derived status of a noun, to account for the appearance of the preposition of before the object of 32...4211.11, parallel to the of which occurs after such substantivized verbs as construction, refusal, fulfillment, etc. (cf. his construction of an escape hatch, our refusal, o£ help, her fulfillment of her contract). That the latter structure has a clausal object, while the former does not, can be seen from the difference in relativizability of the circled NP's in (4.262) and (4.263). NP This can be relativized in the former structure (cf. (4.264a)), btt not in the latter (cf. the ungramiaticality of (4.264b)). (4.264) a. The boy whose loud playing of the piano I disliked was a student. b. * The boy whose playing the piano loudly. I disliked was a student. Although the circled NP of (4.262) is on a left branch of an NP when the Relative Clause Formation Rule applies, pied piping can be invoked to effect the adjunction of the boxed NP to the node $ which dominates tne clause, so a well-formed relative clause will result. is moved, the boxed But in (4.263), if the circled NP NP cannot pied pipe, because there is a node between the two NP S which intervenes nodes, and under these conditions, pied piping 250 5 4.3.1 above. cannot take place, as was pointed out in Note that the object of.playingo the piano, NP is relativizable in both (4.262) and (4.263). (4.265) a. ? The piano which Y disliked the boy's loud playing of was badly out of tune. b. ' The piano which Y disliked 'the boy's playing loudly was badly out of tune. But if the action nominal or the factive gerund nominal appears in the piano can only be NP subject position, as in (4.266), the relativized out of the action nominal as (4.267) shows. (4.266) a. The boy's loud playing of the piano drove everyone crazy. b. The boy's playing the piano loudly drove everyone crazy. (4.267) a. That piano, ?which the boy's.loud playing of the boy's loud playing of which drove everyone crazy, was badly out of tune. b. * That piano, which the boy's playing loudly the boy's playing which loudly drove everyone crazy, was badlyout of tune. How can (4..267b) be excluded? The bottom line of (4.267b) can be blocked on the same grounds as (4.264b): of (4.266b) dominates the node S, since the subject pied piping cannot take place. unless (4.454), the Sentential Subject Constraint, is added to the grammar, the top line of (4.2673) will not be excluded. Note that NP But 251 even condition (3.27) cannot be invoked here, because this condition must be reformulated as shown in (4.268). Grammatical sentences containing an internal (4268) NP which exhaustively dominates an S are unacceptable, unless the main verb of that S is a gerund. This reformulation is necessary in any case, in order to account for the difference in acceptability between (4.269a) (4.269c) and (4.269d). (4.269) a. * Did that he played the piano surprise you? b. * Would for him to have played the piano have surprised you? c. * Is whether he played the piano known? d. Did his having played the piano surprise you? Thus it appears that there are two reasons for insisting that both (4.268), the revised version of (3.27), and the Sentential Subject Const.raint be included in the grammar of English. In the first place, condition (4.268) is not adequate to distinguish between (4.260a) and (4.260b), aad in the second, between (4.267a) and (4.267b). These two facts indicate the necessity of adding to the conditions box of English something at least as strong as (4.254). 252 4.4.3. It will be remembered, in connection with (4.249), that in the conditions box for Finnish, there is a constraint which prevents elements of clauses headed by ettd 'that' from being moved out of these clauses (cf. the ungrammaticality of (4.249b)). In her recent paper (Dean (1967)), Jane; Dean has pointed out a condition in English that is probably related to the Finnish condition. There is a class of verbs in English which can take that- clauses as objects but for which the rule which normally can optionally delete the that-complementizer cannot apply. After believe, for example, the complementizer is optional (cf. (4.249a)), but after verbs like quip, snort, rejoice, etc., the complementizer must be present, as the ungrammaticality of (4.270b) shows. (4.270) a. Mike quipped that she never wore this hat. b. * Mike quipped she never wore this hat. Dean discovered that no element of the complement clauses of these verbs can be moved out of them (cf. the ungrammaticality of (4.271)). (4.271) a. * Which hat did Mike quip that she never wore? b. * Which girl did Mike quip never wore this hat? It is not clear at present how these facts should be handled. It may be possible to assume that the English conditions box, like the Finnish one, contains the constraint that no element may be moved out of that-clauses, and that the object clauses of verbs like believe do not come to be headed by*that until after all reordering transformations have applied, while the object clauses Df 253 verbs like quip are prefixed by that at a very early stage in derivations. This then raises the possibility that the condition that no element be moved out of a that-clause need not be stated in the conditions boxes of Finnish and English, but is instead universal. Inne QII&CFPnrad (op. cit.) that this condition is only a subcase of a far more general condition, (4.272). (4.272) No element of a subordinate clause may be moved out of that clause. There are several difficulties with this condition which at present prevent me from accepting it. The first is that it is not strong enough to explain the differences among the sentences in (4.251), and would therefore seem to have to be supplemented by the Sentential Subject Constraint. The second is that (4.272) would incorrectly exclude all the sentences of (2.23), which differ among themselves in acceptability, but some of which seem perfectly normal to me. And the third objection is that elements of clauses with be' Poss - Ina or for - to complementizers can be relativized, as can seen from the grammaticality of (4.265b) and (4.273). 0.273) The only hat which it bothers me for her to wear is that old fedora. That such phrases must be considered to be dominated by S follows from the fact that Reflexivization cannot "go down into" them (cf. the ungrammaticality of (4.274)), 254 (4.274) a. * I dislike it for him.to tickle myself. b. * I dislike his tickling myself. from *he fact that elements of these clauses can undergo "backwards" pronominalization (cf. (4.275)) , (4.275) 33 a. For Anna to tickle him drives Frank crazy. b.. Anna's tickling him drove Frank crazy. and from my proposed explanation of the difference in acceptability between the sentences of (4.264). This last objection cannot be gotten around by modifying (4.272) by attaching a condition that the main verb of the subordinate clause be finite, for no elements of the infinitival and gerund clauses in sentences like (4.276) can be moved, as the ungrammaticality of (4.277) shows. (4.276) a. We donated wire for the convicts to build cages with. b. They are investigating all people owning parakeets. (4.277) a. * The cages which we donated wire for the convicts to build with are strong. b. * What kind cf parakeets are they investigating all people owning? These three arguments against Dean's proposed constraint strike me at present as being strong enough to reject it for the time being. It is, however, a bold and important hypothesis, for if it can be established, it will make my Complex NP Constraint and Sentential I 255 Subject Constraint superfluous, thus substantially simplifying both the theory of language and those grammars in which the latter constraint is operative. For this reason, a lot of future research should be directed at the three objections to (4.272) which I have discussed, to see if they can satisfactorily be explained away. 4.5. To summarize briefly, in this chapter I have proposed two universal constraints, the Complex NP Constraint and the Coordinate Structure Constraint; also, a universal convention of pied piping; and a variety of language particular constraints, which are to be stated in particular grammars in a conditions box, which the theory of language must be revised to provide. I make no claim to. exhaustiveness, and I am sure that the few conditions I have discussed are not only wrong in detail, but in many major ways. Not only must further work, be done to find other conditions, but to find broader generalities, such as the condition proposed by Dean, so that the structure of whatever interlocking system of conditions eventually proves to be right can be used with maximum effectiveness as a tool for discovering the structure of the brain, where these conditions must somehow be represented. 1 widpc.4.1.,L ti 256 FOOTNOTES 1. Subscripts indicate identity of reference. 2. This term is defined in Ross (1967a). pronouns may only precede the NP There I argue that they refer to if they are dominated by a subordinate clause which does not dominate that, 3. NP. Cf. also § 5.3 below. Evidence that this rule must be placed late in the rule ordering is given in Lakoff and Ross (op.. cit.). (. 0-44 4. The Japanese words"wa, "particles". 6e itN4 etc. have been called They correspond very roughly to case endings and prepositions. Ga and wa are adjoined by transformations to the rightof.istj7t,noun phrases, o to the right of direct objecls;va-gent phrases ) etc. The syntax of these postpositional particles and other problems in Japanese syntax have been investigated intensively by Kuroda (cf. Kuroda (1965)), and I will not discuss 4.t further here. In the word-for-word glosses of Japanese examples, I will leave the particles untranslated. 5. The structure shown in (4.25) is vastly oversimplified and the analysis of tabete iru 'is eating' is stnply wrong: actually iru should be the main verb of a higher sentence into which Oa, 257 fish eat (stem)' would the base.string kodomo sakara tabe 'child be embedded. Also, the determiner sono'that' would probably not of (4c24), but rather appear as a constituent of the deep structure as a feature on the noun sakana 'fish' in the matrix sentence. But such niceties are not at issue here (4.25) will serve for the purpose at hand. 6. postal made this proposal in a talk given at the LaJolla Conference on English Syntax on February 25, 1967. 7. Professor Barbara Hall Partee has informed me (personal communication) that in a survey of relative clause constructions she found in a wide variety of languages that she conducted, that in languages which exhibit relative pronouns which have been moved from their original position, these pronouns invariably appear at the end of the relative clause closest to the head noun. Relative pronouns thus move leftwards in English, German, French, etc., and although I at present can cite no examples of rightward movement, Professor Partee has assured me that they exist. It therefore seems necessary to assume that if movement occurs in the formation of Japanese relative clauses9 it must be movement to the right, not to the left. 258 These facts point to a needed change in the theory of grammar. In order to account for the facts discovered by Professor Partee, it is necessary to add to linguistic theory a convention for automatically reordering the formal statement of transfonlational rules. If such a convention is made available, the statement in universal grammar of a relative clause skeleton rule will be possible, for the rule of Relative Clause Formation in Japanese is simply the mirror image of the rule shown in (4.2). In which direction the rule will reorder constituents depends entirely upon whether relative clauses are generated by the rule NP S or by the rule NP S I will present further evidence which supports this convention for automatic reordering in a paper now in preparation, "Gapping and the order of constituents" 8. Some speakers appear to find (4.40a) and sentences like it grammatical, which indicates that for their dialecti, the Complex NP Constraint must be modified somehow. I have no idea hoW to effect a modification of this principle, which otherwise seems to be universally valid, so I can only indicate the existence of this problem now. 9. For an account of such segmentalization rules, see Postal (1966a). 1 4 ..... ,, 259 10. If it should turn out to be possible to treat disjunction as the negation of conjunction, (4.8:) will admit of simplification. This problem is discussed in Peters (in preparation). 11. Sentence (4.92b)' is perfectly grammatical, and it means 'But she wants to dance,'(so) I want to go home.' I have only starred it because it is not related to (4.91). 12. There is evidence, first noted by Chomsky, that a type of adjunction operation is required which produces one of the A, two structures below, if B is adjoined to or B 'A A depending on whether it is adjoined to the left or right of A. The motivation for the creation of the new node A is as follows: in such a sentence as the boy is erasing the' blackboard, it seems clear that the result of adjoining the present participle ending,:-.1.22, to a verb should be a node of some sort. But the stress rules will only work properly if the formative erase is dominated exhaustively by the node V (for a discussion of the stress rules of English, cf. Halle and Chomsky (to appear)). This would indicate that the correct derived structure is 260 To distinguish this kind of adjunction from what has been called "sister adjunction" (cf. Fraser (1963)), I refer to it as Cho mar adjunction. It is at present an open question as to whether both types of adjunction need be 'countenanced within the theory of derived constituent structure. Some consequencesoif using Chomsky-adjunction in the complement system are explored in Lakoff and Ross (op. cit.), where the proposed analysis of sentence coordination is based in an essential way upon this kind of adjunction. . 13. As (4.84) is presently formulated, such a rule would be impossible: no conjunct can be moved. But in § 6.3 below I will show that Lakoff-Peters rule oficoniuct Movement is formally different in one crucial respect from the rules of Relative Clause Formation and Question, and that it is this difference which makes the former possible and the latter two impossible. 14. (4.116a) is acceptable only if strong pauses follow bought, and him, i.e., if the second clause of (4.115) has become a parenthetical insert into the first,clause and is therefore no longer coordinate with it. 15. This term is Rosenbaum's. Cf. Rosenbaum (1965). "S.2."%iit" 261 16. Actually, it should be replaced, in (4.130) as well as in (4.126) and (4.128), by a more abstract representation, but this fact has no consequences for my argument. 17. It would probably be possible to order the rules which copy the conjunction and later delete the first of the conjunctions in such a way that at the time at which Relative Clause Formation applied, the NP the boy in (4.133) would still be preceded by and, so the variable would not be null and (4.84) could be invoked to explain the ungrammaticality of (4.134). But such a solution, even if it should prove to be possible for English, which has not been-demonstrated, would break down in any language whose relative clauses followed their head noun, as in English, and whose conjunctions followed their conjuncts, as is the case in Japanese. It does not seem unlikely that such a language might exist, so the solution I have proposed in the text is powerful enough to work even for such a language. 18. Of course, (4.136b) is not the correct derived structure for the NP the boy who I saw, because many details of the correct rule of relative clause formation have been omitted in the formulation given in (4.135). 262 19. I am not sure of the grammaticality of sentences conjoined with aLd whose coniuncts contain both yes-no questions and WH-questions, e.g., ? Did you have a good time and what did you bring me? ? What's for supper and is the cat back. yet? I am sure I say such sentences often, but most of them seem somehow disconnected. At any rate, whatever the pcact restrictions on them may be, they are not my main concern here. 20. . I believe it is possible to restrict convention (4.166) to cases where one noun phrase is contained within another, i.e., that it is not necessary to generalize it so that it applies to all category types. So until additional facts turn. up which would force this more general version, I will propose the weaker, one of (4.166). 21. The verb habe shave' has been moved to the eud of the 'relative clauses in (4.179) by a rule which moves verbs to the end of all dependent clauses: 22. Actually, there is some question as to whether the occurrences of the node S which NP 2 and NP 1 dominate in deep structure 263. will have been pruned by the time the rule of Relative Clause Formation applies. At present, I am, not sure that pruning must have already applied. If it has not, the problems under discussion multiply enormously, for then it would presumably be necessary to distinguish between sentences with finite main verbs and those with non- finite main verbs in the revised version of (4.166). 23. I am grateful to Robin Lakoff for suggesting this descriptive and picturesque terminology,' just as the children of Hamlin followed the'Pied Piper out of town, so the constituents of larger noun phrases follow the specified noun phrase when it is reordered. This :hoice of terminology from the realm of fairy tales should not, however, be construed by an overly literal reader as a disclaimer on my part of the psych6logical reality of (4.180). 24. There are certain nomenclative Feinschmeckers who have taken issue with the formulation of this sentence, pointing out that following the original Pied Piper was obligatory for all the children of the town except one, who was lame, so that the phrase "obligatory pied piping" is a case of terminological coals to Newcastle. These critics sugge=t ^^"'"7".4" (4.180) Zescribes optional accompaniment, such accompaniment should best be dubbed "fellow traveling," or the like, with the term "pied piping" being reserved for cases of mandatory accompaniment, ..7,66Y&a 4.1q^e.ca ftsavory fleten1.41.%15A YVVYf ... 1%GaleM1 YYYYY. While the point they make is valid, I have chosen to disregard its eschewing an exact parallel to the fairy tale in question in the interests of a less elaborate set of terms. 25. The fact that NP 1 does not dominate So and that (4,188a) is still grammatical, simply indicates that (3.26) is formulated incorrectly, and that Condition i on Cilia: rule must be Of this rule. revised. It is abtindoned entirely in (5.57), the final statement 26. I have starred (4.190a) because it is unrelated to (4.190b) -the how in (4.190a) does not replace to what extent, but rather something like in what resrect or in hat war. Note also that the echo-questions for these two sentences differ: (4.190a) is related to Peter is sane HOW? but (4.190b) to Peter is HOW sane' Similarly, although (4.191a) is grammatical, it is not related to (4.191b). 27. Note that place is ambiguous: it can mean 'residence, dwelling', and in this sense, the preposition can be left behind*(Whose place 1_ .....14.7,m'ne9N 265 28. 0"o(1 efaWo This problem is discussed at some length in Keyser (1967). it ,, a-1...o. Aisu/ /A 1'27% 40 no nr,rnmat-tnnl unlAag ConiunetiOn Reduction applies again to reduce the parenthesized are, but I. will disregard this problem here. 30. Later rules will convert (4.242b) into the boy's uncle and aunt's grandmother. 31. There is, however, an additional restriction which pertains to structures like (4.253): boxed NP, while it is possible to move the it is not possible to move the circled one -- the string *Which cars were the hoods of dasmaibylheemLosion? is ungraatical. It is not in general the case that the preposition of in the NP the hoods of the, cars cannot be stranded (witness the grammaticality of Which cars did the 212Iehoodsofclosiondm?) so another clause must be added to condition (4.206), making pied piping in the environment [P --SNP also obligatory where the prepositional phrase is dominated by an NP which is immediately dominated by S; In passing, it should be noted that the statement of this condition will require quantifiers or some equivalent notation, such as node subscripts. This means that the formal apparatus which 266 is available for stating conditions in a conditions box must be stronger than that available for stating conditions on :2. Cf. Lees (1960), pp. 65.67. I will follow his terminology in calling the nominalization in (4.261a) the action'nominal and will refer to the nominalization in (4.261b) as the factive 'gerund nominal. 33. For a fuller discussion of the conditions under whicebackward", or right-to-left, pronominalization is possible, as well as some remarks about the notion 02 subordinate 'clause, cf. Ross (1967a). and k3 beim. 267 Chapter 5 BOUNDING CONNAND AND PRONOMINALIZATION In the summer of 1966, Ronald Langacker and I, working 5.0. independently on the same general problem, arrived at highly similar. solutions. The problem was'that of restricting variables which appeared in the structural descriptions of various rules in such a way that the notion of sentence under consideration could be captured. To this end, I proposed a formal device I called 122.2.1...141a (cf. Ross (1966b)), which will be explained in § 5.1 below. Langacker's notion of command, which he introduces and discusses at length in his important paper, "Pronominalization and the chaill of command" (Langacker (1966)), seemed to me until recently to be as nearly adequate to this end as bounding -- while there were some facts which could be handled with command but not with bounding, there were also facts for which the opposite was the case. Recently, however, I have come to the realization that the latter type of facts, which I took to be an indication if the necessity of including the notion of bounding in linguistic theory, can in fact be handled with command, by extending its definition in a natural way. Langacker's notion is thus clearly preferable, and it, not the notion of bounding, should be a part of the theory of language. In § 5.1, .....,...7....11.....w I will explain the notion of bounding and , 268 discuss the kinds of facts which it is meant to account for. In § 5.2 I'will show how all these facts can be accounted for with command, and give several facts that cannot be handled with bounding. In addition, I will point,out one way in which bounding is too strong. In § 5.3 I will discuss pronominalization briefly in this context, and show that the major condition on the rule of Pronominalization, that it only go backward into subordinate clauses, should really be construed as a condition on all deletion transformations of a specified formal type., 5.1. 222.12.12,aa I J.A.04.41, 5.1.1.1. Let us reconsider the rule of Extraposition, (4.126). How is this rule to be ordered? If the cyclic theory of rule application proposed by Chomsky (cf. Chomsky (1965)) is correctl, then the rule of els-Replacement must be a cyclic rule, as Lakoff has demonstrated (cf. Lakoff (1966)). This rule converts (5.1) into (5.2), and (5.3) into (5.4) by substituting the subject of the embedded ,sentence for the pronoun it and daughter-adjoining the remainder of the embedded sentence to the VP sentence. of the matrix 269 ........... .......... .M. (5.1) 13ke girls (5.2) 1 .42 2 ears , for VP like girls 270 NP we expect N it H a La to VP like gi is VP NP e expect for . VP ..... ....,.. like girls 271 I will attempt to show that if It Replacement is in the cycle,. Extraposition cannot be, for it would produce an intuitively incorrect derived constituent structure for sentences like (5.5). (5.5) It appears to be true that Harry likes girls. To me, it seems clear that there is a large constituent break after true. A plausible derived"structure for this sentence is the one shown in (5.6) (5.6) VP NP VP it appears 12141IEIL2111:Laal to be true If Extraposition is a cyclic rule, it will first apply to (5.7), which underlies (5.5), on the an output. S 2 cycle, yielding (5.8) as - . 272 (5.7) VP V .1. it appears, true it that Harr t likes be true 11.412.1 t1121.-Ilarry/...il pc.es 273 Now, on the S1 cycle, after the complementizers for and to have been introduced, application of the rule of It- Replacement will yield (5,9) as an intermediate structure underlying (5.5). The complementizer for is deleted by a later rule. <5.9) NP N it appears, for to VP that Harry'likes girls. 44, .0WWW 'be true But (5.9) seems highly inadequate as a representation of the intuitive structure of (5.5), for it not only makes the claim that the strings to be true thataallylicasigi1.i's and apars to be Ima112i.assyjaas111a are constituents, but it also makes the claim that appears to be true is not a constituent. All of these claims strike me as being the exact opposites of the truth about the constituent structure of (5.5), which is captured correctly in (5.6). v....Y. 274 The structure shown in (5.6) can be derived from deep structure (5.7) if Extraposition is a last-cyclic rule. case, no rules of importance here would apply until cycle, after complemenLizer placement, the circled 2 S1. NP In this On this in (5.7) by LE-RsaLace.cmnt, yielding would bedome the derived subject of, .S 1 the intermediate structure (5.10): (5.10) NP V it thaw t Harry likes girls appears for VP be true When Extraposition is applied to (5.10), the correct (5.6) results. The above facts can be accounted for if Extraposition is made a last-cyclic rule, but this is not the only means of arriving at the correct derived structure for sentences like (5.5). Noam Chomsky has suggested to me in conversation that it seems necessary to add 275 certain phonologically motivated rules of adjustment to the grammar of English, to account fc.r the intonation of such right-branching sentences as (5.11), (5.11) This is the dog that chased the cat that caught the rat that ate the cheese. to which normal transformations would assign some structure like that schematically represented in (5.12). (5.12) NP ",the 'clog. S that chased ii O NP the cat S .that,..auElalt N the'rat that ate'the cheese 276 On the hypothesis that intonation rules should correlate length 3 of pause with size of constituent break , (5.11) would not be assigned its observed intonation pattern, where pauses of roughly equal size precede each occurrence of that, unless some rule were to operate on the nested syntactic output structure of (5.12) to turn it into the roughly coordinate phonological input structure which the normal pause pattern of (5.11) would indicate. rules Such Chomsky proposes to call "surface structure adjustment rules", and he suggests thatthe same rule which raises the nested sentences of (5.12) to make them coordinate with the highest sentence there might be formulable in such a way that it would also raise to the level of S 53 in (5.9), thus producing (5.6), the correct I derived structure of (5.5), from (5.7), even if the rule of Extraposition is made a cyclic rule. Until some detailed work has been done on the.problem of such adjustment rules, it is not possible to accept or reject this proposal conclusively. However, even if Chomsky's proposal should prove to be correct, there is another argument, independent of this one, which indicates that Extraposition cannot be a cyclic rule. Consider such intercalated structures as (5.13). (5.13) Ivan figured it out that the bridge would hold. This sentence derives from the structure shown in (5.14). 277 (5.14) VP NP Ivan 'figure out that the bridge would hold To this structure, the two rules of Particle Movement, (3.9), and Extraposition apply. 4.2.4.2, From the arguments given above, in it follows that Particle Movement must apply first, moving the particle out to the right of the circled NP of (5.14); for Extraposition cannot apply "vacuously" to attach the circled node S somewhere higher up the tree, if sentences like the ungrammatical (4.132b) are to ba avoided. However, if we assume Extraposition to be cyclic, since Particle Movement precedes it, it must also be cyclic. But if Particle Movement is cyclic, then the problem arises as to how sentences containing ungrammatical action nominalizations like the one in (5.15a) are to be excluded. (5.15) a. * Her efficient looking of the answer up pleased the boss. I 278 b. Her efficient looking up of the answer pleased the boss. Sentence (5.15b) demonstrates that the ungrammaticality of (5.15a) does not reside in an incompatibility between verbparticle constructions and action nominalizations in general, and that it can only be attributed to the fact that Particle Movement has applied when the sentence in the underlying subject of (5.15a) was processed, but not. when the one in the subject of (5.15b) was. I believe the claim to be warranted that action nominalizations are derived from embedded sentences -- that is, that there are two passes made through the transformational cycle in processing (5.15b) -- and not, as Chomsky suggested in course lectures in the spring of 1966, by means of lexical derivation rules; but I cannot go into this problem here. I mention the matter merely because (5.15a) could rather easily be excluded if the subject been produced in the lexicon: NP of (5.15b) had if the word looking. in (5.15) is best considered to be a derived noun, which seems to me to be an open question, then Particle Movement could not apply to it, and even if looms must be considered to be a verb, (3.9) could be made to block because of the presence of an intervening of. But if action nominalizations-are desentential, as I believe to be the case, no such easy explanation is available. It would of course be impossible to impose the condition upon (3.9) that it not operate in any sentence which was embedded in whatever the correct underlying structure for !..V., 279 action nominalizations *urns out to be, for by the principle of operation of the transformational cycle (cf. Chomsky (1965), p. 134135), contexts from higher sententuts than the ore being processed cannot be referred to in cyclic rules. This would mean, then, that Particle Mbvealent would have to be allowed 0 apply freely, and that some ad hoc condition would have to bá imposed upon Action Nominalization so that it would block incase Particle Movement had applied on the previous cycle. This is not impossible-, merely laboured, inelegant and undesirable. The obvious way out of this latter difficulty is to make Particle Movement a last-cyclic rule, and to order it after the rule which forces action nominalizations. If this rule has applied, Particle Movement will be blocked by a constraint which is necessary in any case: particles cannot be moved over an object NP which starts with a preposition.. _Thus the particle ....razart may not be moved over the NP with her father in (5.16a). (5.16) a. She did away with her father. b. * She did with her father away. It is necessary to claim that idioms like do away with, sit in on, etc., which were mentioned in § 4.3.2.2 above, consist of a verb-particle combination followed by a prepositional phrase, and not simply of a verb followed by two prepositions and a noun phrase, for it is the case that only that subclass of prepositions which can function as particles (e.g. along, hit, on, in, off, 211., etc., as opposed to at, among, for, etc.) can occur as the first member of such a two-preposition chain. 280 Thus if Particle Movement is last-cyclic, 5.1.1.2. (5.15a) will be excluded without any additional complication of the rules of Action Nominalizarion or Particle Movement. Extra osition? MU,. *weal^ Ac W414:iio QWWW6 UWG. Since it follows Particle Movement, it is last-cyclic: what then will prevent it applying to (5.17) to produce the ungrammatical (5.18)? (5.17) 'is not "true was obvious that Bob was it (5.18) * That it was obvious is not true that Bob was lying. For sine: ±,.....!re are variables in the structural index of Extraposition, when it applies on the last cycle, it can either operate to move out of NP1, in which case, the grammatical (5.19) will result, S2 281 (5.19) It is not true that that Bob was lying was obvious. tie it can operate to move e out of Ni' arioldino the unrammatical -2' (5.18). This problem is highly reminiscent of the one discussed in Case C of § 2.2, the A-over-A principle. which'was given as supporting evidence for But since the facts given in § 2.1 show the principle to be too strong, I have tried to find alternative explanations for all the cases given in support of it in Cases A and Cases D B have been accounted for by the Complex § 2.2. NP Constraint, and E by the Left Branch Condition on pied piping (4.181), and Case F has been shown to be a special case of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. Only Case C remains. The problem discussed in Case Extra osition from NP C was how the rule of should be constrained so that it will apply to (2.7) to produce (2.8), but not (2.9), all of which I reproduce here for convenience© 282 (2.7) VP was 'given, VP had been made Ni) the *claim VP 'that John had lied A proof was given that the claim that John (2.8) had lied had been made. * A proof that the claim had been made was (2.9) given that John had lied. Just as was the case with (5.18), (2.9) results from S 3 being extraposed "too.far". It happens that (2.9) can be blocked with machinery that is already available, but this is not true of (5.18). For notice that NP 1 in (2.7) is complex, and that the Complex NP Conctraint will therefore not allow chat will stop S3 S3 to be moved out of fr.a being extraposed out of S2 S2. in (5.17)? But It 283 is not the case that constituents of clauses dominated by noun phrases whose head noun is the pronoun it cannot be'moved out of these clauses, And even supposing that it as the grammaticality of (4.13a) s'..ows. were possible to formulate some revised version of the aew-overA principle which was strong enough to exclude (5.18), but weak enough to avoid the counterevidence in S 2.1, the problem would remain. For .consider structure (5.20)x; (5.20) N1 i is possible O 1/// it NP that Sam didn't pick those packages which are to mailed tomorrow O 284 . Since the rule of Particle Movement must be last-cyclic, for the reasons discussed above in connection with (5.15), it is must also be; for it, like obvious that Fxtraposition from NP Extraposition, must follow Particle Movement. will Extraposition from is, how NP But now the question apply to (5.20)? As this rule is presently formulated, the variables in it will allow the extraposition of S 3 to the end of with (5.21) as the ungrammatical result. S1, (5.21) * That Sam didn't pick those packages up is possible which are to be mailed tomorrow. How can this sentence be blocked? Even if it were assumed that the two rules of extraposition were the same, and could be collapsed into, one (I will show why such an assumption would be incorrect immediately below), the A-over-A principle could not be invoked to. block (5.21). For this principle dictates that transformational rules must apply to a tree uniquely, and always in the highest possible environment. both NP 1 and NP 2 Since would meet the structural index for a collapsed rule of Extraposition, the A-over-A principle would prediCt that this Extraposition could only affect the higher the right of is possible 5 . NP, NP1, moving S 2 to But in fact, either clause can be extraposed to the end of "the first sentence up", independently of whether the other has been. Thus if neither has been, (5.22a) results; if only has been, (5.22b) results; if only if both have been, (5.22d) results. S3 S2 has been, (5.22c) results; and 285 (5.22) a.?* That Sam didn't pick those packages which are to be mailed tomorrow up is possible. 6 b. * It is possible that Sam didn't pick those packages which are to be mailed tomorrow up. That Sam didn't pick those packages up which c. are to be mailed tomorrow is possible. It is possible that Sam didn't pick those d. packages up which are to be mailed tomorrow. Thus, since S3 must be allowed to extrapose, so that (5,22c) and (5.22d) can be generated, it seems to me inconceivable that any version of anything resembling the A-over-A principle can be devised which could exclude (5.21). 5.1.1.3. A final nail in the coffin of any such proposal is provided by the following argument, which shows the two rules of extraposition to be necessarily distinct, because another rule, Question, must intervene between them. (5.23) That is, the rules must be ordered as in (5.23). 1. Particle Movement (3.9) 2. Extraposition (4.126) 3. (question (4.1) 4. 1trai postionfrojLE)NP(1.10) The necessity for this ordering can be seen in connection with (5.24), which derives from the intermediate structure (5.25), a structure only minimally different from (5.20). 286 (5.24) Which packages is it possible that Sam didn'E pick up which are to be mailed tomorrow? which packages which are to be mailed tomorrow It should be obvious that Extraposition must precede kapstion, for if S l' S2 has not been moved out of the questioned element, subject, NP1, NP 3 NP1 to the end of will be contained in a sentential and will be prohibited from moving out of it by the constraint stated in (4.254). from NP must fallow glaslisa. But it is not so obviow that Extraposition 287 For if it is assumed that (5.21) can somehow be avoided, it might be argued that a collapsed rule of extraposition could operate to move both embedded sentences to.the ends of the appropriate higher sentences, yielding a structure like (5.26)7 (5.26) VP N is possible that NP Sam didn't pick it which packages which are to be mailed tomorrow But notice that if the questioned NP, moved to the front of S 1 NP2, is now by the rule of Question, and the subject and copula are inverted, the resulting structure is (5.27), not the intuitively correct (5.28).8 I 288 (5.27) eishPA,shr Is it that V NP O ages possible Sam didn't pick up which are to be mailed tomorrow (5.28) VP which aackages is it possible that Sam didn't pick up. which are to be mailed tomorrow 289 The structure shown in (5.27) makes the incorrect claim that the string didn't pick up which are to be mailed tomorrow is a constituent, while (5.28) correctly reflects the fact that there is a large constituent break after the particle 12. It might appear that the same method of avoiding this undesirable result that Chomsky has proposed for avoiding the similar intuitive inadequacy of (5.9), namely having some surface structure adjustment rule obligatorily convert (5.27) to (5.28), just as (5.9) would be converted to (5.1), could be made use of in this case. To see that this is impossible, consider (5.29) and an intermediate structure underlying it, (5.30): (5.29) Sam didn't pick those packages up which are to be mailed tomorrow until it had stopped raining. (5.30) NP until it had stopped raining. didn't pick those packages NP which are to be mailed tomorrow 290 apply to How does the rule of Extraposition from NP (5.30)? G.11 If some constraint can be stated on this rule which has the . W1 wa.s.y 0.11.1VW.1.446 myvv 4.4AG Gebt.A.401,WOIA griiaMOG 4rt 4,11 enA of the first sentence up, then the rule could apply to (5.30) to produce the derived structure (5.31). (5.31) until it had stopped raining NP NP didn't. pick Sam 2 which are to be mailed tomorrow those packages Since some such constraint will be necessary in any case, so that (5.21) can be avoided, the grammaticality of (5.29), where the extraposed relative clause immediately follows the particle u2., provides some support for the structure shown in (5.30) , 1 is not a constituent of S2. VP9, for do so stands for a whole outside the VP, S4 The facts of do so pronomink._Ization (cf. Lakoff and Ross (1966)) indicate that by ,Uch S 4 could LA be dominated VP, and until-clauses are as is shown by the grammaticality of (5.32). 293. (5.32) Sam picked those packages up .which are to be mailed tomorrow rest might, but he didn't want to do so until it had stopped raining. If S4 were directly dominated by S2 in (5.30) , then wa would expect that the most normal version of this sentence would be (5.33), not (5.29). (5.33) ?* Sam didn't pick those packages up until it had stopped raining which are to be mailed tomorrow. In my speech, (5.33) is impossible unless heavy intonation breaks surround the until-clause, in which case it But fairly acceptable. such a sentence should clearly be analyzed-as a stylistic variant derived from (5.29) by the optional rule which positions adverbs in various positions between major constituents of a sentence, 9 not as the most normal form for this sentence. But now notice what happens if a structure like that shown in (5,,30), except that which replaces those, is embedded in place of S 2 in (5.25). (5.34), are possible: Two variants of the resulting structure, (5.35a), in which the relative clause has not been extraposed away from its head NP, and (5.35b), in which it has. S3 which packages, (5.34) is possible it that NP Sam didn't pick NP which packages (5.35) a. which are to be mailed tomorrow Which packages which are to be mailed tomorrow is it possible that Sam didn't ... pick up until it had stopped raining? b.?? Which packages is it possible that Sam didn't pick up until it had stopped raining which are to be mailed tomorrow? While it is clear that (5.35a) is the more comfortable version of the two, by far, I think (5.35b) should be treated as being 293 grammatical but of low acceptability. For notice that the acceptability of (5.35b) can be improved by lengthening the extraposed relative clause, as in (5.36). (5.36) Which packages is it possible that Sam didn't , pick up until it had stopped raining which he had arranged with his agents in Calcutta to send to him here in Poplar Bluff because of his fear that someone in Saint Louis might recognize him? Note that in (5.35b) the extraposed clause follows the until-clause, which the ungrammaticality of (5.33) shows not to be possible when the structure underlying (5.29) is-not-embedded. But more important is the fact that the preferred order in the non-embedded case, i.e., with the relative clause preceding the until-clause, as in (5.29), is absolutely impossible in the embedded case, as the ungrammaticality of (5.37) shows. (5.37) * Which packages is it possible that Sam didn't pick up which are to be mailed tomorrow until it had stopped raining? In fact, if a relative clause has been extraposed away from its head NP, NP that cannot be questioned. (5.29), which contains such a head (5.38), in which this NP So compare NP, with the ungrammatical has been questioned: 294 (5.38) * Which packages didn't Sam pick up which are to be mailed tomorrow until'it had stopped raining? Elsewhere (cf. Ross (1966a)), I have pointed out that no elements of an extraposed relative clause may be relativized or questioned. For an-example of this restriction, consider (5.39) and its derivedctructure (5.40). (5.39) A girl came in who had worn this coat, (5.40) a girl NP came in who this coat That the circled NP in (5.40) cannot be relativized is apparent from the ungrammaticality of (5.41). (5.41) * The coat whidh a girl came in who had worn was torn. 295 The ungrammaticality of sentences like (5.37), (5.38) and (5.41) seems to call for the adoption of a new'confcraint, such as the one stated in(5742): (5.42) The Frozen Structure Cor_;traint If a clause has been extraposed from a noun phrase whose_head no'iu is lexical,. -his noun phrase may not be moied, nor may any element of the clause be moved out of that clause. The formulation of this cc'straint is reminiscent of the formulation given in (4.20) -- the Complex NP Constraint. A moment's reflection on the content of the former constraint suffices to reve-1 why this should be so: what (5.42) says, in effect, is that elements of complex noun phrases, which are prohibited from being moved before the rule of Extraposition from NP this rule has applied. has applied are also prohibited after In other words, (5.42) must duplicate the constraints which are stated in (4.20) and (4.181), if Extraposition from NP is allowed to precede transformations like Question and Relative Clause Formation. The solution is obvious: the Frozen Structure Constraint can be dispensed with if the rule of Extraposition from NP is made a last cyclic rule (recall that there is independent evidence that this rule is not cyclic, since it must follow Particle. Movement) , and if it follows all movement rules, in particular ,Question and Relative Clause Formation. 296 5.1.1.4. Since the structure of the argument I have just presented is highly complex, a review of the main points may prove helpful. 1. Extraposition is last-cyclic. There are two arguMents for this: (a) if it were cyclic, sentences like (5.5) would be .assigned the wrong d.c.s., unless some independently motivated surface structure adjustment rule can be formulated in such a way as to automatically convert (5.9) into (5.6), and (b) it must follow Particle Movement, which ,the facts of sentence (5.15) show to be last-cyclic. 2. If Extraposition is last-cyclic, unless it is constrained in some new way, deep structures like (5.17) will be converted into ungrammatical strings like (5.13) 3. . The A-over-A principle, though it might be used to block (5.18), cannot be used to block sentences like (5.21), which involve both Extrapostiton and Exraposition from NP, unless it can be argued that these two rules should be collapsed into one rule. 297 4. Extraposition must precede ausgm, because while no .elements of subject clauses may be moved out, of these lauses, by virtue of the Sentential Subject Constraint, (4.254), if these clauses have been extraposed, elements in :them become movable (compare (4.251b) and (4.251c)). 5. All movement rules, in particular guessioE., must precede Extraposition from NP, or else the Frozen Structure Constraint, an.otherwise unnecessary condition, which in essence repeats provisions of the Complex NP Constraint and the Left Branch Condition, must be added to the theory of grammar. 6. Since one precedes and the other foliows Question, Extraposition and Extraposition from NP cannot be collapsed into one rule. In the derivation of sentences like (5.35b), the four rules of Particle Movement, Extraposition, Question, and Extraposition from NP must all apply, in the order 1:;.sted. 'c ' 298 Therefore, ungrammatical sentences like 7. (5.21) cannot be excluded by any version of the, A.-ver-A pr4n^4p1e,. Conclusion: some new type of restriction on rules must be devised and added to the theory of grammar. 5.1.2. Sentences like (5.21), which the argument above shows 5.1.2.1. not to be excludable by any presently available theoretical mechanism, can be blocked if rules can make reference to the boundaries of the first sentence above the elements being operated on. I will refer to a rule as being upward bounded if elements moved by that rule cannot be To give a concrete example, the rule of moved over this boundary. Extraposition must be marked as being upward bounded. This means that when the structure shown in (5.43) is inspected to determine whether the structural description shown in (4.126) is satisfied, and if so, how the operation of the rule_is.to be carried out, by universal convention, the variable Y in term 4 of (4.126) will be interpreted as ranging over all nodes of the tree which are below the first double line above the nodes Of (5.43) which could be affected by the rule -- S2, S3, and S 4. change of (4.126), that the And the instruction in the structural S .of term 3. is to be adjoined to the 299 variable in term 4, will be interpreted to mean that the S is to ^be adjoined to the largest part of the tree consistent with this convention. That is, the S will move to the right,up to the first double line. S2, Thus depending on whether Extraposition moves S3, or S4, or any combination of these, (5.43) will become one of the eight sentences of (5.44). 10 (5.43) is not true wou con use t_e_mards for Herschel to throw a fit 300 (5.44) a. That that for Herschel to throw a fit would confuse the guards was obvious is not true. b. It is not true that that for Herschel to throw a fit would confuse the guards was obvious. c.. That it was obvious that for Herschel to throw a lit would confuse the guards is not true. d. It is not true that it was obvious that for Herschel to throw a fit would confuse the guards. e. That that it would confuse the guards for Herschel to throw a fit was obvious is not true. f. It is not true that that it would confuse the guards for Herschel to throw a fit was obvious. g. That it was obvious that it would confuse the guards for Herschel to throw a fit is not true. h. It is not true that it was obvious that it would confuse the guards for Herschel to throw a fit. 301. The ungrammaticality of (5.21) shows that the rule of atraposition from NP must also be designated as an upward bounded rule. 5.1.2.2. It seems that it is necessary to postulate yet a third extraposition-like rule, to account for related pairs of sentences like those in (5.45)'. (5.45) a. A review of this article came out yesterday. b. A review came out yesterday of this article. It seems possible that the maximally general formulatiaa of this rule, which is given in (5.46) may prove correct. (5.46) Extraposition of PP X - NP]Np - Y OPT 1 2 3 1 0 3+2 Arguments similar to those given in rule to be necessarily last-cyclic. - § 5.1.1 show this Firstly, if it were in the cycle, it would convert (5.48), which underlies (5.47) into (5.49) , instead of converting it into (5.50). (5.47) A review seems to have come out yesterday of this article. (5.48) *vP NI' V ,,'///( it for NP to have come out yesterday. NP NP a review this article of (5.49) P a review NP seems 77' to have come out yesterday / P of this article (5.50) NP NP a review to have comajltatai.15Ierla of seems this article Like (5.9) and (5.27), (5.49) makes incorrect claims about intuitions of constituency -- it claims that the string to have come otitiesterlaoftlzA.sarticle is a constituent -- but unlike these.two previous structures, it seems unlikely that the rule which converts (5.12) into a coordinate structure can be extended to effect the conversion of (5.49) into(5.50). Thus if Extraposition of PP is made a cyclic rule, some new surface structure adjustment rule will be necessary. Secondly, in order to produce intercalated structures like those of sentences (5.51), (5.51) Why don't you pick some review up of this article? it will be necessary to order Extraposition of PP, after the last-cyclic rule of Particle Movement. , Thus it too must be last-cyclic. And finally, unless it is last-cyclic, it will be necessary to add the constraint stated in (5.52) to the theory of grammar, (5.52) If a prepositional phrase has been extraposed out of a noun phrase, neither that noun phrase nor any element of the extraposed prepositional. phrase can be moved. 4 .11...0 - 304 for if (5.53a) is converted by (5.46) into (5.53b) neither of the underlined NP's in (5.53b) can be questioned, as the impossibility of (5.53c) and (5.53d) shows. (5.53) a. Ann is going to send a picture of Chairman Mao to her teacher, as soon as she gets home. b.' Ann is going to send a picture to her teacher of Chairman Mao, as soon as she gets home. c. * Which picture is Ann going. to send to her teacher of Chairman Mao as soon as she gets home? d. * Who is Ann going to send a picture to her teacher of, as soon as she gets home? But just as condition (5.42) can be dispensed with by making Extraposition from NP last-cyclic, so (5.52) can be if Extraposition of PP is last-cyclic. But if the above three arguments are correct, then the fact that (5.54) can be converted into the structure underlying (5.55a), but not that underlying (5.55b),Ahows that it too must be designated as being upward bounded. (5.54) vP is catastrop ic 11 it that NP VP NP came out yes 0 a review of (5.55) a. this article That a review came out yesterday of this article is catastrophic. b. * That a review came out yesterday is catastrophic of this article. It seems to me to be passible to collapse ....2Copleas.NP Shift, (3.26), and Extraposition of PP, removing condition 1 on (3.26), which specifies that only NP dominating stipulating that condition 2 S can undergo the rule, and applies only if the does not begin with a preposition. NP to be shifted The removal of the first condition will mean that (5.56b), which results from the application of the rule 306 to (5.56a), will not be considered to be ungrammatical, but rather unacceptable, and to be so designated by Output Condition (3.41). (5.56) a. I'll give some to my good friend from Akron. b. * I'll give to my good friend from Akron some. I will henceforth refer to this rule, which is stated in (5.57), as NP Shift. (5.57) NP Shift X - NP - Y OPT 1 2 3 1 0 3+2 Condition 1: This rule is last-cyclic. Condition 2: BLOCKS if 3 = X 1 + [ +Adj,i + X2 where there exists no dominates g# [P 5.1.2.3. NP which +V f NP)NP. Whether or not I am correct in assuming that Complex NP Shift and Extra position of PP importance at present. are the same rule is not of great The generalization stated in (5.58) remains true no matter how many rules (5.57) must be broken down into 2 (5.58) Any rule whose structural index is of the form ... A Y, that A and whose structural change specifies is to be adjoined to the right of . Y, is upward bounded. I know of no exceptions to this generalization. It is probably impossible to maintain that all rules which adjoin terms to the left of a variable are upward bounded, unless the following facts can be explained in some other way than the one I will propoie below. Observe first that sentence (5.59) is ambiguous. (5.59) I promised that he would be there around midnight. The adverb around rid12ight can either modify be as in (5.60), which is the d.c.s. of one of the readings of (5.59), or it can modify promised, in (5.61), which is the d.c.s. of the other reading. (5.60) promised NP that he would be there aroun nigt. *a. 308 (5.61) NP around midnight NP pis d 1 tha would be there he If the adverb is preposed to the front of (5.59), with normal intoLation, the resulting sentence, (5.62), is unambiguous:11 (5.62) Around midnight I promised that he would be there. (5.62) can only be derived from (5.61). This can be demonstrated by a consideration of_(5.63). (5.63) I promised that .he would be there tomorrow. This sentence, unlike (5.59), is unambiguous, and can only be assigned a structure similar to (5.60), for tomorrow cannot modify the past tense verb 22.2119122.d. Now note that the rule of Adverb Preposing, which converts (5.59) into (5.62), cannot convert (5.63) into (5.64), for (5.64) is ungrammatical unless. tomorrow bears heavy stress. 309 (5.64) Tomorrow I promised chat he would be there. The adverb tomorrow can be proposed, but only to the front of the #4,^ ...so. eirml,c,AAc.A (5.65) .c.44 /C 401 vreva/flo I promised that tomorrow he would be there. Similarly, on the reading of S5.59) where the adverb modifies the embedded verb, as in (5.60), it can be preposed to yield (5066). (5.66) I promised that around midnight he would be there. Thus it seems that we must propose the following rule: (5.67) Adverb Preposing12 X- f+Adverbi - 'Y OPT> 1 2 3 2 + 1 0 3 Condition 1: This rule is last-cyclic. Condition 2: This rule is upward bounded. It should be obvious why this rule must be last - cyclic: if it were cyclic, it would cause the structural descriptions of such cyclic rules as Equi NP Deletion, Complementizer Placement, Passive and It Replacement to be complicated. However, if it is a last-cyclic rule, the only way to prevent the adverb around midnight from incorrectly being proposed to the front of to the front of 01 in (5:60) , instead of S2,. J.s to mark it as being upward bounded. 310 But now let us reconsider sentences (5.62) and (5.64), when tae preposed adverbs have heavy stress. Sentence (5.62) becomes ambiguous, and sentence (5.64), ungrammatical without such a stress, becomes grammatical Such stress and intonation also appears in such sentences as those in (5.68): (5.68) a. Beans I don't like. b. Proud of hip. live never been. Such sentences are generated by (4.185), the rule of Topicalization. Topicalization is-not a_bounded rule, as such examples as (5.69) show. (5.69) Beans I don't think you'll be able to convince me. Harry has ever tasted in his life. In light of these remarks about Topicalization, it seems reasonable to suppose that the versions of (5.62) and (5.64) in which the preposed adverbs have heavy stress shoulA be analyzed as resulting from the applicatica, cf the rule of 22picalization, not Acl?.erkPre252s1.2.n. Thus these facts seem to indicate that there is a syntactic minimal pair here: while all rules which adjoin elements to the right of variables are upward bounded, rules which adjoin elements to the left of variables must be marked idiosyncratically, for some are upward bounded, and some are not. There is, however, one possibility of avoiding such a conclusion. It is possible that topicalized sentences such as (5.64), Opiwile 33.1 (5.68), and (5.69) should not be derived directly by the rule of Topicalization which was stated in (4.185), but rather from such "cleft sentences" as those in (5.70), by means of a rule which deletes the it, the copula and the relative pronoun in these sentences (sometimes obligatorily), thus converting them into the corresponding topicalized sentences. (5.70) a. It was tomorrow that I promised that he would be there. .b. It is beans that I don't like. c.?* It is proud of him that I have never been. d. It is beans that I don't think you'll be able to convince me Harry has ever tasted in his life. But while such a derivation is possible, I know of no compelling arguments which indicate that it is necessary. And until such arguments can be found, the generalization stated in (5.58) cannot be extended. Nevertheless, the fact that (5.58) holds in all cases I know of in which terms are permuted rightwards around variables means that it is not necessary to complicate the formulations of the three rules of Losition, Extraposition from NP, and NP Shift which would have to be given in the grammar of English or of any other particular language. In other words, while neither the principle of the transformational cycle, nor the AoverA principle, nor any of the constraints discussed in Chapter 4)is poWerful enough to block the 312 derivation of such sentences as (5.21) or (5.55b), this can be accomplished by defining a notion of bounding and adding the empirical generalization the coLah , aeu la (5.58) to _ _ .1 Tr, rho fnlinwin3 sections I will theory. show that the notion of bounding is necessary.to account for other kinds of facts as well. A 6. it, 3 5.1.3.1, In this section, I will show that the notion of bounding is useful in restricting the power of rules which introduce features, as well as movement rules like those discussed in E 5.1.2. One well- known rule of this type is the rule of Indefinite Incorporation, (5.71) which Klima proposed in his important article "Negation in English" (Klima (1964)). (5.71) Indefinite Incorporation a. X - (+ Affective] b. Indeterminate] -- 1- 2 - 3 - 4 1- 2 - 3 - 4 X - Indeterminate] - 5 -1 - 5 Indef site Y (+ Affective] 11 4 2 Indeterminate - 5 3 In this rule, negatives, questions, the word only in refers to as certain contexts, and certain lexical items which Klima "adversatives" (op. cit. p. 314) trigger the change from indeterminate 313 quantifiers like some, to indefinite ones like ay: Klima uses the feature change. Affective] to mark those elements which can trigger this Some examples of the effects of (5.71) can be seen by comparing the sentences of (5.72) with their corresponding members in (5.73). .(5.72) a. * I won't have some money. b.. I fwill; tdon t ask you to believe that he tried to force and to give her some money. c. Do you think that he sometimes went there alone? at he sometimes went there alone is d. certain odd e. Do you be eve (the claim) that somebody was looking for something? f. I never met that man who somebody tried to kill. (5.73) a. I won't have any money. b. I won t ask you to believe that he trie'd to force me to give her any money. c. Do you think that he ever went thre alone? d. That he ever went there alone is odd Do you believe (*the claim) that anybody was looking for anything? f. * I never met that man who anybody tried to kill. 13 314 The ungrammaticality of (5.72a) shows that there are cases where the rule is obligatory. 44 16.&41.4.V. 1J ^ &4V 64GgcsiVG .1.44 The ungrammaticality of (5.73b), Jw J.wAlwwdb.J...w we IMUw ALJA4.1.0211.iVG Vd. 1.4iG 11141G a.w.:41. that some's can be converted into any's indefinitely far away from the triggering (+Affective] element. (5.73c) shows that the change can take place in questions, and (5.73d) shows why rule (5.71) must be formulated in such a way that the change can operate backwards as well as forwards, and also that the adjectives certain and odd must differ in their marking for the frature [Affective]: the first must be marked (-Affective], the second (+Affective]. With respect to such sentences as (5.73b), which show the infinite scope of (5.71), Klima remarks.thatthe change can take place in the same clause as the one in which, the (+Affective] element appears, or in any clause subordinate to it. The definition of "subordinate" which he proposes makes use of the notion in construction with, which I will discuss in' §-5.2.2 below, but this notion is not powerful enough to block (5.73f) or the version of (5.73e) in which the head noun the claim appears. The fact that (5.71) will neither go down into clauses in apposifion to sentential nouns nor into relative clauses makes it similar to .:eordering transformations like Question and Relative Clause Formation in a way which I will argue in § 6.4 is anything but coincidental. NOt1 3/4:e that there are other environments in which some is not converted to am. The sentences in (5.74) must not be operated upon by rule (5.71) to produce the ungrammatical strings of (5.75). ' - - rii:' r 315 (5.74) a. Tom told somebody that he wasn't sick. b. That Sam smetines didq't sleep must have pleased somebody. c. Buffy couldn't do 100 pushups and somebody laughed. * Tom told anybody that he wasn't sick. (5.75) b. * That Sam sometimes didn't sleep must have pleased anybody. c. * Buffy couldn't do 100 pushups and anybody laughed. The sentences in (5.74) have the structures shown in (5.76). (J.76) a. NP NP Tom told ,somebody that NP he wasn't sick Amiiip.IMIN11100.0.111111 316 (5.76) b. must have pleased somebody. VP sometimes didn't sleep (5.76) c. Billy couldn't do 100 pushup If one thinks of rule (5.71) in slightly metaphorical terms, imagining the (+Affective] element as being a source which "broadcasts" the feature (+Indefinite] through the tree, the ungrammatical sentences in (5.75) can be blocked, provided that this broadcasting is upward bounded, and is not permitted to cross the first double line up from the (+Affective] source. In other words, while rule (5.71) can effect changes indefinitely far down the tree from the element that causes the change, no elements of sentences higher, up the tree than this element will be affected. Restricting the rule of Indefinite Incorporation by making it upward bounded, in .the sense I have just discussed, is adequate to the task of excluding the sentences in (5.75), but it is not strong enough to block (5.73e) and the ungrammatical version of (5.730. problems posed by these sentences will be taken up again in below. The § What concerns us at present is not a more precise statement of rule (5.71), but rather the following generalization about all rules of the same form as this rule: (5.77) All feature-changing rules except Pronominalization rules are upward bounded, By "feature-changing rule" I mean any rule whose structural index is of the form (5.78a), and whose structural change (5.78b) or (5.78c). if of the form o.f. (5.78) a. b. CO ... Al 0.. A2 ... 2 Al 0,0 [ Al] [ A21 J Odle A ... 2 4.F That it is necessary to specifically exclude rules of pronominalization from the generalization in (5.77) can be seen from (5.79a) and (5.79b), which are of exactly the same syntactiz type as 318 (5.74b) and (5.74c). The latter two become ungrammatical if rules like (5.71) are allowed to apply to them, .while the former two cause no problems under pronominalization operations, as the grammaticality of the sentences in (5.80) shows. (5.79)a.ThatSam.sometimes didn't sleep must have pleased Sami. b. Billyi couldn't do 100 pushups, and Billyi broke dow' and cried. 0.80a.That8am.sometimes didn't sleep must have pleased himi. b. Billyi couldn't do 100 pushups and hei broke down and cried. It is at present an unexplained mystery why it is that rules of pronominalization do not conform to (5.77). in It will be seen below that these rules violate another extremely general § 6.4 constraint on feature-changing rules, again, for no presently explicable reason. But the larzbe number of feature-changing rules which are upward bounded, of which the rules in the next section constitute a small sample, suggest to me that (5.77) is essentially correct, and that other factors must be involved in pronominalization. 5.1.3.2. 5.1.3.2.1. As a second example of an upward bounded feature-changing rule, let us consider facts from Finnish which are closely related to the facts of Indefinite Into oration L. English. 319 The Finnish verb tuomaan 'to bring' normally takes an accusative direct object, as in (5.81). (5.81) kirjan. (ginU)1.16in brought the book (ace.): Although it is possible to construct sentences such as (5.82), where the object NE's is in the partitive case, such sentences are unusual and would only be used to convey some such meaning as "I spent my whole life bringing the book." (5.82) To in kirjaa. brought the book (part.).' But if sentence (5.81) is negated, as in (5.83), the object NP must be converted, to the partitive case. (5.83) En tuonut kirjaa. Not I brought the book (part.) . 'I didn't bring the book.' The presence of a negative in a higher sentence can cause accusatives to change to partitives in sentences indefinitely far down the tree from the negative morpheme. (5.84) shows a simple case where an element of an originally embedded (5.84) En pyytanyt not I asked hUnta tuomaan him S changes its case. kirjaa. to bring a. book (part.). 'I didn't ask him to bring a book.' Inspection of various other facts, which I will not take up in detail here, reveals that the Finnish rule, unlike the English rule, 320 cannot go backwards, so the rule can be formulated, in first approximation, as in (5.85). (5.85) Finnish Partitive Iatroduction Q, X - [-i-Neg] Y - [-i-acc] - Z OBLIG - 2 I. - 2 -3-3- -5 4 [ 4 I -- 5 +parti Since this rule has the form of (5.78), (5.77) will make it upward bounded. following sentences. That this is necessary can be seen from the If (5.84) is changed so that the negative morpheme en is reuoved, and the subject mina 'I' is replaced by a NP containing a relative clause in which a negative appears, as in (5.86), kirjan) (5.86) Poika joka ei Boy who mennyt pyytUnyt hentU tuomaan not went him asked kirja4 to bring book The boy who didn't go asked him to bring a book.' then it is no longer possible to have the object NP of the verb tuomaan'to bring' in the partitive case, except with the unuzual sense of (5.82). The structure of (5.86) is that shown in (5.87) - - I 1 In allt 321 (5.87) _NP N poika NP .1.21ca rei V 0. L+Neg.I jensit and since the negative morpheme ei is to the left of and below the double line emanating-from the NP S2 in (5.87), if (5.85) is upward bounded, kirjan (acc.) 'book' will correctly be prevented from being converted to kiriaa (part,) 'book'. Another case showing the same restriction is that of (5.88a), which rule (5.85) must change to (5.88b), but not (5.88c). (5.88) a. b. En tuonut kirjan, mutta toin Not I-brought book (add.), but En mutta toin tuonut kirjaa, Not I brought book (part.), but lehden. I brought paper (acc. lehden. I brought paper (ace. 'I didn't bring the book, but I brought the paper.' 322 c. * En tuonut kirjaa, mutta toin Not I brought book (part.), but I brought paper (part. Since the structure of (5.88b) is that shown in (5.89), it is clear that upward bounding will once again suffice to prevent the undesired change from taking place. (5.89) en tuonut kir aa- 5.1.3.2.2. mutta'toin lehden In Russian, too, there_is_a rule which changes case in the presence of negatives. So while the direct object to 'this' in (5.90a) is accusative, if the negative inorpheaie ne is introduced, eto (acc.) is changed to etovo (gen.). (5.90) a. ja eto sdelal this (acc.) did 'I did this.' b. ja etovo ne sdelal this (gen.) not did '1 didn't do this.' lehted, 323 A negative in a higher clause can cause cases to change in infinitival complements, under various complicated conditions which I will not deal with here. (5.91) ja ne I (5.91) .s one example of such a change. xocu eto etovo sdelat1 not want this (aL. or gen.) to do 'I don't want to do this.' It is not clear to me that examples (5.91), where the genitive case depends on a higher negative, can be extended to any desired length, as is the case in English and Finnish (cf., (5.73b)), for the restrictions on this Russian rule have to do with the verbs of the sentences separating the negative element from the accusative noun phrase wh:,,ch the rule is to operate on. example, the verb xotet For !want' allows the negative to affect noun phrases in Its complement, while the verb nacat. 'begin' does not. The class of verbs like xo,_ tet, appears to be small, and it may not be possible to construct sentences of any desired length in which there are unbroken sequences of adjacent sentences who main verbs not are of this class. If this impossible, it may be possible to reformulate the rule I give below in (5.92) in such a way that no variable is necessary between terms 2 and 4. In this case, the facts of (5.93) and (5.94) would not constitute proof that (5.92) must be upward bounded, so these facts from Russian could not be used in support of (5.77). 324 (5.92) Russian Genitive Introduction15 X- [.+Negi Y 1- 2 - 3 - 1- 2 3 [+acc] - Z I 4 - 5 4 -5 L--genj If it is necessary to state this rule with a variable as term 3, then facts which parallel those of (5.86) and (5.88) can be adduced to show that (5.92) must be upward bounded. rule can change vodku (acc.) 'vodka' to vodki16 , While the thereby converting (5.93a) to (5.93b), it must be prevented from converting eto to etovo to yield the ungrammatical (5.93c). (5.93) a. 61ovek kotoryj ne pil man who vodku sdelal eto. not drank vodka (acc.) did this (acc. 'The man who didn't drink vodka did this.' b. celovek kotoryj ne man who pil vodki sdelal eto." not drank vodka (gen.) did 'The man who didn't drink vodka did this.' c. * Celovek kotoryj ne pil vodki sdelal etovo. As was the case in Finn...sh, since the negative morpheme is in a relative clause, it can effect no changes in higher levels of the tree -- (5.92) must be upward bounded. And for the same reasons that (5.88a) could be converted to (5.88b), but not to (5.88c), (5,94a) must be converted to (5.94b), but cannot be converted to (5,94c). this (5.94) a. ja eto I ne sdelal, no this (ace.) not did eto ja sdelal but this (acc.) I did 'I didn't do this, but I did do this.' b. ja etovo I ne sdUal, no this (gen.) not did, eto ja sdelal. but this (acc,) I did 'I didn't do this, but I did do this.' c. * ja etovo ne sdelal, no etovc ja sdelal. The structure of (5.94b) is that shown in (5.95):' (5.95) ja etovo ne,delal no eto is sdelal Since the negative morpheme ne is upward bounded, the eto (acc.) in the second clause will be prevented from being converted to etovo (gen.), and the ungrammatical (5.94c) will not be generated. 5.1.3.2.3. As was noted in footnote 15, the Russian rule of Reflexivization can affect noun phrases which were in different clauses in deep structure. An example of the operation of this rule is provided in (5.96), where (5.96a) is obligatorily converted to (5.96b). 326 (5.96) a. * on i uvaYajet i him (ace.) respects he b. jevo oni uvazajetsebjai 'He himself.' respects III An example showing the conversion of an NP which is the object of an infinitive into a reflexive pronoun is the optional change of (5.97a) into (5.97b). a. (5.97) b. on. sostavil menja uvazat, 'He me forced to respect ljevoi 17 i::::jai himself The rule which effects these changes is approximately that stated in (5.98). (5.98) Reflexivization X - NP - Y - NP - = 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 5 L+Refl-.1 Condition: 2 = 4 By the generalization in (5.77), this rule will be marked as being upward bounded. That this is necessary can be seen from the fact that (5.99a) cannot be converted into (5.99b) by rule (5.98). 327 (5.99) vze,raina kotoruju on a. who woman menja uvazat, me i he ljubil sostavila loved forced' jevoi. to respect him 'The woman who he loved forced me to respect him.' b. * v zenscvv ina kotoruju on i ljubil sostavila menja uvaIat, sebjai. The string of words in (5.99b) is a grammatical sentence,. and can mean either 'The woman who he loved forced me to respect her', or'The woman who he loved forced me to respect myself.' But it cannot be synonymous with (5.99a), which is the reading which is of Literest here. Since (5.99a) has the structure shown in (5.100), the fact that (5.98) is upward bounded will prevent this undesired conversion from taking place. (5.100) NP////7 V Y ZengLna S kotoraia V71 sostavila f1/4 NP VP .oni ljubq . NP uvazvat i2Y21 328 Similarly, (5.101a) must not be converted into (5.101b). (5.101). a. oni: ljubit YenMinu, 'Hei loves i ja uvadju jevoi. the woman, and I respect himi.' v vv, b. * oni ljubit z enscInu, i ja uvazV skju sebjai. Once again, (5.101b) has a meaning, but not the same meaning that (5.101a) has. It means 'He loves the woman, and I respect myself.' Since (5.101a)has the structure shown in (5.102), (5.102) on liubit'zenscinu i j a uvazaju levo this conversion will be prevented by the fact that rule (5.98) is upward bounded. At present, (5.98) is still too strong, for it will allow (5.103a) to be converted into (5.103b). (5.103) a. on znaet sto ona ljubit jevo.2. 'Hei knows that she loves himi.' b. * oni znaet sto ona ljubit sebjai. While (5.103b) can mean 'He knows that she loves herself', it cannot be synonymous with (5.103a). Therefore, reflexives must 329 somehow be prevented from being introduced into subordinate clauses. § 6.4 I will defer discussion of this pro-.?em until 5.1.3.2.4. below. In Japanese, the reflexive pronoun zibun, which, like sebia, is used for all persons, can be introduced into clauses, as the conversion of (5:104a) into (5.104b), whose structure is shown. in (5.105), demonstrates: (5,104) a. Mary Mary i wa kare ga byooki de aru to i she , sick koto o sinzite iru.- fact believing is. is that say 'Meryi believes that shei is sick.' b. Mary wa zibun i ga byooki de aru to koto o sinzite iru. (5.105) loyooki de aru tt iu 330 As a first approximation, it appears that the Japanese rule of Reflexivization can be stated the same way the Russian rule was. And, just as the Russian rule is, the Japanese rule must be upward bounded. (5.106a), whose This can be seen from the fact that structure is shownfin (5.107), cannot be converted to (5.106b). (5.106) 'a. atta to Maryi ga byooki de was sick Mary karei ni akiraka to obvious she iu koto wa that say fact de atta. was. 'That Maryi was sick was obvious to here' koto wa b. * Maryi ga byooki de atta to zi buni ni akiraka de atta. 18 . (5.107) 5) iu koto wa to karei.ni Mary g a iraka de atta byooki de atta .- *f 331. NP Since the circled antecedent in (5.107) is to the left of and below a double line, as seen from the boxed NP, upward bounding will prevent rule (5.98) from converting this structure --- into (5.106b) . 5.1.3.2.5. For a sixth example of a feature-chanoing rule which is The rule stated in (5.108) upward bounded, let us return to Finnish. (5.108) Finnish Nominative Introduction [+acci V x -Pro_i 1 2 3 1 2 3 y. 4 1 4 accounts for the fact that in sentences whose subjects have been deleted, e.g., in impersonal sentences,or ia imperatives like (5.110b), all non-pronominal noun phrases in the accusative case are converted to the nominative case. Thus in (5.109), which at this stage of the derivation still has a subject mint, 'I', the direct objects of the verbs zyyte 'to ask' and tuomaan 'to bring' appear in the accusative case. (5.109) Mina koetin 'I pyytaa- pojan am trying to ask tuomaan the boy (acc.) to bring kirjan. the book (acc.).' But in the structure underlying an imperative sentence, after the subject NP 'sins 'you' has been deleted, as in (5.110), the direct objects must be converted to the nominative case. become (5.110b) . Thus (5.110a) must 332 (5.110) a. Koeta pyytad pojan try b. to ask the boy (ace.) to bring the book (acc.) tuomaan Koeta pyytad poika 'Try kirjan. tuomaan kirja. to ask the boy (nom.) to bring the book (nom.). That (5.108) must be upward bounded can be seen from the fact that (5.11a), whose structure is that shown in (5.112), into (5.111b) , 19 must be converted and not into (5...111c). (5.111) a. ja mita tuon kirjan, Tuo you bring the book (ace.) and I will bring lehden. the paper (acc.) b. Tuo kirja, ja mina, tuon lehden. 'Bring the book (nom.), and I'll bring the paper (acc. c. * Tuo kirja (nom.), ja mina tuon lehti (nom.). (5.112) NP VP V t U0 NP mina 'tuon lehden So".4.011Metasra. 333 5.1.3.2.6. The last feature - changing rule which I will discuss in support of (5.77) is the rule which changes tense, ill some contexts obligatorily, so that it agrees with the tense of some other verb in the sentence. Thus while both is and was are possible in (5.113), only was is in (5.114) . 20 out. (5.113) I. believe that the sun s (5.114) I believed that the sun *is as a ws out. Although much more research must be done on this, traditional phenomenon of sequence of tenses, it seems reasonable to me to assume that the rule which effects the change of tense must be formulated roughly as shown in (5.115). 'Sequence of Tenses (5.115) a. X -144/ L aTensei Y 1 2 3 1 2 3 HAT] 4 Z 5 [aT:nse] 4-11 b. X - PV] 1 [ Y aTensej 2 3 4 2 j 3 6 5 aTens It is necessary to formulate this rule so that it can apply in both diretions, so that sentences like (5.116) will be excluded. (5.116) * That the sun is out was obvious. .,& 11: That this, rule is far too strong can be seen from the fact that it would only allow the version of (5.113) ia which is appears to be generated. This indicates that the tense agreement which rule (5.115) effects is much too simple-minded a change, and that the correct rule will have to provide fox a much more complex mapping. It is equally obvious, upon a moment's introspection, that (5.115) must be upward bounded, so that it will allow the generation of both versions of (5.117). (5.117) Taat I believed that the sun was out is was obvious. If rule (5.115) were not upward bounded, it would make all the tenses in (5.117) agree with believed (or with one of the other verbs in (5.117)), thus making the incorrect claim chat sentences cannot "mix tenses", and that the version of (5.117) containing is is ungrammatical. The six examples in this section of upward bounded featurechanging rules provide compelling evidence that the generalization expressed in (5.77) is a correct one. generalization will be taken up in In 5.1.4.. § 5.1.2 and Furthe: consequences of this § 6.4 below. § 5.1.3, I have presented evidence which indicates that it must be possible to limit the upward range of application of both reordering transformations and feature-changing In this section I will discuss three cases which suggest that rules. , . 335 it is also necessary to be able to limit the downward range. For a first example, let us ,*c.,14,-°ct our attention to the English rule of Refle.x4v4-":4^,.. rn & 41;6 above; I mentioned that in Lees and Klima (1963), the term "simplex sentence" is us ad to restrict the scope of application of this rule. should now be raised is the following one: The question which should both this notion and the notion of upward bounding be defined in the theory of grammar? Or should the former notion be defined as a conjunction of upward bounding and a new kind of bounding -- downward bounding? A rule is upward bounded if it cannot permute constituents into,, or change features in, a higher clause, and, correspondingly, a rule would be downward bounded if it could not effect such changes in lower clauses. It seems to me to be desirable to "decompose" the notion of simplex sentence into the two notions of upward and downward bounding, for the following reasons. Firstly, the arguments in the previous sections indicate that regardless what decision is made with respect to the English rule of Reflexivization, the notion of upward bounding must appear as an element of the theory of grammar. To characterize the difference between the English and the Japanese rules of Reflexivization, some auxiliary primitive term must be added to the theory -- either simplex sentence or downward boundtaa. If the former term is chosen, then the fact that the restrictions on the English rule are in part universal cannot be captured. For the fact that elements of higher clauses cannot be reflexivized in English is a 336 consequence of (5.77), since Lailexivization; is a feature-changing rule, The only way to express the fact that the English rule is partly universal, within a theory which only contains the primitives is to complicate (5.77) in an lipward boundiag and simplex ad hoc way, as has been done in (5.118). (5.118) 'All feature-changing rules are either upward bounded or restricted to apply within a simplex sentence. Since the notion of simplex sentence would be unanalyzed within such a theory, it would be impossible to capture the intuition that the a English rule is identical to the Japanese rule (or to the Russian rule -- all three can be stated as in (5.98)), except for containing an additional restriction which is not stated on the latter two rules. So for the purposes of the present discussion, I will assume that the theory contains as primitives the notions of upward and downward bounding. This assumption will be modified in § 5.2 below. The second example of a rule which requires the use of the notion of downward bounding is the Scramblin&lule, (3.48), which was discussed in § 3.1.2 above. As noted in the condition on (3.48), major elements in a Latin sentence can scramble, provided that they are in the same clause. This restriction on (3.48), the statement of which required quantifiers (cf. Ch. 3 footnote 7), can now be achieved by marking (3.48) as a rule which is upward and downward bounded. 4 << 21 337 The third case where downward bounding seems to be necessary, although not sufficient, is in connection with the rule of Serbo-Croation Clitic Placement, (3.63), which was discussed in 5 3.1.4 above. There I pointed out that clitics must be moved so that they follow the first constituent of the first sentence up -- thus the rule must be upward bounded. However, it is also necessary to stipulate that (3.63) be downward bounded, so that the clitics cannot be inserted after the first element of a sentential subject clause. In other words, the circled clitic in (5.119) must not be allowed to follow V"' the path of the dotted arrow, but only that of the solid arrow. (5.119) NP `1 VP ///\\ NP VP EP, Such an incorrect positioning of a clitic can be avoided if (3.63) is marked as being downward bounded, in addition to being upward bounded. The three cases I have just discussed indicate that an adequate theory of bounding 2.st countenance both upward and downward bounding. --^ At present, however, there is a puzzling redundancy, which 22 338 cries out for explanation: all downward bounded rules are upward bounded, but the converse is not true. That is, while there are rules whose scope extends indefinitely far down the tree from the triggering element or context, but does not extend upward,there are no rules whose scope extends indefinitely far up the tree, but not downward. I will present the first steps toward. an explanation of this asymmetry in 5.2. § 6.4 below. Command 5.2.1. 5.2.1.0. In § 5.1, I discussed several problems which necessitated the addition to linguistic theory of some new mechanism, and to this end I proposed the particular device of bounding. In this section, I will show that Langacker's notion of command can account for all the facts adduced in support of bounding, and in addition, facts which cannot be accounted for with bounding. Furthermore, I will show that Klima's notion in construction with is too weak to account for all facts which can be handled with command. 5.2.1.1. Langacker defines command in a definition which is equivalent to that staffed in (5.120) (cf. Langacker (1966) , p. 11): (5.120). Node A of a phrase marker commands node B if neither node dominates the other, and if node above B A. is dominated by the first node 'S 339 To give an example, in phrase-marker (5.121), A commands and is commanded by command each other. S2, F, and G E, F, B, and G C, and command command each other, as do S2, S2 command each other, and are commanded by only C, and D, E, F, G and and C and D D; A, and Sl. B, E. Nodes and C 14 D. and N A, B, S2 neither command nor are commanded by 11 N. A moment's reflection will convince one that command can be used in place of upward bounding in all feature-changing rules. For instance, to say that Indefinite Incorporation, (5.71), is upward bounded is to say that the feature [4, Affective] cannot "broadcast" the feature marker. Indefinite] upwards across double lines in a phrase- Rephrased in terms of command, the restriction would be that 340 Affective] element must command any (+ Indeterminate] element the to which it adds the feature ai a Indefinite]. - a- a - , I. J:._ A.CD43.1A06.Vi4 VA UpW4A04 UVUALU..0 rules discussed in § 5.1.3.2: r_ A.Vi. - It is simple to replace al a al.. a -a _2. & a a a &AUG V6liCir DAA AGAUUMG-41a46..a6 the rule of Finnish Nominative Introduction, (5.108) must have the restriction imposed on it that rule_ (5.115b.) must be restricted so that term 1 command term 3, term 4 commands term 2, and the condition, which must be imposed on the other five rules is that term 2 command term 4. Furthermore, just as it could be predicted that all feature-changing rules are upward bounded, the conditions stated in the last paragraph can be derived automatically from (5.122), which is the analog to (5.77). (5.122) Except for rules of pronominalization, in all feature-changing rules, elements to which features are added must be commanded by any non- variable terms appearing in the structural indices of the rule in question. 5.2.1.2. Langacker cites the rule of Indefinite Incorporation as an example of the usefulness of command, and on pp. 27-32, he discusses two examples of rules which move constituents and their relationship to his important notion of control. He does not consider rules such as Exaapsition, which the discussion in to be necessarily upward bounded. .- -r 1"-^1%.-, zvt, § 5.1 showed But once again, it is easy to 343. dispense with upward bounding as a device for preventing extraposed constituents from going too far. i &4446Ultioi If the, definition in (5.120) is .hat the relati-- ^1 ^^"""'" hAlA' not only between one node and another, but may hold between one node and a sequence of nodes, if and only if the first node commands each of the nodes in sequence, then instead of designating a rule A such as Extr4ositior., (4.126), as being upward bounded, we can impose the condition on it that the clause to be extraposed command Moreover, the variable in the fourth term of its structural index. the generalization expressed in (5.58), that all rules which adjoin a term to the right of a variable which occurs on the right end of at structural description are upward bounded, can be equally well expressed in ,terms of command, as in (5.123): (5.123) In all rules whose structural index is of the form ... A Y, and whose structural change specifies that A is to be adjoined to the right of Y, A must command Y. Having stated this generalization in the theory of grammar, it is not neccssary to attach any conditions to the rules of Extrapositinn from NP, (1.10), Extraposition, (4.126), and NP Shift, (5.57): (5.123) has the effect of constraining the structural changes of these rules the same way the conditions would. And it is evident that the operation of the upward bounded rule of AdverbtraogaR, (5.67), can be correctly discinguished froLkthat of the unbounded rule of:Topicalization, (4.185), 342 if a condition that term 2 command term 1 former rule, but not upon. the latter. is imposed upon the . Finally, note that all the cases presented in s 5.1.4 in support of downward bounding, which Y originally believed not to be accountable for within a theory of grammar in which only command be .accounted for by stating two conditions was available, can in in terms of command. That is,, instead of ensuring chat only elements of the same clause can be scrambled by designating the rule of Scrambling, (3.48), as being upward and downward bounded, this effect can be achieved by requiring that terms command each other. and 2 3 of rule (3.48) This condition makes it impossible for the elements being permuted in (3.48) to be in different clauses: member of a clause which did not contain command B, and conversely. B, if A were a then A would not To specify that two nodes command each other is to specify that each is dominated by the first node the other, and because of the formal properties of trees, S nodes must be the same. 23 S above these That is, two nodes which command each other are in the same simplex sentence. Although Langacker remarks in passing that it is possible to restrict the scope of a transformation by the use of double command conditions, he gives no examples where this device is necessary. should be clear that the other two examples cited in § It 5.1.4, the English. rule of Reflexivization and the rule of Serbo-Croatian Clitic Placement, can also be formulated in terms of double command. 343 Thus a theory in which command is an available primitive is at least as powerful as a theory which provides upward and downward bounding. Before showing that the former theory is stronger than the latter in a crucial way, I will digress to show that Klima's notion in construction with is not qtrong enough. 5.2.2.. Klima's notion is defined as in (5.124) (cf. Klima (1964), p. 297): Node A of a phrase - marker is in construction (5.124) with node B if B is dominated by the node which immediately dominates A. That this relation is stronger than command can be seen from (5.121), where only E, E F, and G command S2, A, B, C and D, but where is in construction with these latter five nodes. Klima proposes to constrain the operation of rule (5.71) by imposing on it the condition that the [-I- Affective] element be in construction with the j.f Indeterminate] element which is to be changed. That this condition is too strong can be seen from (5.125a), which (5.71) must be able to convert to (5.125b). (5.125) a. That Jack sometimes slept is impossible. b. That Jack ever slept is impossible. c. * That Jack ever slept is possible. The ungrammaticality of (5.125c) shows that it is the negative prefix int- that contains the feature Affective] and triggers the change. 344 But the structure which Klima would assign to (5.125) (cf., e.g., op. cit. p. 298, fig. 4) is that shown in (5.126), UMW (5.126) Pre. cate NP Aux that Jack sometimes slept_ tns Pre cate Prs possible fective] and in this structure, the circled node geg, which carries the feature [4. Affective], is not in construction with the occurrence of sometimes in the subject clause, although the latter word is commanded by the circled node. Thus with respect to rule (5.71) there is at least one structure for which Klima's notion produces the wrong results, and Langacker's notion the correct ones. Langacker's notion must therefore be chosen even if only the facts connected with rule (5.71) are taken into consideration. But there are even more important respects in which the As notion of command is superior to the urtion in construction with. 0 345 showed in 6 5.1.3.2, all feature-changing rules except rules of pronominalization are upward bounded. This extremely powerful gener- alization, to which I know of no counterexamples, can be restated - in terms of the notion of command, as was done in (5.122). But this generalization cannot be reformulated in terms of the notion in construction with. (5.127), in which I have stated such a reformulation, is too strong. (5.127) In all feature-changing rules, non-variable terms are in construction with the terms to which the features are added. To see that (5.127) is too strong, consider (5.128), the structure of (5.129a). (5.128) NP I talked Wins tons about Win tan i 346 (5.129) a. * I talked to Winstoni about Winston i him b. I talked to lelinstoni about himself Since the English rule of Reflexivization is a feature-changing rule, 24 and since the circled construction with the boxed NP NP node in (5.128) is not in node, generalization (5.127) would incorrectly prevent Reflexivization from converting (5.129a) into (5.129b). But Reflexivization is obligatory in such structures as (5.120, so (5.127) must be wrong. Another rule which provides counterevidence to (5.127) is the rule for Sequence of Tenses, (5.115). String (5.130a) must be converted into (5.130b) by this rule, (5.130) a. * That the sun is out was obvious. b. That the sun was out was obvious. but since the structure of (5.130a) is that shown in (5.131), (5.131) NP 41 that the sun is'out obvious 4-Pasti was . 1 347 where the tensed yell) was is not in construction with the verb is in the sentential subject, 25 the generalization in (5.127) would not .11ou the change to take place. The third argument for choosing command over in construction with is that while the important notion of simplex sentence can be captured by the use of two conditions making use of command, tLis cannot be done with the notion in construction with. To say that two nodes command each other is to say that they are elements of the same simplex sentence, but to say that they are in construction with each other is to say that they are siste'*s. The above arguments indicate that the notion of command cantlt be replaced by the notion in construction with, but of course they do not show that the latter notion cannot supplement the former in linguistic theory. To account for the facts in § 5.1 and § 5.2.3, the notion of command, or its equivalent, must be defined in linguistic theory. While the notion in construction with is not the equivalent of the notion of command, it is possible that phenomena will come to light whose analysis will necessitate the inclusion within linguistic theory of the former notion. At present, no such facts are known. 5.2.3. 5.2.3.1. In this section I will discuss two problems which can be solved within a theory in which command is defined, but not within one in which only bounding is available. a AV/ 348 Consider first the following facts about identity: John scratched his arm and (5.132) so did Mall' Mary did (so) too The second clauses of the sentences in (5432) are ambiguous - they could be derived from the structure underlying (5.133a) or the one underlying (5.133b). (5.133) a. Mary scratched her arm (too). b. Mary scratched John's arm (too). Thus it appears that linguistic identity must be defined in such away that the difference between his arm in the first clause of (5.132) and her arm in (5.133a) is "disregarded." However, it is not the case that all differences between pronouns can be disregarded: (5.134a) cannot be transformed into (5.134b). (5.134) a. John scratched his arm and the boy whc. knew Mary scratched her arm. b. John scratched his arm and the boy who Nary knew did so too. These facts can be accounted for if the following definition of identity is adopted in the theory of grammar: (5.135) 26 Constituents are identical if they have the same constituent structure and are identical morpheme for- morpheme, or if they differ only as to pronouns, where the pronouns in each of the identical constituents are commanded by antecedents in the non-identical portions of the phrase-marker. a . 349 Thus in (5.136), which underlies one reading of (5.132), the circled NP's John and Mary command the circled pronouns his and her, so deletion is possible under the definition given in (5.135). his arm On the other hand, in (5.137), which underlies (5.134), his, but the boxed NP J_ ohn commands Mary does not command its pronoun her, so (5.135) will not let the deletion go through. 350 (5.137) scratched The same facts obtain for right-to-left pronominalization: (5.138a) can be derived from (5.138b) ox (5.138c) , because the circled noun phrases command the pronouns which refer to.them. (5.138) a. 27 That the fuzz wanted him worried Inhni but it didn't worry Mary. b. That the fuzz wanted him worried, didn't worry that the fuzz' wanted c. That the fuzz wanted him worried Ch-t 43. fuz- Tri ^h ohm but Ynryt - 351 Note, however, that just as (5.137) cannot be converted into (5.134b), (5.139) cannot be converted into (5.140) the circled NP 'John a for while (5.139) commands its circled pronoun, him, the boxed NP Lam. does not command its boxed pronoun, her. (5.139) but VP N' didn't worry that the fuzz wanted that the fuzz wanted NP N_ NP thelia (5.140) who That the police wanted him worried Johns but it didn't worry the boy who Mary knew. know of no reason to assume that the relation of identity must be defined in language-particular terms, so some revised version of (5.135) will appear in the theory of grammar. And since (5.135) makes crucial use of the notion of command, this definition provides strong support for the hypothesis that command is a primitive term of the theory of 352 grammar, and not the notion of bounding. For notice that bout_ing,. was devised to restrict the scope of a process -- it has to do with the structural changes of rules which move constituents or features- - and that here some static relation is necessary, in order for the conditions under which a process can take place to be established. It is because of this difference in function that bounding is intrinsically unsuited to the task of defining 5.2.3.2. linguistic identity. It is for the same reason that command, but. not bounding, can handle the following facts. There is a well-known restriction that excludes negatives in than-clauses. 28 Somehow, all the sentences in (5.141) must be excluded, while the ones in (5.142) must be allowed. (5.141) a. * John is prouder of having gone than nobody expected me to believe he would be. b. * ....than John didn't expect me to believe ... c. * ....than John expected nobody to believe ... d. * ....than John expected me not to believe ... e. * than John expected me to believe not all my friends were. f. * ....than John expected me to believe that he wasn't. (5.142) a. John is prouder of having gone than people who don't know him would expect me to believe he would be. ....than Sally expected Joan tobelieve b. that the man who didn't shave would be. .,.than I expected you to believe he would c. be of not having fallen asleep. In other words, to exclude all negatives from than. clauses would be to incorrectly exclude the sentences in (5.142). The difference between (5.141) and (5.142) can be expressed naturally if conditions on rules can be stated which make use of command. To exclude the sentences in (5.141) it is sufficient to say "The feature (+negative] may not command the compared element in the than-clause. u29 Since the negative dements in (5.142a) and (5.142b) are in relative, clauses, they will command only the other elements of these clauses. And the not of (5.142c) is one clause lower than the compared adjective, proud, so all the sentences of (5.142) will be generated. Bit in each of the sentences in (5.141), proud is commanded by a negative element, so all will be blocked by the condition stated above. Once again, since what is required here is the statement of a static precondition for the operation of a rule, these facts cannot be accounted for with bounding. Therefore, in conjunction with the facts about identity discussed above, and the rules which Langacker discusses on pp. 27-33 (op. cit.), which require Langacker's principle of control for their correct application (this principle is also not susceptible of reformulation in terms of bounding), these :acts abo'it comparatives seem to me , make the choice between bounding and command 354 obvious: command, as defined in (5.120), is a part of the theory of gra=ar, while bounding is not. 5.3. Pronominalization 5.3.0. Thus far, in this work, I have discussed constraints on variables in reordering transformations (in Chapter 4 and in 5S 5.1.1 - 5.1.2) and constraints on variables in feature-changing rules (in 5.1.3 and § 5.2). There is another kind of process whose scope is unbounded, the statements of rules for which also make crucial use of variables 30 -- pronominalization. In § 5.3.1, I will discuss several kinds of pronominalization and show that not all transformations which delete under identity make crucial use of variables. In § 5.3.2, I will argue against Langacker's contention (cf. Langacker (op. cit.)) that constraints on variables in rules of pronominalization can be stated in terms of command. In § 5.3.3, I will discuss four 'rules of pronominalization, which appear, at least at the present state of knowledge, to have to be stated as distinct processes, showing that they obey the same constraint which the rule that introduces the definite pronouns is subject to. Finally, in § 5.3.4, I will show' that they obey no other constraint thus far discussed, and discuss the possibility that_the constraint stated in 5.3.1. § 5.3.2 is universal. The most natural definition of pronominalization is deletion under identity. This definition covers a number of operations, 355 which, though unbounded in scope, do not made crucial use of variables and will not be dealt with here. For instance, the rules which convert the sentences in (5.143) into the corresponding ones in (5.144) must be formulated as schemata, and I will not discuss such rules here. (5.143) a. Tom knows it and Dick knows it and Harry knows it. b. Tom washed the car, and Dick waxed the car, and Harry polished the car. c.. Tom ate, and Dick drank, and Harry sang. d. Tom ordered bacon, and Dick ordered lettuce, and Harry ordered tomatoes. (5.144) a. Tom, Dick, and Harry know it. b. Tom washed, and Dick waxed, and Harry polished the car. c. Tom, Dick, and Harry ate, drank, and sang, respectively. d. Tom ordered bacon, and Dick lettuce, and Harry tomatoes. Although rules like Gapping, the rule which converts (5.143d) into (5.144d)1 can apply to delete the verb of an indefinitely large number of consecutive conjoined sentences)it cannot be formulated with a variab16, for otherwise it would convert (5.145a) into the ungrammatical (5.145b). A 356 The superficial similarity of (5.148) to a featurechanging rule should not be deceptive. For the feature [ +Pro] is not a feature like the Lt Indefinite] of (5.71) or the Nom] of (5.108) -- it is an instruction to delete all or part of the So if some constituents of the node to which it is attached.' rule of the form of (5.148) converts (5.149a) into (5.149b), by adding the feature [+ Pro] to the circled NP, (5.149) a. v. N? who we watched the prize / NP which the man who we watched ti .(5.145) a. Tom ordered bacon, and Dick ordered lettuce, and I think that Harry ordered tomatoes. b. * Tom ordered bacon, and Dick lettuce, and think that Harry tomatoes. .There are also a nuzber of rules which reduce identical For instance, elements if these occur in designated constructions. (5.146a), may be converted into (5.146b) by the operation of one I such rule. (5.146) a. Joe is taller than Mary is. b. Joe is taller than Mary. However, this rule must not be stated in a way that ',lakes crucial tse of variables, or else (5.147a) would be converted into the ungrammatical (5.147b). (5.147) a. Joe is taller than I think .Nary is. b. * Joe is taller than I think Nary - I will therefore restrict my attenticin to those rules of pronominalization whose structural index is like that shown in (5.148a), and 'hose structural change like one of the versions of (5.148b) or (5.148c) (5.148)32a. b. , ...A 1. ..X...A ...A ...X.. 1 Condition: .... 2 [-A2 c] ... +Pr .. 0 . c. ..*. f[A1 j. X......A 2" . Al = A 2 357 b. V T% the man who we watched which [ NP -1.Prol_ wanted tc'..- . some later rule or convention must reduce all of the NP the single word he. 33 who we watched the mans --- so marked to In other cases, the deletion is complete, as in the conversion of (5.150a) to (5.150b). (5.150) a. Mike will sing if you will sing. b. Mike will sing if you will. Furthermore, rules of pronominalization are not upward bounded, as was shown with reference to the sentences in (5.80), and they will be shown, in § 5.3.3, not to be subject to the constraints of Chapter 4, 358 which appear to constrain all other feature-changing rules '(cf. 6.4 below). 5.3.2. Most rules of pronominalization produce paradigms like the one in (5.151). am. will go if he (5.151) feels good. b. * Hei will go if Jim. feels good. c. If Jimi feels good, hei will go. cLutle.feelsgood,nra.%.7ill go. I have argued elsewhere (cf. Ross (1967a)), that the constraint which is operative here is the one stated in (5.152): (5.152) Condition on backward ;pronominalization If one element precedes another, the second caa only pronominalize the first if the first is dominated by a subordinate clause which does not dominate the second. 34 There are two instances of right-to-left, or "backward" pronominalization in (5.151) - (5.151b) and D.151d). Since the if-clause is a subordinate clause, the latter is grammatical, while the former is not. Langacker propoEes a dif.erent condition on backward pronominalization (cf. op. cit. pp. 11-22), the gist of which is stated in (5.153). (5.153) One noun phrase may pronominalize another unless the first both precedes the second and.is commanded by it. 359 . To see this, These conditions are almost identical, but not quite. consider the two sentences of (5.154) (these are the sentences numbered (72) And (71_ rpgpectivalv_ In LangnnkAr. (nn_ cit,)), (5.154) a. I gave the book to Harveyi because hei asked me to. * I gave the book to himi because Harveyi asked me to. Langacker derives (5.154a) from the intermediate structure shown is (5.155) : (5.155) P;DP NP PD.P %mallows.* Harveyi Since the circled and commands the boxed NP, NP Harvey in this structure upth precedas the condition on pronominalization stated in (5.153) will suffice to prevent (5.155) from being converted to (5.154b). But this explanation of the ungrammaticality of (5.154b) is only as good as the constituent structure on which it depends, so let us iaquire as to the adequacy of the represeatatioa ia (5.155) . In all traditional accounts, what 'would be said about (5.154a) is that it contains two clauses, the main clause being I gave the book to Harvey, and the subordinate clause being because he asked Such a parsing would yield some structure like that shown in me to. (5.156). (5.156) ave the book to This structure is surely in far better accord with intuitions about the constituency of (5.154a) than is (5.155): the latter makes the counterintuitive claims that the major break in (5.154a) occurs after the pronoun I, and that I gave the book to Harvey is not a constituent. But Langacker's condition on pronominalization, (5.153), is not strong enough to block (5.154b), if the structure underlying it is like (5.156), rather than like (5.155). the circled NP by it For while in (5.156) precedes the boxed NP, it is not commanded and (5.153) .blocks pronominalization only if both of these conditions obtain. 361 There is another reason.io believe (5.156) to be correct, and (5.155) incorrect. In Langacker (op. cit. footnote 13), tangnnkwr Aict,tieciac vhe 1-11,-mD oanveinnmc o f is 1c71 . (5.157) That I might want to leave never occurred to a. Harvey because he is insensitive to other people's desires.. It never. occurred to Harvey that I might b. want to leave because he is insensitive to other people's desires. c. * It never occurred to Harvey because he is insensitive to other people's desires that, I might want 104. 414.U6.1,,w40 Langacker correctly concludes that the structure underlying ig.7n1 ga mnrA nearly basic than the one underlying (5.157b), but he proposes to derive both from (5.158). (5.158) P ever occurred to Harvey it t at I might want to e e. because he is insensitive to other people's desires - a 362 Having assumed such a structure, he is forced to conclude that the rule of Extraposition must be formulated to permute and not around a variable, to the end of S1. S2 around VP, However, if Extraposition is stated in this restrictive manner, it will be necessary to state in addition another rule, so that sentences like those in (5.159) can be derived, (5.159) a.. I figured it out that she was lying. b. I explained it to Bill that she was lying. c. I took it for granted that she was lying. d. I regret it exceedingly that she was lying. for here, the extraposed clause does not move over a VP. Since it is clearly wrong to treat (5.157b) and the sentences of (5.159) as being produced by different processes, another solution to the problem of excluding (5.157c) must be sought. The most satisfactory analysis, in my view, is to derive (5.15:h) from: (5.160). (5.160) never occurred to Harve it that, I might want to leave because he is insensitive to other people's desires 363 The clause to be extraposed, S2, must command any string over which it is permuted (by the generalization stated in (5.123)), and aincc S2 commands IT_ 1 in (5.160); and does not command S-. (5.157b) S can be generated when EjssrakoA.tion appliel to (5.160), but not (5.157c). Therefore, since (5.160) produces none of the d.c.s. inadequacies noted in connection with (5.155), and since it requires no unpalatable proliferation of. rtles of extraposition, I conclude that it, and not (5.158), represents the correct structure of (5.157a) , and that similarly (5.156) and not (5.155), the correct structure of (5.154a). If (5.156) and (5.160) are correct structures, then backward pronominalization cannot be blocked by Langadker's condition, (5.153), although it can be blocked by (5.152). It is for this reason that I have rejected condition (5.153) in favor of (5.152), but it should be noted that there are a number of interesting facts having t A^ with varyine degrees of naturalness in pronominalization (cf. Langacker (op. cit.) pp. 16-18), which can be accounted for with the 0 former condition on pronominalization but not with the latter. I therefore regard the matter as anything but closed, and my assumption below that (5.152) is correct should be treated as. being only provisional. 1 5.3.3. 5.3.3.0. Below, I will discuss briefly four kinds of pronominalization which produce paradigms like the one in (5.146). It may turn out that they only appear dissimilar and can really be shown to be subcases of 364 the same rule, but I will not attempt such a proof here. I will merely show that they are similar to the rule which produces l.finite pronouns in that all ate subject t the condition stated in (5.152), and that none are subject to the constraints of Chapter 4 or § 5.1.3. 5.3.3.1. While the rule which produces the definite pronouns of (5.151) requires identity of reference, the rile which inserts the pronoun one does not. That this rule is subs ct to (5.152) can be seen from the sentences of (5.161): (5.161) a. He'll bring me a hotdog if he sees one. b. * He'll bring me one if he sees a hotdog. c. If he sees a hotdog, he'll bring me one. d. If he sees one; he'll bring me a hotdog. Sentences like those in (5.162) are obligatorily converted into the corresponding sentences in (5.163), under conditions which need not concern us here. (5.162) a. * Seven more soldiers came in after ten ones had left. b. * Seven more ones came iu after. ten soldiers had left. c. * After ten soldiers had left, seven more ones came in. d. * After ten ones had left, seven more soldiers came in. 365 (5.163) a. Seven more soldiers came in after ten had left. b. * Seven more came in after ten soldiers had left. 1 c. After ten soldiers had left,.seven.nore came in. d. After ten had left, seven more soldiers came in. 5.3.3.2. The rule of S Deletion, which deletes a sentence which is a sister of the abstract pronoun it, if this sentence is identical* to some other sentence in the phrase-narkei, is also subjc.ct to condition (5.152), as (5.164) shows. (5.164) a. 36 Harry believes that Sally is innocent, although noone else believes it. b. * Harry believes it, although noone else believes that Sally is innocent. c. Although noone else believes that Sally is innocent, Harry believes it. d. Although noone else believes it, Harry . believes that Sally is innocent. If sentence (5.165) is derived from a structure like that shown in (5.166), as I will argue is correct, in Lakoff and Ross (in preparation a), -.. 366 .(5.165) Webster touched a sword. (5.166) NP Webster 1 did it Webster V touch NP a sword then the sentences of (5.167) can be derived as a special ease of S Deletion. (5.167) a. Webster touched a sword after Henry had done it. b. * Webster did it after Henry had touched a sword. c. After Henry had touched a sword, Webster did it. a. 3.3;2, o3,34. F,1 4 367 d. After Henry had done it, Webster touched a sword. If the analysis implicit in (5.166) cannot be maintainadi then some additional rule of pronominalization, which replaces verb phrases having the feature ( Stative] with do it., will have to be formulated to account for.these cases. Which analysis is correct . is not my concern here. 5.3.3.3. There is another rule which pronominalizes sentences under identity, replacing them with the morpheme so. It may eventually prove to be possible to collapse this rule with the rule of S Deletion, although sentences like those in (5.168) make this seem unlikely. (5.168) a. Did the Mets win? If so} *it , I've lost $500,000. b. The doctors say that she's co well, but it didn't seem *iot ng along .to one. / Whether So Insertion is the same rule as S Deletion or not, it is subject to (5.152), as the sentences In (5.169) show. (5.169) a. Harry thinks that Sally is innocent, although noone else thinks so. b. * Harry thinks so, although noone else thinks that Sally is innocent.. . -2 224 4111IIINA.~11/* 368 c. Although noone else thinks that Sally is innocent, Harry.thinks so. d. Although noone else thinks so, Harry thinks that Sally is innocent. Once again., if the analysis implicit in (5.166) is correct, the pro-VP do so 37 can be generated as a special case of So Insertion. If not, a special rule inserting these forms must be added to the grammar. This rule will also be subject to (5.152), as (5a70) shows. (5.170) a. Webster touched a sword after Henry had done so. b. * Webster did so after Henry had touched a sword. c. After Henry had touched a sword, Webster did so. d. After Henry had done so, Webster touched a sword. 5.3.3.4. The fourth type of pronominalization is the rule which converts sentences like those in (5.171) to the corresponding sentences of (5,172) (5.171) (5.172) can work on it you work on it I'll work on it if noone else has worked on it am will be working on it (I can Iy do I'll work on it ie nou oone else had Sam will be too a 369 In past generative treatments, this rule would have been formulated in such a way that it deleted a verb phrase under identity. In Lakoff and Ross (in preparation a) (cf. also Ross (1967b)) , I will propose a reanalysis of the auxiliary system under which this rule will become a special case of So Insertion, with an additional rule deleting the pro-sentence so when it follows an auxiliary verb. But whichever of theanalyses is correct, the rule is subject to (5.152), as the sentences of (5.173) show. (5.173) a. I'll work on it if I can. b. * I will if I can work on it. 5.3.4. c. If I can work on it, I will. d. If I can, I will work on it. Rules of pronominalization of the form shown in (5.148) are not upward bounded, as will be evident from the sentences of (5.174). (5.174) a. The boy who Maryi loves hates heri. b. The man who ordered a hotdog got one. c. Tom says that it's going to rain but I don't believe it. d. He said he would leave and now he's done it. e. I think that Mort's a swell guy, and Lenny thinks so too. f. Why can't the man who usually cuts the grass do so today? g. Mickey and Roger have signed, and Whitey will tomorrow. MOMONaJMN.11. 'UMW*. Mir 370 The sentences in (5.175) show that the rule which introduces definite pronouns can go down into complex noun phrase, itAL6CK noun pwkabcb, cum 0464.4.sc.4.01, sentential subject clauses. (5.175) a. These shoes i won't fit into the trunk .theyi're next to. b. Ronald i scoffs at the belief that he i would run if nominated. c. Romeo i conceded that he and Juliet were going steady. 6...lockoicarefullybrushedoffhis.tongue. e.Onedentist.felt that for hi rai to swim without a bathing suit would be too daring. The major constraints proposed in Chapter 4 thus do not constrain the variable-in this rule. That they also do not constrain the variables in the rules discussed in § 5.3.3 is indicated by the grammaticality of the examples in (5.176). (5.176) a. I lost a jwpcsi,oc olide-rule, and the fact that Peter now has one.I regard with suspicion. b. The earth is flat, but will all those who don't believe it please raise their hands? c. Pilots who can fly barrel rolls say that for me to 4y to do it in a glider would be hazardous. a 371 d. The passengers who had known that the train was not on fire said that those who had thestighr en linA INnrritatioti t-liginIcelltrete 4n the bathrooms. e. Playing with matches is; lots of fun, but doing, so...and emptying gasoline from one can to another at the same time is a sport best reserved for pyromaniacs. f. Swimming is fun, and I believe that people who carOt should be taught to. In these examples, I have not shown for each type of construction that it is not subject .o each of the four constraints, but the examples given here should provide a sound enough basis.for this generalization. Although there are other constraints on particular rules of the form shown in (5.148), the condition stated in (5.152) seems to be the basic one governing all pronominalization rules which make crucial use of variables. 38 Condition (5.152) appears to be operative in French and German, as well as in English, but there are apparently languages in which only forward pronominalization is possible. In Finnish, and in Ijo and a, two languages of West Africa, this seems to be the case. I know of no language, however, in which backward pronominalization is as free as forward pronominalization, and it seems possible, at least at the present state of syntactic knowledge, to claim that if a language exhibits 111 11.11.K. A 372 backward pronominalization at all, then such pronominalization is subject to condition (5.152). 5.4. To summarize briefly, in this chapter I have argued that there are reordering transformations which make crucial use of variables, but which cannot be restricted correctly by either the piinciple of the transformational cycle or by the constraints developed in Chapter 4. I have provided additional evidence in support of Langacker's notion of command, showing that in addition to being necessary to restrict the operation of all feature - changing rules except pronominalizations, it can be extended in a natural way so that it correctly restricts the scope of the problematic reordering transformations. Finally, I have argued that Langacker's proposal to restrict with the notion of command the rule which introduces definite pronouns is inadequate, and that this rule, as well as all rules of pronominalization which make crucial use of variables, is subject to a different condition, which I stated in (5.152). Thus far, in my survey of restrictions on syntactic variables, for all constraints except those developed in Chapter 4, I have specified the formal properties of the rules which were subject to the constraints in question. Thus all pronominalizations which have the form of (5.148) are constrained by (5.152); all rules in which elements are permuted rightwards around, or adjoined to the right of, a variable term at the right end of a structural index, and all feature-changing rules, which have the form given in (5.78), are upward I 373 bounded. In the next chapter, 1 will attempt such a formal specification of the class of all rules which are subject to the constraints of Chapter 4. 374 Chapter 5 FOOTNOTES At present, there is no known principle of rule ordering, or 1: combination of such principles, which can correctly account for all relevant facts of ordering. , The difficulties which arise, by and large, have to do with various kinds of pronominalization. For an extended discussion of this area of study, cf. Lakoff and RQSS (in preparation b). Evidence that certain rules must be constrained not to apply 2. until the 7.ast pass through the transfor-:tional cycle, where they may precede rules which apply on each pass through the cycle, is given in Lakoff (1966). A detailed investigation of German intonation along these lines 3. can be found in Bierwisch (1966). For expository purposes, I have shown in (5.20) not an underlying 4. structure, but an intermediate structure, to which the rules of Relative Clause Formation and Particle Movement, among others, have already applied. 5. Actually, it is not clear to me whether Chomsky's formulation of the principle, which I quoted in i 2-.0, was meant to be strong . 375 enough to have this effect, or whether a slightly stronger version would be necessary. For the present discussion, it is immaterial which is the case. The fact that sentences (5.22a) and (5.22b) are of low accepta- bility, if not completely impossible, is accounted for by the Output Condition on Post-verbal Constituents (3.41) and is of no relevance to the present discussion. For the reasons I discussed in § 3.1.1.3.2, both of these sentences must be considered to be fully grammatical, though unacceptable. 7. The question of whether the extraposed S3 should be dominated oee4 directly by S2 or by the VP of S2 CM not concern us here. 8. In (5.27) and (5.28), I have assumed that the rule of Question has been reformulated along the lines of (4.135) Relative Clause Formation, so that the questioned constituent is Chomsky-adjoined to the sentence headed by Q. It is this operation of Chomsky- adjunction which is the source of the new node S0 in (5.27) and (5.28). 9. For some discussion of the many exceedingly difficult problems concerning this rule, cf. Keyser (1967). 376 10. The fact that various sentences in (5.44) are rendered less than fully acceptable by the output condition stated in (3.27) need not concern us here - all should be considered to be grammatical. 11. This problem was brought to my attention by Michael L. Geis. 12. For the purpose of stating this rule, I will make the dubious assumption that there is a feature (+Adverb] which is assigned to all adverbs. Though trees (5.60) and (5.61) do not indicate the presence of this feature, it should be assumed to appear in them. 13. Klima analyzes ever in such sentences as (5.73c) as an obligatory, morphophonemic variant of anytimes. 14. In Finnish, as in many other inflected languages, non-contrastively stressed subject pronouns are normally deleted. 15. David Perlmutter has called to my attention the fact that this rule is obligatory for accusatives in the same clause as the negative element (but cf. fn. 16)) and optional for elements of /civet- what were clauses in deep structure. He points out that this A restriction is shared by the Russian rule for reflexivization, which must have the same restriction imposed on it. Th.i.s is the only case I know of where a restriction which seems to have to be in a conditions box is not,a restriction on a reordering transfor- 377 16. I have drastically oversimprfied the. facts in my presentation of this example. For example, while both (5.93a) and (5.93b) are possible, they have different meanings. If vodku (acc.) appears, means 'whn never drank vodka'; with vodki (gen.): it nl the rOica means 'who didn't drank any of the vodka.' 17. Since the reflexive pronoun sebia ii used for all persons, the sentence on sostavil men a uvazat, sebja can also mean 'He forced me to respect myself.' For the present discussion, this reading can be disregarded. 18. The string in (5.106b) is a grammatical sentence, but it means 'That Mary was sick was obvious to me.' The fact that here zibun can only refer to the first person suggests that in the deep structure of (5.106b) must contain an earlier occurrence of the pronoun watakusi 'I'. Precisely this position is argued for in my forthcoming paper "On declarative sentences" (Ross (1967c)), where I present arguments that all declarative sentences must, in deep structure, be clauses embedded as the object cf.a verb of communication, like alyr or declare, with a firstperson subject. 19. The reasons for not Pruning S1 in (5112) will be gone into in. Lakoff and Ross (in preparation b), 20. I am grateful to Paul Kiparsky for calling to my attention cases like (5.114), in which the tense' -charging rule is obligatory. a- 378 21. Further research may reveal that it is normal for reflexivization rules to b2 both downward anu upward bounded. ILL this case, the theory would have to mark the English.rule as being normal, and the Japanese and Russian rules as being idiosyncratic in having an imusually wide range of application. .22. There are many other complex conditions which have, to do with clitic placement, and these have extremely important- consequences for the theory of grammar. This problem will receive intensive discussion in a forthcoming paper by E.'Weyles Browne, III, and David M. Perlmutter. 23. For a formal definition of the notion tree, cf. Zwicky and Isard (1963) : 24. The problem of why rules of reflexivization should behave not like rules of pronominalization, to which they are formally similar (cf. § 5.3 :below), but like other feature-changing rules, with respect to the generalization in (5.122), will be taken up in § 6.5 below. 25. Note that even if it le argued that the analysis implicit in (5.131) is incorrect, and that the category S must be expanded by the rule S 4 NP Aux:VP, and the category Aux by the rule Aux + Tns (X) (Perf) (Prog), the notion in construction with will I . - 379 not allow the required change to take place if (5.127) is included in the grammar, under the assumption that the node on which the feature [Tense] is marked is the node Tns. 26. This definition, is inadequate in that it does not come to grips with the problems.brough . 27. up in footnote 19 of Chapter 3. Anthony Naro has pointed out to me the extremely interesting fact that the sentence That the fuzz wanted to question John worried him, but it didn't worry Mary is ambiguous in the same way that (5.138a) is. This means that the definition of linguistic identity given in (5.135) must be revised in such a way that not only commanded pronouns can be disregarded, but also that noun phrases which have entered into an anaphoric relationship with some other noun phrase and pronamiralized it can be disregarded under certain circumstances. I will not attempt such a revision here, for a full treatment of the many complex issues connected with the definition of identity is far beyOnd the Scope of this work. 28. All the following remarks apply equally well to the as-clause of the comparison of equality. 29. At present, I know of no way of defining the term "the compared element." This thorny problem I will bequeath to future 38o researchers on the grammar of comparatives. . 30. By the phrase "crucial use of variables", I mean all rules whose ctrtte.ttirn1 inclAy e.entaina a clihtring of thA form eA_ X A -2- or whose structural change specifies that some term is permLted around, or adjoined to, some term which contains a variable. Thus the rules of Indefinite Incorporation, (5.71), and Question, (4.1), make crucial use of variables, while the rule of It Deletion, (4.128), does not. This distinction between rule types has important consequences. For instance, it can be shown that no rules which make crucial use of variables are governed - that is, they can have no lexical exceptions. 31. For some discussion of this rule, cf. Ross (1967d). 32. In this rule, the letter A is a variable over node types, not strings. 33. In Postal (1966a), some concrete proposals of rules to effect these changes are made. 34. It is at present unknawr as to Thether a universal definition of the notion subordinate clause can be given, or whether it will be necessary to give a language-particular definition for each language in which this condition appears. " ... 381 35. Indeed, the assumption that pronominalization should be effected by a syntactic rule, rather than by a semantic one, is also provisional. For arguments pro and con, see Lakoff (1967) and Jackendoff (1966a,.b). There are so many mysteries connected with various kinds of pronominalization that almost nothing about it seems free of serious doubt. 36. For a discussion of some of the consequences of assuming that this is a syntactic rule, cf. Lakoff (1967). 37. For discussion of this construction, cf. Lakoff and Ross (1966), and. Anderson (1967). 38. One interesting, if poorly understood, exception is the rule which produces anaphoric noun phrases like that idiot in such sentences as Wilfred, raised his hand and th,n that idiot, even tried to answer the question. This rule appears not to work backwards at all (witness rho: ungrammaticality of *After that idiots had shut 3122._eyel:zatiledp..) and to work forward only under certain circumstances (cfs, *Wilfred, said that that idiot. was ao.ilaso_2&I..back at us.). The special nature of this rule was first pointed out to me by George Lakoff. 382 Chapter 6 ON THE NOTION "REORDERING TRANSFORMATION" In Chapter 4, I presented evidence which showed that the 6.0. rules of Relative Clause Formation and Question are subject to a variety Since the facts cited in of constraints. § 5.3.4 above show that these constraints do not affect rules of pronominalization, the question arises as to whether there are other rules than just the two studied in Chapter 4 which are subject to the constraints, and if so, whether it is possible to predict from the formal statement of a rule whether that rule will obey the constraints or not. begged: This question has already been the constraints in Chapter 4 were stated not in terms of the specific rules of Relative Clause Formation or _Question, which were used to exemplify the effect of the constraints, but rather in terms of "reordering transformations". In this chapter, I will give a precise characterization of this presystematic term. In § 6.1, I will describe briefly a large number of rules, some apparently related, some not, showing that each is subject to the constraints. In § 6.2, I will show that transformations which the reorder a constituent, but leave behind a pro-form, to indicate the place the copied constituent occupied before the operation of rule, are not affected by the constraints, and that it is rather transformations which "chop" a constituent and move it from its subject to the original position without leaving any trace, which are constraints. In § 6.3, I will show that even chopping transformations 383 are not subject to the constraints unless the chopped constituent it moved over a variable. nUell.%ev4v.r. Iwt.c44.5J.4a6 § 6.4, I will show that the feature- In A4c.nynn^A 4." Th4s 5 5.1.3 also obey the constraints. fact leads to a theory of islands, the maximal domains of chopping In and feature-changing rules. § 6.5, a brief summary of the characterization arrived at is given. 6.1. Some Rules Obeying the Constraints 6.1.0. At the outset of my research on variables, I noticed that the German rule which preposes various types of constituents to the front of a sentence, thereby triggering a rule which inverts subject and verb (thus (6.1a) becomes (6.1b) , (6.1) a. (6.1c) , or (6.1d)), Ich sprach gestern mit Orje {fiber Liebe. I spoke yesterday with Orje about love.' b. Gestern c. Mit d. 'fiber ich mit sprach Orje sprach Liebe ich Orje Uber Liebe. gestern {fiber Liebe. ich sprach gestern mit Orje. obeyed the same constraints as the rules of Relative Clause Formation and Question, and the rules involved in cleft sentences, like (6.2), and pseudo-cleft sentences, li,;e (6.3). (6.2) dass Es war gestern, It was yesterday that ich mit I Orje {fiber Liebe sprach. with Orje about love spoke. 'It was yesterday that I spoke with Orje about love.' 384 (6.3) Wortiber ich gestern Where about I frY1..-.. nit Orje sprach war Liebe. yesterday with Orje spoke was 1oveL V W& all. 1 birvaN.= Wll.11 VLJG caVV46 ycQ,6ctuay INGQ, At that time, I concluded that the way to explain the similarity of the constraints on these rules was to assume that one rule was basic, and was a component of the operations of the other three rules. roam Chomsky pointed out to mcs. an Alternative possibility: But this similarity of constraints ight be derivable from .iome formal property shared by the four rules, rather than from some assumed common function or component. My further research proved Chomsky correct: there are a large number of transformations which obey the same constraints as the four rules that I had originally noticed, rules whose vperations are far too dissimilar for it to be possible that there is one rule which is basic to each of these. In my brief discussion of each of these rules, I will first give an example which is sufficiently complex to suggest that the scope of the rule is unboundedly large, and then give examples to show that the rule is subject to the Complex NP Constraint (CNPC), the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC), the Sentential Subject Constraint (SSC), and, where possible, the Left Branch Condition on pied piping (LBC). three arbitrary groups: I have partitioned the rules into the rules in § 6.1.1 produce clauses which resemble questions or relative clauses, some of which may derive from rules which can be collapsed with the rules of Question and Relative Clause FormatiOni. § 6.1.2 share only the The rules in property of producing structures which in no way resemble relative clauses. § 6.1.3 constitute the only counter-evidence The rules in I know of (but cf. § 6.4) to the claim that only "reordering transformations" are subject to the constraints of Chapter 4. 6.1.1, 6.1.1.1. One rule which results in question-like structures is the rule which produces exclamatory sentences, like those in (6.4); (6.4) a. How brave he is! b. How surprisingly well he dances! c. The bravery of our boys in Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Korea, Malaya, Iceland, Nepal., Egypt, Turkey, Kazakhistan, Morocco, Haiti, Peru, Chile, Quebec, the Honduras, Baffinland, Monaco, and all the other places in the world :.;here freedom needs protection! I imagine that sentences like (6.4c), which consist of a single abstract NP, spoken reverentially, will derive from sentences like (6.4a), where he is replaced by our boys in Vietnam, etc., but I do not know how the rules that effect this conversion should be ...11".".Ff,r1R.Carmavy, formulated. Although the sentences in (6.4) resemble questions, they are much more limited, for there are many question words that cannot head an exclamatory sentence, as (6,5) shows. (6.5) a. *Whether he left! b. *Why he knows tne ..Inswer! c. *Which boy is tall! 2 It seems likely to me that the restriction which is operative here is that it is only sentences with degree adverbs which can function in exclamatory sentences. This is indicated by the fact that if the word bravery, which is derived from a lexical item allowing degree modifiers (very brave), is replaced in (6.4c) by an abstract noun like arrival, whose underlying lexical item does not admit of degree modification ( *vim arrive, *arrive very), the sentence becomes ungrammatical. But there are several classes of counter examples to this generalization (cf. e.g., the sentences in (6.6)), and although these seem intuitively to be different from the sentences in (6.4), I have no convincing arguments which show this to necessarily be the case. (6.6) a. When my daughter came home last night13 b. What my husband eats! :c, Where my son and that girl he married are living! But no matter what the source for such sentences as 386 those in (6.4) is, it is clear that the rule which forms them must be able to move the wh-ed ,constituents tothe front of the sentence from indefinitely deeply embedded structures (cf. (6.7)). (6.7) How brave everybody must think you expect me to believe he is! That this rule is subject to the CNPC, the CSC, and the SSC, can be seen from (6.8), (6.9), and (6.10), respectively. (6.8) a. b. *How brave I know a boy who is! How brave they must believe (*the claim) that you are! (6.9) (6.10) 4 a. *How brave he is tall and! b. *How brave Mike is cowardly and Sam is! a. *How brave .that Tom is must be believed! b. How brave it must be believed (?that) Tom is! That it is also subject to the LBC can be seen from the fact that it is (6.4a) that is grammatical, and not (6.11). (6.11) 'CHow he is brave!6 The reason that (6.11) is ungrammatical is the same as the one F'ven for the ungrammaticality of (4.190), in 6.1.1.2. § 4.3.2.1 aboite. The first constructions which exhibit relative-clause-like structures are clauses introduced by where, when, after, before, since, until, and while. Michael L. Geis has proposed7 that all of these 5 387 clauses be treated as deriving from relative clauses on such head Thus at the time at which becomes at the nouns as place or time. time when, which may, by deletion of-ehe _NP at the time, result in a clause introduced by the single word when. That the source in the constituent sentence for the phrase at that time, from which this word derives, can be indefinitely far down ."the tree can be seen from (6.12), (6.12) Bill left when everyone will believe that the police have forced me to confess that I shot Sandra. where the word when refers to the time of the shooting of Sandra. That the rule which forms such adverbial clauses, if it is different from the rule of Relative Clause Formation, which I doubt, is subject to the CNPC, the CSC and the SSC can be seen from (6.13), (6.14), and (6.15), respectively, (6.13) a. b. *Bill left when I am looking at a girl who vomited. Bill left when I believe (*the claim) ( ?that) the bomb had just exploded. When I am awake (*at that time) and Susan (6.14) is asleep, Bill will leave. (6.15), a. *Bill left when that noone else was awake is certain. b. 8 Bill left when it is certain that noone else was awake. 01. 388 Sentences similar to these, which show the other adverbial clauses mentioned to be subject to the three major constraints, can also be constructed, but I will not undertake this here. 6.1.1.3. The second type of relative-clause-like construction is exemplified in (6.16): Here's a knife for you to cut up the onions with. (6.16) For to phrases can modify noun phrases in the same way as relative clauses. The subjects of these clauses can be deleted under inter- esting conditions (cf. (6.17)). (6.17) myself *himself with. a. I brought a razor to shave b. I brought_a razor with which to shave c. I brought John a razor to shave d. I brought John a razor with which to shave ,myself himself *myself himself with. 7 The presence of the relative pronoun which in (6.16b) .7 and (6,16d) suggests that whatever rule forms these clauses always preposes this pronoun to the front of the clause, deleting it obligatorily just in case the embedded subject has not been deleted. Thus (6.16) would be derived from the structure which underlies (6.18). (6.18) *Here's a knife which for you to cut up the onions with. Somehow the rule which forms these clauses must prevent a preposition *myself himselft 389 which precedes the NP to be relativized from pied piping, unless the subject of the clause has been (or will be?) deleted -- nothing can save a structure like (6.19), where the preposition with has pied piped, except possibly some ad hoc rule to reinsert the preposition where it came from, arule unstateable under present conventions, in any account. *Here's a knife with which for you to cut up (6.19) the onions. Constituents can be moved by this rule from indefinitely far down the tree, as (6.20) shows. Here's a plate for you 'to make Bob try to (6.20) begin to force his sister to leave the 0 cookies an. I am not sure whether this rule can relativize elements from within that-clauses at al.3..,_but if so, it is only elements dominated in such clauses, not subjects, that can be relativized. by VP (6.21a) may be grammatical, but (6.22b) is almost certainly not. (6.21) a. ?Here's a knife for you to say that you cut up the onions with. b. *Here's a knife for you to say was on the table. Thus we see that this rule, even if it should someday prove to be collapsible with the rule of Relative Clause Formation, will have to have a number of special restrictions imposed on it. And yet the 390 sentences in (6.22), (6.23), and (6.24) show it to be subject to the CNPC, the CSC, and the SSC, respectively. (6.22) a. *Here's a pole for you to kiss the girl who tied the string around. VO ?tJF% .Ale, .4D GI. ". VW +YVUO GOLOOVtAA.Al /4e4.4..^ N.VOLG ,ifrA.VVAL eves 10. possibility) that you will shave with. *Here's a razor for you to chop up these (6.23) nuts with this cleaver and. (6.24) a. *Here's a razor for that you will be shaved with to be announced. b. ??Here's a razor for it to be announced that you will be slaved with. Whether or not the LBC can be shown to be operative for this rule will depend upon it being possible to set up a contrast between such sentences as those in (6.25). (6.25) a. ?I loaned Maggie a Swiss Army knife with whose corkscrew to open the padlock. b. *I loaned Maggie a Swiss Army knife whose to open the padlock with corkscrew. While it is clear that (6.25b) is word salad, I am not sure that (6.25a) is fully grammatical. shown to be subject to the LBC. 7YL1,.... If not, this rule cannot be 391 6.1.1.4. It is well-known that appositive clauses obey the same restrictions restrictive relative clauses dc, but it may not have been observed before that sentential clauses, like those in (6.26), also do. (6.26) a. Fluffy is sick, which few people realize. b. Fluffy is sick, which I'm not sure you know Sarah expects me to believe Joan realizes. Sentence (6.26b) suggests that this rule must be able to prepose the relative pronoun which, which stands for the sentence Fluffy is sick, from indefinitely deeply embedded positions, and sentences (6.27), (6.23), and (6.29) show that it too is subject to the CNPC, the CSC, and the SSC. (b.27) a. *Fluffy is sick, which I slapped a boy who wouldn't acknowledge. . b. Fluffy is'sick, which I believe (*the claim) that few people realize, *Fluffy is sick, which I fell asleep and (6.28) Tom suddenly realized. (6.29) a. *Fluffy is sick, which that noone here realizes is certain. b. Fluffy is sick, which it is certain that noone here realizes. The same -estrictions apply to sentential as-clauses: the word as can be substituted for which in sentences (6.26) - (6.29) with gr. e4 474 no change in grammaticality, although this is not in general true. The sentences in (6.30) show that the rule which forms as-clauses must be sensitie both to the presence of certain types of negation and to the syntactic environment from which the constituent which as replaces cames. 9 (6,30) a. Fluffy is sick, b. Fluffy is sick, c. Fluffy is sick which *as which as hick * as nobody knows. not everybody knows. surprises me. These restrictions on as-clauses are unlike any known to obtain on relative clauses, restrictive or appositive, so I an highly doubtful that the rule which forms as can be collapsed with other rules which form relative clauses. 6.1.1.5. The rules that form cleft sentences, pseudo-cleft sen- tences, and topicalized sentences are also subject to the constraints. The sentences in (6.32) show them all to be subject to the CNPC, and those iu (6,33), (6.34), and (6.35) show them to be subject to the CSC, the SSC, and the LBC, respectively, while the sentences in (6.31) show their scope to be unbounded. (6.31) a. It was this hat that Tom said Al thought you wanted me to make Jack put on. b. What Tom said Al thought you wanted me to make Jack put on was this hate lortgograk01711TrivriTrivtmiwIlmsft "ftmeMPIIMITATtrir011 s n.) 474 c. This hat Tom said Al thought you wanted me to make Jack put on. (6.32) a. b. *It is this hat that I know the boy who is wearing. It is this hat that I believe (*the claim) that he was wearing. c. d. *What I know the boy who was wearing is this hat. What I believe (*the claim) that he was wearing is this hat. e. *This hat I know the boy who was wearing. f. This hat I believe (*the claim) that he was wearing. (6.33) a. *It is this hat that the gloves and ware on the table. (6.34) b. *What the gloves and were on the table was this hat. c. *This hat the gloves and were on the table. a. *It is this hat that that he was wearing is certain. b. It is this hat that it is certain that he was wearing. c. d. e. f. (6.35) . , .43,114r14110"/PWRISIMWRIMIMMANNicV S *What that he was wearing is certain is this hat. What it is certain that he was wearing is this hat. *This hat that he was wearing is certain. This hat it is certain that he was wearing. a. *It was John's that I stole bike. b. *The one whose I stole bike was John's. c. *John's I.stole bike. 394 Because of the many additional similarities shared by these constructions, I am inclined to think they all derive from the' same deep structure source, although I can propose none that is convincing. But all that is at issue here is the fact that the set or sets of rules that produce these constructions are all subject to the constraints of Chapter 4. 6.1.1.6. The next relative-clause-like construction I will consider is that exemplified in (6.36). Maxwell isn't (half) the doctor that his (6.36) father was. The fact that the element half can precede the modified NP in (6.36) shows that this sentence cannot be considered to be an instance of a predicate nominal modified by a relative clause, as in (6.37), Maxwell is the man who won the Nobel Prize (6.37) for horoscopy. for if half is present in (6.36) , the relat-Lve clause" must be present, as the ungrammaticality of (6.38) indicates. 10 *Maxwell isn't half the doctor. (6.38) It seems probable that (6.36) can be related to such sentences as those in (6.39), (6.39) doctor. a. Maxwell is quite b. Maxwell isn't much of a doctor. t c. Maxwell is more of a doctor than his son is. but no analysis of these constructions has been deep enough for this to be established positively. One final pant of inte,est about these constructions is that the "relativized" element seems 1 have to 4 follow the copula be in both the matrix and constituent sentences. When this strange constraint 'is violated, ungrammatical sentences such as those in (6.40) result. (6.40) a. *Maxwell isn't (half) the doctor that was here. b. *Maxwell isn't (half) the doctor that polished off the vodka. c, *(Half) the doctor that Maxwell's father was sat down. As (6,41) suggests, the that-clause of (6.36) is not bounded in length: Maxwell isn't (half) the doctor that (6.31) feared Marge would realize Tom had confessed that he knew Bill expected hii to be. Whatever rule it is that forms such clauses, it is subject to the CNPC, the CSC, and the SSC, as sentences (6.42), (6.34), and (6.44), respectively, show-.. (6.42) a. *Maxwell isn't half the doctor that I know an African chief who is. b. Maxwell isn't half the doctor that people around here believe (*the claim) that his father was. 396 (6.43) *11.;Ixwel1 isn't half the doctor that his sister is a psychologist and his father was. (6.44) a. *Maxwell isn't half the doctor that that he would be if he studied is certain. b. Maxwell isn't half the doctor that 1:- is certain that he would be If he studied. The last two cases of relative-clause-like constructions 6.1.1.7. that I will discuss are those exemplified in (6.45). (6.45) a. He's the happiest that I've ever seen him. b. The hardest that it ever snowed was last January 12th. I have grouped these two constructions together only on the basis of the fact that they both contain superlatives. What their deep structures are in fact, and whether the same rules are used in forming each, is anyone's guess. The grammar of superlatives, if it is not the most poorly understood of all problems yet investigated within the framework of generative grammar, is certainly not far off the pace. 11 That both of the that-clauses in (6.45) can be extended without bound is suggested by the random degree of complexity attained in (6.46). (6.46) a. He's the,. happiest that any .of,myz.friends could estimate anybody would expect you to believe that I've ever seen him. 397 b. The hardest that I think I remember him ever telling me that he had heard of it snowing around here was last January 12th. The rules that produce such constructions are subject to the three constraints of Chapter 4, as sentences (6.47)(6.49) show. (6.47) a. the happiest that we ever talked to the boy who had seen him. b. He's the happiest that I believe (*the claim) that he's ever been. c. *The harda7t that I ever knew a man who said that it had snowed was last January 12th. d. The hardest that I believe (*the claim) 'hat it ever snowed was last January 12th. (6.48) a. *He's the happiest that I've ever seen him drunk and. b. *The hardest that all the power lines were down and it snowed was last January 12th. (6.49) a. *He is the happiest that that he has ever been is believed. b. He is the happiest that it is believed that he has ever been. c. *The hardest that that it has snowed here is believed was last January 12th. d. The hardest that it is believed tFat-. it has snowed here was last January 12th. 39 8 6.1.2. 6.1.2.0, While no arguments are available (and I doubt that any are forthcoming) that all the above structures are offshoots of either the rule of Relative Clause Formation or the rule of gasaka, since all the constructions discussed exhibit some clause headed by a wh-word or the word that, it is at least logically possible that an analysis will someday be discovered which makes use of one of these two rules to derive all of the above constructions. But in the case of those constructions that I will discuss in this section, such an analysis would be inconceivable, for the structures produced contain relative-clause-like structures only incidentally, if at all. 6.1.2.1. The rule of Extraposition from NP, (1.10), because of its formal structure, is upward bounded, so it is impossible to show with such sentences as (4.18) that it is subject to the CNPC; the same obtains for the SSC. It is, however, possible to show that it must be subject to the CSC. For consider structure (6.50): (6.50) VP met in Vienna a friend of mine who was woslas in Europe, azi.r1 who was from his home town 399 If the rule of Extraposition from NP applies to this structure to move S2 out of NP1, or S3 out of NP4, one of the ungrammatical sentences in (6.51) would be generated. (6.51) a. *A friend of mine and a girl who was from his home town met in Vienna who was working ins Europe. b. *A friend of mine who was working in Europe and a girl met in Vienna who was from his home town. A similar example can be constructed to show that Extraposition, (4.126), must also be subject to the CSC. (6.52) NP NP NP was tragically evident and it that she loved him that he loved another If Extraposition does not apply to this structure, the rule of (klas), It Deletion which was stated in itV.M',;,Z.Z.,,,`Irtr-2.=}73=2 will delete both occurrences of it in (6.52), and the grammatical (6.53) will result. 400 That she loved him and that he loved another (6.53) was painfully evident. However, if Extraposition were allowed to apply to either S S2 or in this structure, one of the ungrammatical structures in. (6.54) 3 would be produced. (6.54) a. *It' and that he loved another was painfully evident that she loved him. b. *That she loved him and it was painfully evident that he loved another. The CSC must be invoked to block the generation of the sentences in (6.51), and it can also block the generation of those in (6.54). However, since it is not known what the relative ordering of the rules of Extraposition and Conj unction Reduction is, it might be that the rules could be ordered in such a way as to prevent (6.54) without the But such a rule-ordering explanation is not CSC being necessary. available in the case of (6.51)s-for-if the analysis presented in Lakoff and Peters (1966) is correct, the conjoined NP such verbs subject of as meet, similar, etc. is derived from a conjoined NP in deep structure. It therefore seems inescapable that the CSC must constrain the operation of at least one rule, Extraposition from NP, which cannot be argued to be a subcase of the rules of Relative Clause Formation or allstion. 6.1.2.2. Although the rule of NP Shift, (5.57), cannot be shown to be subject to the CNPC or the SSC, because it, like the two 401 extraposition rules, is subject to the stronger restriction of being upward bounded, it can be shown to obey the CSC, for the a-sentences below must not be converted into the b-sentences. (6.55) a. Mary and [an ol4 friend who comes from Miami]NP kissed. b.' *Mary and kissed an old friend who comes from Miami. (6.56) a. I gave a picture of a covered bridge and [a hundred hikers from Hoboken] b. NP to my sister. *1 gave a picture of a covered bridge and to my sister a hundred hikers from Hoboken. (6.57) a. Joan plays [a wonderful old guitar from Spain]NP and sings folksongs. b. *Joan plays and sings folksongs a wonderful old guitar from Spain.12 That the rule of NP Shift is also subject to the LBC was argued in §4:3.2.1 above, in connection with the ungraugaticality of (4.188b) and (4.188c). 6.1.2.3. The rule of Conjunction Reduction, whose operation was described informally in § 4.2.4.1. above, is stated roughly as in (6.58). Conjunction Reduction (6.58) - [X - a. .. 61. 1 [1 2 2 3 0]B#3 1,.... . _. - . .....tomormomPrea 1 ..-........2=... .4,2 Condition: - x1: IB [and - b. 1 2 3 21/fl 0 31B OPT all occurrences of A are identical. This notation should be interpreted to mean that in any coordinate node of the category B, which dominates any number of conjuncts which are also of the category B, and each of which either ends or begins with a constituent of category A, where all occurrences of A are identical, all of these occurrences of A are superimposed, and adjoined to the conjoined node B. Thus (4.118) could be converted into (4.119) by the operation of this rule. This rule must be formulated in such a way as to reorder each instance of the category A, adjoining it to the coordinate node, for otherwise the following facts cannot be explained. If my intui- tions are correct, (6.59a) cannot be converted into (6.59b), and (6.60a) can be converted into (6.60b) only if the parenthesized NP, the claim, is not present. (6.59) a. Sally might be pregnant, and I know a girl who definitely is pregnant. b.?* Sally might be, and I know a girl who definitely-is, -pregnant. (6.60) a. Sally might, be pregnant, and I believe (the claim) that Sheila definitely is pregnant') 403 b. ?Sally might be, and I believe (?*the claim) that Sheila definitely is, pregnant. Some speakers claim to find no difference between the version of (6.60b) in which the claim is present and the one in which it is not, or between (6.59b) and either of these, If all are held to be ungrammatical, then rule (6.58) must simply be restricted in such a way that the nodes A cannot be dominated by a that-clause. However, if all are held to be grammatical, then there is a serious inadequacy in my analysis, for I would hold that if a rule is subject to one of the constraints of Chapter 4, it must be subject to all. And it seems clear that at least the CSC must constrain the operation of rule (6.58), for I know of noone who finds the result of the conversion of (6.61a) into (C 61b) grammatical. (6.61) a. The younger woman might.have been tall and blonde, and the older one definitely was blonde. b. **The younger woman might have been tall and, and the older one definitely was, blonde. But the picture is complicated by the existence of such sentences as those in (6.62) and (6.63). (6.62) a. Sally is tall, and maAoe blonde, and Sheila is short;--and definitely is blonde. b. .?*Sally is tall, and maybe, and Sheila is short, and definitely is,.blonde. 404 (6.63) a. Hank plays the guitar and finds arrangements for all the old folksongs which are still sung in these hills, and Ernie writes down all the old folksongs which are still sung in these hills. b..??Hank plays the guitar and finds arrangements for, and Ernie writes down, all the old folk. songs which are still sung in these hills. In my speech, (6.62b) and (6.63b) are clearly far better than (6.61b), but I am not confident enough of this judgment to assert that they should be considered fully grammatical. However, if all three are to be considered ungrammatical, as well as (6.59b) and the version of (6.60b) in which the NP the claim appears, at least the rule which converts (4.118) into (4.119) must be formulated as a reordering rule, and be subject to the CNPC and the CSC. rule must also be subject to the LBC was pointed out in That this § 4.3,2.4 above, in connection with the ungrammaticality of .(4.239) (but cf. also the discussion of sentence (4.241)'). 6.1.2.4. The next rule I will discuss in connection with the con- straints'of Chapter 4 is the rule which converts (6.64a) to (6.64b) by preposing a VP which immediately follows an emphatically stressed auxiliary verb, under various conditions which need not concern us here. 405 would pay up, and he wfilipay up (6.64) a. had gone home, and he lad gone home They said that Tom was working, and he is working '' would pay up, and pay up he b. They said that Tom L was working, and working he The statement of this rule must make crucial use.of a variable, as (6.65) suggests. They said Tom would pay up, and pay up I'm (6.65) sure everybody will tell you that his lawyers expect me to believe he did. The rule is subject to the CNPC, the CSC, and the SSC, as can be seen from (6.66), (6.67), and (6.68), respectively. (6.66) a. They said nobody would pay up, but I know a boy who did pay up. b. *They said nobody would pay up, but pay up I know a boy who did. c. They said that Tom would pay up, and pay up I believe (*the claim) that he did. (6.67) a. They said that Tom wouldn't pay up, but he did go to the bank, and he did pay up. b.. *They said that Tom wouldn't pay up, but pay up he did go to the bank and he did. (6.68) a. *They said that Tom would pay up, and pay up that he did is well-known. b. e w1 11i a ?had gone home, and gone home he hi They said that Tom would pay up, and pay up it is well-known that he did. az j . 406 6.1.2.5. The statement of the rule which converts (6.69a) into (6.69b) also must make crucial use of variables, as the complexity of (6.70) suggests. (6.69) a. Although Dick is handsome, I'm still going marry Herman. b. Handsome though Dick is, I'm still going to marry Herman. Handsome though everyone expects me to try (6.70) to force Bill to make Mom agree that Dick is, I'm still going to marry Herman. That this rule is subject to the CNPC, the CSC, and the SSC can be seen from sentences (6.71), (6.72), and (6.73), respectively. (6.71) a. *Handsome though I know several boys who are, I'm still going to marry Herman. b. Handsome though I believe (*the claim) that Dick is, I'm still going to marry Harman. *Handsome though Dick is fair, Nordic, (6.72) strong and, I'm still going to marry Herman. (6.73) a. *Handsome though that Dick will be is likely, I'm still going to marry Berman. b. Handsome though it is likely that Dick will be,_ I'm still going to marry Herman. 6.1.2.6 Whatever rule it is that derives sentences like (6.74) must make from some equally unknown deep structure, its statement .' 111 407 crucial use of a variable, as such sentences as (6.75), if they are grammatical, would suggest. The more contented' we pretended to be, the (6.74) more we grew angry at the doctors. (6.75) , ?The more contented the nurses began to try td persuade us to pretend to be, the more angry we grew at the doctors. That this rule is subject to the CNPC, the CSC, and the SSC can be seen from sentences (6.76), (6.77), and (6.78), respectively. (6.76) a. *The more contented I laughed at the nurse who thought that we were becoming, the more angry we grew at the doctors. b. ??The more contented the nurses began to believe (*the claim) that we were going to pretend to be, the more angry we grew at the doctors .13 *The more contented we pretended to be (6.77) better fed and, the more angry we grew at -the--doctors. (6.78) a. *The more contented for us to pretend to be became possible, the more angry we grew at the doctors. b. ?The more contented it became possible for us to pretend to be, the more angry we grew at the doctors. -""*Y._, ""' 408 The next rule I will consider in this section is the 6.1.2.7. rule which converts such sentences as (6.79a) into (6.79b), provided that the object of the preposition de has been pronominalized. (6.79) a. J'ai une photo picture of this I have a b.\ J'bn de cette maison. house. une photo. ai picture. I of it have a 'I have a picture of it.' This rule seems to be able to operate over a potentially indefinitely large portion of a tree, as (6.80b), which results from (6.80a) if the NP la table .80) the table' has been pronominalized,. shows. a. %Se vois le I -see gauche de la left toit de l'aile bout du the end 14 of the roof of the wing maison. of the house. 'I see the end of 'the roof of the left wing of the b. J'en vois le 'I of it see bout du the end toit de l'aile of the roof of the wing left 'I see the end of the roof of its left wing.' This rule is subject to a stronger constraint than the combination of the CNPC and the SSC -- it is upward bounded. 15 It can be shown to be subject to the CSC by the fact that (6.81a) cannot become (6.81b) if the NP gaud la maison 'the house' has been pronowinalized.16 ' 409 (6.81) a. -.re vois la I see de la porte du the door garage et le toit of the garage and the roof maison. of the house. b. 6.1.2.8. *J'en vois-la porte du garage et le toit. 17 The last rule I will-deal-with in this subsection, the rule which produces structures like (6.82), I have some papers to grade. (6.82) also seems not to be able to move NP's-out of tensed clauses (cf. (6.83)), ?*I have some papers to announce that I've (6.83) got to grade. although this rule appears to be able to range indefinitely far down into a tree, as (6.84) suggests. I have some papers to try to finish grading. (6.84) It is not clear to me whether sentences (6.82) and (6.84) (6.85b), can be argued to be synonymous with any reading of (6.85a) and respectively. (6.85) a. I have to grade some papers. b. I have to try to finish grading some papers. If their meaning is correct, they are the most obvious source for (6.82) and (6.84). But if they cannot bethe source for these sentences, I am at a loss to suggest what might be. It seems unlikely that a structure like that shown in (6.86) can serve as a source; 410 (6.86) V I ,N1 1 have some papers CT grade some Tapers for there are sentences like (6.87), I have getting into college to consider. (6.87) where the NP that directly follows have in surface structure is abstract, and I know of no other verb which takes an NP S object (e.g., verbs like compel, motivate, challenge, etc.) ,where the NP can be inanimate. However, no matter what the source of such sentences is, the fact that the rule that produces them obeys the CSC and the LBC can be seen from the ungrammaticality of the sentences in (6.88) and (6.89). (6.88) a. *I have some papers to grade these exams and. *I have some voice exercises to play the guitar and sing. if (6.89) *I have John's to grade paper'. 6.1.3. 6.1.3.0. In § 4.1.4 above, I argued from the fact that the rule which forms relative clauses in Japanese is subject to the crossover 411. condition, (4.30), and to the CNPC (it is also subject to the CSC, .but not to the SSC, as Z showed in § 4.4.1) to the conclusion that the rule must be formulated as a "reordering transformation" (in a sense which will be made more precise in § 6.2 and only one of the possible conclusions: §6.3 below). This is the other is that is not the case that the crossover condition and the constraints of Chapter 4 only affect "reordering transformations"; rather, there are some transformations whose only effect is to delete constituents under se identity, but which are nonetheless still subject to the constraints. The question then arises as to how such deletions are to be distinguished from other rules of pronominalization, which I showed, in § 5.3.4, not to be subject to the constraints of Chapter 4. questiou will be taken up in 6.1.3.1. This § 6.5 bela4." The first two pronominalization-like rules I will consider are those which produce those comparative constructions which exhibit the morphemes -er...than and as...as. Since these two constructions behave alike in all respects of interest here, I will give examples of only .the former construction. As (6.90) suggests; than-clauses of any desired length can be constructed. (6.90) Wilt is taller than I imagine anybody would ever, guess that people had begun expecting Red to announce that he was. 412 One of the operations that takes place in the formation of than-clauses is that the compared' element in the'than-clause is obligatorily deleted if it is identical to the element of the main clause with which it is compared. Thus in (6.914, because the two compared adjectives arc dissimilar, the one in, the than-clause is. retained. In (6.91b), however, since the compared adjectives are identical, the parenthesized occurrence in the than-clause is obligatorily deleted. (6.91). a. The sofa was longer than the room was wide. b. The sofa was longer than the desk was (long). This deletion operation is subject to the GINIPC, the CSC, and the SSC, as the sentences in (6.92), (6.93), and (6.94) show. (6.92) a. b. *Wilt is taller than I know a boy who is. Wilt is tallerthan I believe (*the claim) that Bill.is. (6.93) a. *Wilt is taller than Bill is strong and. b. *Dean drank more booze than Frank ate Wheaties and Sammy drank. (6.94) a. *Wilt is taller than that Bill is is generally believed. b. Wilt is taller than it is generally believed that Bill is. subject to the There is another deletion rule which is best treated as being a special case constraints and which is probably of the rule which forms comparatives. In sentences containing -er...than or inherently comparative verbs like increase, diminish, outrun, overthrow, etc., it is possible to have 122:phrases, like those 5 in (6.9k), which make precise the amount by which the compared elements differ. 18 (6.95) a. Wilt is taller than Bill by 7 millimeter. b. The raise which Scrooge generously gave Tom's father increased his yearly salary by five cents. c. The hare outran the tortoise by so much that he forgot the latter was even in the race any more. d. Who knew Mickey would overthrow home plate by that much? If two sentences contain such by:phrases, as is the case with the sentences of (6.96), (6.96) a. Wilt is taller than Bill by that much. b. Big 0 is taller than the Cooz by that much. then it is possible for' one sentence to appear as a subconstituent of the other, superficially, at least, as a degree modifier of much. Thus (6.96b) can become a modifier of the occurrence of much in (6.96a), as in (6.97). (6.97) Wilt is taller than Bill by as much as Big 0 is taller than the Cooz. The objects of the preposition in (6.98). r4r,'"'"-- "5.'4171' 73777711`wr. . , can also be compared, as is the case 414 Wilt is taller than Bill by more than Big 0 (6.98) is taller than the Cooz. Exactly what the rule is which is at wrk.here is not my concern: for my present purposes it is sufficient to point out that this apparent rule of deletion has an unbounded scope (this is suggested by (6.99)), Wilt is taller than Bill by as much as (6.99) everybody seems to expect me to admit to having publicly proclaimed that I believed Big 0 to be taller than the Cooz. and that it is subject to the CNPC, the CSC, and the SSC (cf. (6.100), (6.101), and (6.102), respectively). (6.100) a. *Wilt is taller than Bill by as much as I know a boy who thinks that Big 0 is taller than the Cooz. b. Wilt is taller than Bill by as much a Peter believes (*the claim) that Big 0 is taller than the Cooz. *Wilt is taller than Bill by as much as I (6.101) watch all the games and I know Big 0 is taller than the Cooz. (6.102) a. *Wilt is taller than Bill by as much as that Big 0 is taller than the Cooz is believed. b. Wilt is taller than Bill by as much as it is believed that Big 0 is taller than the Cooz. 415 6.1.3.2. The second deletion yule which obeys the constraints is optionally, the rule which converts (6.103a) into (6.103b), sometimes sometimes obligatorily. (6.103) ?The rock was too heavy for me to pick it a. up. b. The rock was too heavy for me to pick up. that this rule must be I am not entirely sure of this, but I believe far down in a tree allowed to delete elements which are indefinitely. (cf. (6.104)). (6.104) a. This rock is too heavy for me to begin to decide about helping Bob to try to pick it up. b. ??This rock is too heavy for me to begin to decide about helping Bob to tryto pick up. long examples of this Even if it is possible to find indefinitely elements construction, a restriction must apparently be stated so that be deleted: of clauses containing finite verbs will not no grammatical sentences like (6.105) appear to exist. *This rock is too heavy for us to try to (6.105) claim that we picked up. it must be made subject to If this rule is formulated with variables, (6.106), (6.107) (if grammatic4 senthe CSC, the SSC, and the LBC, as tences like (6.107b) exist), and (6.108) show. (6.106) a. Sodium is a little too peppy for me to want to try mixing it and water in a teacup. b, 5bdtvpii ,r Go1/4 et:fie;- peppy -or pe 40 tia 4.o J4 7 '4:Awl 416 (6.107) a. *That piece of ice is too big for for him to be able to pick up with a teaspoon to be likely. W 441LACIA. r^^ 1.%4N 4^r gr re, 1..0 likely for him to be able to pick up with a teaspoon. (6.n8) a. Bsab is too thin for me to be able to squeeze into his jacket. b. *Bob is too thin for me to be able to 'squeeze into jacket. The rule which is at work here can probably be collapsed with the rule which converts (6.109a) into (6.109b), (6.109) a. This rock is light enough for. Marcia to pick it up. b. This rock is light enough for Marcia to pick up. for the grammaticality of sentences (6.103)-(6.108) is not affected by the substitution of Adj+enough for too+Adj. 6.1.3.3. A rule possibly related to this last rule is the one which converts (6.110a) into (6.110b): (6.110) a. The socks are ready for you to put them on. b. The socksfare ready for you to pug. ln. Once again, although it is difficult to construct long examples, it may be the case that this deletion rule can operate over indefinitely long stretches of phrase markers (Cf.'(6.111)). 417 (6.111) a. The socks are ready for you to go about beginning to put them on. b. ?The socks are ready for you to go about beginning to put on. As was the case with the previous rule, this rule seems not to be able to delete elements of clauses containing finite verbs (cf. (6.112)). (6.112) a. Tht socks are ready for you to announce that you will put them on. b. *The socks are ready for you to announce that you will put on. If this rule must be stated with variables, then it must also be subject to the CSC and the LBC, as (6.113) and (6.114) show. Sentence (6.115a) shows that it is not possible to delete elements of sentential subject clauses, but I have not been able to 'find sentences like (6.115b), where the deletion has become possible after the extra- position of the clause, so it may be that this ruleis subject to'a stronger constraint than the previously discussed rules in this section. (6.113) a. The socks are ready for you to try them and the garters on. b. *The socks are ready for you to try and the garters on, (6.114) a. Pfc. Golliwog is ready for you to inspect his bunk. b. *Pfc. Golliwog is ready for you to inspect bunk. ft p . Siaa4AMPIPPAPIPPlPP1P....- 418 (6.115) a. * The socks are ready for for you to put on to be planned. f^r 4r 1-nha pinnnaA * for you to put on. The facts that I have brought out here in,connection with ready hold true for a small class of similar adjectives, luch as suitable, fit,- convenient, etc., none of which can be provided with a plausible deep structure source at present. They also hold true for adjectives like easy, difficult, hard, etc., which occur in constructions like (6.116). easy (6.116) difficult to play sonatas on this It is hard violin. T.t has been assumed in previous transformational studies (Cf., e.g., Rosenbaum (1965)) that sentences like those in (6.117) are to be derived from the structure underlying (6.116) by a reordering transformation which substitutes some NP in the extraposed clause of (6.116) for the subject of (6.116), the pronoun it. easy (6.117) Sonatas are difficult to play on this hard violin. . Recently, however, several new facts have come to light which cast doubt on the correctness of this analysis. Klima has pointed out to me that bor.L :':,.117) and (6.118), which are not synonymous, would be derivable from the structure underlying (6.116). 419 (6.118) This violin is easy difficult, hard to play sonatas On. Similarly, Perlmutter has observed (cf. Perlmutter (op. 'cit.)) that the sentences of (6.119), which would have the came deep structure, are also not synonymous. (6.119) a.. Imade John easy to get along with. b. I made it easy to get along with John. A more serious problem is posed by such sentences as (6.120). (6.120) John tries to be easy to get along with. Perlmutter (op. cit.) argues that it is incorrect to analyze being lexically marked in such a way that the rule of Emil. Imes NP Deletion must apply to delete the superficial subject of the next sentence down, as was proposed in Lakoff (1965). He presents a number of convincing arguments, all of which suggest that in the correct analysis ror of la, the fact that such sentences as (6.121) are ungrammatical (6.121) * John tried (for) Bill to play whist. will be attributed to a deep structure restriction that the verb la requires its deep subject tG be the same as the A222. subject of the complement sentence. If Perlmu.tter's hypothesis that the constraints on La are to be stated in terms of deep structure, rather than in terms of is correct derivations then the fact that (6.120) is grammatical forces the 'A conclusion that the deep subjects of'asy. in (6.117) and (6.118) are 420 sonatas and violin, respectively. And the underlying structure of the constituent sentence in (6.120) would be roughly that shown in (6.122): (6.122) NP is John st one gets along with John Thus the rule that forms such sentences as (6.117) and (6.118) is a deletion rule, like the other rules discussed in and not a reordering rule, like those discussed in unless the above arguments can be gotten around.. § 6.1.3, §§ 6.1.1 - 6.1.2, This. rule appears not to be able to delete elements of clauses containing finite verbs (cf. (6.123)), (6.123) 7* These flowers would be easy for you to say that you had found. and to be subjectto the CSC (cf. (6.124)). (6.124) * My mother is easy to please my father and. 421 As is the case with adjectives like ready, a stronger constraint than the SSC seems to be operative here, for neither (6.125a) nor (6.125b) is grammatical. (6.125) a. * Bill would be easy for for you to chat with in Moscow to become expensive. b. *.Bill would be easy for it to become expensive for you to chat with in Moscow. 6.2. Shapina21L11 6.2.0. In §§ 6.1.1 - 6.1.2, I gave a large list ofnreordering transformations" -- rules whose structural change specifies that some term of the structural index is to be moved around some other term of it -- and showed that each was subject to the constraints of Chapter 4. In this section, I will demonstrate that there are rules which perform such an operation, but yet are not subject to the constraints. It is possible, however, to find an important formal difference between reordering rules which are subject to the constraints, and reordering rules which are not: in rules of the first type, if a term of the structural index is adjoined to, or permuted around another term, the original term is deleted or substituted for. But in rules of the second type, the original term is not deleted, but remains behind in pronominal form, as a kind of place-marker. . 422 6.2.1. A clear example of the contrast between these two types of rules can be seen from a comparison of the rule of Topicalization, (4.185), which Y have repeated for ease of reference, and the rule of Left Dislocation, (6.126). (4.185) Topicalization X NP Y OPT 1 (6.126) 2 3 Left Dislocation19 X NP Y OPT 1 24 [1 2 [ 2 ] 3 +Pro This latter rule converts the structure underlying (6.127) into any of the structures underlying (6.128) The man my father works with in Boston (6.127) is going to tell the police that that traffic expert has set that traffic light on the corner of Murk Street ---(6.128) a. far too slow. The man my father works with in Boston; he's going to tell the police that ... 423 b. eMy father, the man he works with in Boston is going.to tell the police that ... c. therei (in) Boston, the man my father works with *its it is going to tell the police that ... a. The police, the man my father works with in Boston is going to tell them that e. That traffic expert, the man my father works with in Boston is going to tell the police that he has set that traffic light on the corner of Murk Street far too slow. f. That traffic light on the corner of Murk Street, the man my father works with in Boston is going to tell the police that that traffic expert has set it far too slow. g. (?On) the corner of Murk Street, the man my father works with in Boston is going to tell the police that that traffic expert has set that traffic light there far too slow. h. Murk Street, the man :my father works with .in Boston is going to tell the police that that traffic expert has set the traffic light ion the corner there on that corner * on it J f &r too slow. . 424 The fact that the versions of (6.128c) and (6.128h) which contain the definite pronoun it is obvi.ously the same as the ^ r ML r MS..w 1..G a.111. IA 1114N ^v.^ nnA 1*1^f4 would be excluded by some restriction along the lines of that proposed in Kuroda (1964). Another restriction on this rule is that it only places constituents at the head of main clauses: while (6.129) is grammatical, My father, he's Armenian, and my mother, (6.129) she's Greek. to my ear, the sentences in (6.130) sound unacceptable. (6.130) a. * That my father, he's lived here all his life is well known to those cops. b. * If my father, he' comes home late, my mother always grills him. c. * It started to rain after Jackie and me,. we bad finally gotten to our seats. This restriction is somewhat too strong, for sentences in which this rule has applied in certain object clauses seem to be acceptable (compare (6.131a) with (6.131b)), and mysteriously, sentences like (6.130b) seem to be improved if the rule has applied in both clauses (cf. (6.132)). (6.131) a.?* I acknowledged that my father, he was tight as a hoot-owl. b. I said that my father, he was tight as a hoot-awl. 425 (6.132) If my father, I- cumeu, " ' M" _ mother, she always grills him. Note in passing that the same restriction about subordinate clauses also obtains for Topicalization. Thus such sentences as those in (6.133) are ungrammatical. (6.133) a. * That beans he likes is now obvious. b. * I'm going to write to the Game Warden if more than one deer my neighbor brings back. c. * I don't know the boy who the flowers Mary gave the flowers who Mary gave Again, topicalization is sometimes possible in clauses and object position, though not in clauses and subject position. (6.134) a. ? The Revenooers claim that informers they never use. b. * That informers they never use is claimed by the Revenooers. As my purpose is not to present a maximally correct formulPtion of each of these rules, I shall disregard these improvements and pass on to the main business at hand: a comparison of the constraints to which (4.185) and (6.126) are subject. Notice that noun phrases can be dislocated out of complex NP (cf. the b, c, a, and h-versions of (6.128)), out of coordinate structures (cf. (6.135)), out of sentential subject clauses tot toi 426 Ccf, (6.136)). and out of left branches of larger And the distance that the dislocated NP NP (cf. (6.137)). has. traveled in (6.128h) suggests that the statement of the rule must make crucial use of a variable. (6.135) a. My father, I hardly ever see him and my mother when they're not glaring at each other, b. This guitar, I've sung folksongs and accompanied myself on it all my life. c. Poor Jonesy, it had started to rain and he had no umbrella, My father, that he's lived here all (6136) his life is well-known to the cops. My wife, somebody stole her handbag (6.137) last night. Thus Left Dislocation is not subject to the CNPC, the CSC, the SSC, or the LBC. But I showed in S 6.1.1.5 and in § 4.3.2.1 that Topicalization is subject to all these constraints. rules reorder term 2 Since both of their structural index, some formal distinction between them must be found, if the generalization that all reordering transformations obey the constraints is to be retained. A distinction which appears to be adequate is that between copying transformations and .staaim transformations (cf. (6.138)). 427 If the structural index of a transformation (6.138) has n al, a terms, 2 a , n , it is a reordering transformation if its structural kth change has any ai as its kth 'term! where is adjoined to its a term, or if i . i 0 k. If a transformation reorders ai, and its structural change substitutes the identity ak, element or some i -14 ko for the ith term of the structural index, the transforma- tion is a chozijignation. Other reordering transformations are called copying transformations. For example, if the structural index of a transformation were that shown in (6.139), it would be a chopping transformation (or rule) if any of the lines in (6.140) were its structural change, but it would be a copying rule if any of the lines in (6.141) were. (6.139)____ (6.140) a - a - a 1 2 3 3 2 1 4 a. 1 3 b. 1 2130-4 c. 1 0 3 d.441 0 312 0] 2 etc. 4 +2 - a4 4 428 (6.141) 2 3 4 b. 1+2 2 3 4 c. 1 3 4+2 a. 2+1 2 etc. The generalization for which this distinction is crucial is that stated in (6.142). (6.142) Chopping rules are subject to the constraints of Chapter 4; copying rules are not. Siace Topicalization is a charring rule, it is subject to the constraints. Since Left Dislocation is not, it is not subject to them. The generalization in (6.142) is really a shorthand way of regarding all the constraints of Chapter 4. Thus the CSC, (4.84), instead of stating "... no conjunct may be moved....", should state ... no conjunct may be chopped ...", and similarly for the other constraints of Chapter 4. until 6.2.2. Such a restatement will be postponed § 6.5 below. For another clear contrast between copyingsand chopping rules, consider the rule of Right Dislocation: (6.143) Right Dislocation X 1 - [Pro] Y 2 3 2 El [4.Po] This rule converts the structure underlying (6.144) into 429 any one of the structures underlying (6.145). The cops spoke to the janitor about (6.144) that robbery yesterday. (6.145) a. They spoke to the janitor about that robbery yesterday, the cops. b. The cops spoke to him about that robbery yesterday, the janitor. c. The cops spoke to the janitor about it yesterday, that robbery. This rule is, as (5.12.3) would predict, upward bounded. This can be seen from the contrast in grammaticality between (6.146) and (6.147): (6.146) a. That they spoke to the janitor about that robbery yesterday, the cops, is terrible. b. That the cops spoke to the janitor about it yesterday, that robbery, is terrible. (6.147) a.?* That they spoke to the janitor about that robbery yesterday is terrible, the cops. b.?* That the cops spoke to the janitor about it yesterday is terrible, that robbery. Sentences like those in (6.146) show that this rule is unlike the rule of Left'Dislceation in that it can copy a constituent at the end of a subordinate clause, while Left Dislocation must be restricted to main clauses. 430 The specification in term 2 of (6.143) that the NP to be right-dislocated not be a pronoun is necessary to exclude such' sentences as those in (6,148). rh (6.148) a. * They let him go yesterday, 'I e him 1 b. I like beer, *I ?*me c. * We'll go together, we us d. * They can't stand each other, they them The restriction is stated somewhat too strongly, at present, for it would not allow the generation of such sentences as those in (6.149), unless a coordinate NP, all of whose conjuncts have the feature [+ Pro] can still be argued to have the feature 11Prol - which seems unlikely to me. ' (6.149) a. We'll do it together, you and I ne b. They can't stand each other, he and she him and her Note that the,rule of Left Dislocation does not require the NP to be dislocated not to be a pronoun -- the sentences in (6.150), which correspond to those in (6.148), are gr.ammatlical. 20 (6.150) ati *He they let him go yesterday. Him b. *1 die I like beer. 431 j c. r . J ) , *They! _ d. we'll go together. Us C I l } , they cant stand each other. Theml ) Once again, hawevei, I am not concerned with fine points in the formulation of Right Dislocation -- my main purpose here is to show how the constraints'on this copying rule differ from those . on the rule of N.? Shift, (5.57); for except for the various minor conditions stated on each. rule, their only difference is that the former is a copying rule, while the latter is a chopping rule. Since both rules are upward bounded, they will of course both be subject to the CNPC and the SSC, in (6.151) are a syntactic minimal pair: The sentences the ungraMmaticality of (6.151a) and grammaticality of (6.151b) shows that the CSC restricts the operation of only the rule of NP Shift. And the sentences in (6.152) show the same to be true of the LBC. (6.151) a. * I saw Mary and downtown yesterday your friend from Keokuk. I saw Mary and him downtown yesterday, your friend from Keokuk. (6.152) a. * I noticed car in the driveway last night your_friend from Keokuk. b. I noticed his car in the driveway last night, your friend from Keokuk. 432 In 5 4.3.2.3. above, I presented evidence showing that a constraint is necessary, to the effect that no NP can move rightwards out of a prepositional phrase, thereby stranding the preposition (cf. (4.231)). In connection with my remark that the generalization in (6.142) is a.shorthand way of rewording the constraints of Chapter 4, condition (4.231) should be reinterpreted but only on as a constraint not on all reordering transformations; chopping transformations. The sentences in (6.153) constitute another minimal pair which shows the need for this distinction: that (6.153a) is ungrammatical, but not (6.153b), shows that only NP Shift, and not Right Dislocation, is subject to (4.231). (6.153) a. * I spoke to about the war yesterday that guy who's always following us. b. I spoke to him about the war yesterday, that guy who's always following us. Distinguishing between copying and chopping rules will 6.2.3. also provide an explariation of the following fact, which is otherwise puzzling. There is a dialect of English in which all the sentences in (6.154) are perfectly grammatical. (6.154) a. I just_saw that girl who Long John's claim :.that E3w:.,.s headlines. ;,'nor c, .4 a Venusian made all the 433 b. All the students who the papers which Fi submitted were lousy I'm not goikg to allow 1 to register next term. c. Didn't that guy who the Gam.; Warden and him ormssmosIbe had ,seen a flying saucer ;rack up? d. Palmer is a guy who for ,nim to stay in ;101110 school would be stupid. e. The only kind of car which I can never seem-to-get-T.1;1 carburetor adjusted right 4 is them Stanley Steamers. f. King Kong is a movie which you'll laugh yourself sick if you see it . The rule that forms this type of relative clauses would appear to differ from (4.135), the more usual rule, only in that the structural change of (4.135) specifies that term 4, the relativized element, is to be deleted, whereas this rule MN only pronominalize5 term 4. rule. illillii Thus this rule 411 a copying rule, while (4.135) is a chopping And, as (6.142) predicts, this rule is subject to none of the constraints: in (6.154a) and (6.154b), elements of complex NP's have been relativized; in .(6.154c), a conjunct has been, and in (6.154d), a constituent of a sentential subject clause. In (6.154e), an NP left branch of a larger NP on the has been relativized, and in (6,1540, an element of a subordinate clause has been. If any of the boxed pronouns 1119.01M,....1.44 Vr" I 434 1.11 (6.154), which this rule leaves behind, are deleted, as would be the case if (4.135) had applied, none of the resulting sentences is grammatical. Such sentences as those in (6.154), while common in almost everyone's speech, are regarded as sulotandard by normative grammarians. But there are languages whose relative clauses are normally formed by a copying rule like the one responsible for the sentences of (6.154), and in these languages, such sentences are regarded as fully grammatical. Michael Brame has informed me21 that this is the case in several dialects of Arabic. If the correct analysis-of appositive clauses is 6.2.4.1. that implied in conjoined S § 4.2.3., above, where I stated that the second of (4.115) could be inserted into the first, in apposition to the NP Pietro, then the rule, which forms these r.its clauses is a chopping rule, and it violates the CSC. =OM rule q1.10 gigigrojounk /5 e 1,e 44' a. re chopping rulelI know of whichillft not subject to all the constraints of Chapter 4. It therefore merits very careful scrutiny. There are two arguments for deriving appositive clauses from coordinate structures. The first is that there are cases where such clauses can begin with :and, as in (6.155). .1 434 in (6.154) , which this rule leaves behind, are deleted, as would be the case if (4.135) had applied, none of the resulting sentences ic grnmplatic=11. Such sentences as those in (6.154), while common in almost everyone's speech, are regarded as substandard by normative grammarians. But there are languages whose relative clauses are normally formed by a copying rule like the one responsible for the sentences of (6.154), and in these languages, such sentences are regarded as fully grammatical. Michael Brame has informed Me. 21 that this is the case in severAl dialects of Arabic. 6.2.4. If the correct analysis of appositive clauses is that 6.2.4.1. implied in § 4.2.3. above, where I stated that the second conjoined 44 the of (4.115) could be inserted into the first, in apposition Pietro S NP rule, then the rule which forms these clauses is a chopping and it violates the CSC. This rule would be one of the two chopping are, of rules I know of which al= not subject to all the constraints Chapter 4. It therefore merits very careful scrutiny. There are two arguments for deriving appositive clauses from coordinate structures. The first is that there are cases where such clauses can begin with and, as in (6.155). 435 Enrico, "(6.155) . nn& f-to who. s the smartest of us all, and h wnal,ca SeVen Qof'Anik, The second argument is that after NP's whose determiners are any, no, every, etc., appositive clauses cannot appear (cf. (6.156)), Any A } student, (6.156) Every i° who and he wears socks, is 1 a swinger. and that in these cases are the corresponding conjoined sentences also impossible: (6.157) Any * No Every student is a swinger and he wears "1. socks. These arguments are valid, and the facts they are based on must be explained somehow. But there is a problem here: how are sentences like (6.158) to be generated? (6.158) Is even Clarence, who is wearing mauve socks, a swinger? This sentence cannot be derived from the structure shown in (6.159), 436 (6.159) and ILEvan Clarence is a swinper for the arguments in .arence s wear npauve socks § 4.2.4.3 showed ",hat such deep structures must be rejected on the basis of some constraint stated in terms of deep structure, not in terms of transformational operations. The gravity of the two problems connected with deriving sentences like (6.158) from structures like (6.159) -- namely the fact that if it is a chopping rule that is involved in the conversion)it is not subject to the constraints, and the fact that such senten0,:is as those in (4.149) seem only to be excludable if structures like (6.159) are also excluded as deep structures -- suggests that this derivation must be wrong, and that another source must be found for appositive clauses. At present, the only solution that comes to my mind is a very radical one. Since it appears that there must be rules of some kind which convert one sentence into two (how else can the second sentence in (4.90a) be derived than from a conjunct?), it may be that there are also some rules which reverse the process. That is, it may be that the source for (6.158) is the sequence of structures underlying the sentences in (6.160). 437 . Is even Clarence a swinger? (6.160) Clarence is wearing mauve socks. If this analysis is adopted, it will still be possible to account for the fact that the sentences of (4.156) are ungrammatical, for the corresponding sentences sequences are also. fAny (6.161) *)No very He wears is a swinger. Istudent socks. However, the first argument that appositive clauses come from conjoined structures (i.e., the fact that appositives can be introduced by and) cannot be gotten around in this reanalysis, at least, not in any way I can see at present. this reanalysis. I am, therefore, very diffident in proposing It looks like the best analysis of appositives that is presently available, but one which is none too good. 6.2.4.2. There is only one other chopping rule that I know of which in any way provides counterevidence to (6.142). rule of There Replacement. This is the It seems reasonable to assume that after the rule of There Insertion has converted (6.162a) into (6.162b), some rule should operate on the structure underlying this latter sentence to convert it into the structure which underlies (6.162c), by substituting some NP for the derived subject, ee. 438 (6.162) a. .b. c. Seven pine trees are behind that barn. There are seven pine trees behind that barn. That barn has seven pine trees behind it. There are two arguments which support this analysis. 22 The first is that just as the rule of There Insertion requires an indefinite subject NP to apply (cf. the strangeness of (6.162b) if the is inserted before seven, and the ungrammaticality of (6.163b)), (6.163) a. There will be a hole in Jack's pocket. b.* There will be the hole in Jack's pocket. sq sentences like (6.162c) require the object of have to be indefinite. Thus if the precedes seven, (6.162c) is as odd as (6.162b), and the sentences in (6.164) parallel exactly those in (6163), from which they are derived. (6.164) a. Jack will have a hole in his pocket. b.* Jack will have the hole in his pocket. The second argument has to do with the fact that such sentences as (6,162c), while they cannot contain reflexives (cf. (6.165a)), must contain a pro-form of the subject NP as the object of the preposition (cf. the ungrammaticality of (6.165b) and (6.165c)). (6.165) a.* That barn has seven pine trees behind itself. b.* That barn has seven pine trees behind the COW 439 c.* Jack will have a hole in my pocket. 23 That the rule of There Replacement must have a variable in its structural index was pointed out to me by Nary Bremer: not only can the structure underlying (6.163a) be converted into that underlying (6.164a), but also into the one underlying (6.166). Jack's pocket will have a hole in it. (6.166) And the structure underlying (6.167) can eventually become any one of the sentences of (6.168), all of which I believe to be fully grammatical, but some of which are rendered unacceptable by an output condition. ?? There is a hole in John's quilt's upper (6.167) right-hand corner. (6.168) a.?? John's quilt's upper right-hand corner has a hole in it. b. John's quilt has a hole in its upper right-hand corner. c.?? John has a hole in his quilt's upper rightband corner. d. John has a hole in the upper right-hand corner of his quilt. Notice that since the rule of hereTlent substitutes. some NP for the derived subject there, it is a chopping rule, by definition (6.138). We would therefore expect it to obey the CNPC, the CSC, and the LBC (I have as yet not been able to construct examples 440 to show it to be subject to the SSC). The fact that (6.169a) cannot be converted into (6.169b) or (6.169c) shows it to be subject to the CSC, (6.169) a. There are seven holes in the door and window. b. * The door has seven holes in it and the window. c. * The window has seven holes in the door and it. but the fact that (6.163a) can be converted into (6.164a) , and that (6'.167) can be converted into (6.168c) and (6.168d) shows this rule not to obey the LBC. NP To complicate things, ho;4ever, if the possessive i3 an inalienable possessor: the rule apparently is subject to the LBC: (6.170a) cannot be transformed into (6.170b), though it may be transformed into (6.170c). (6.170) a. There is a blemish on the end of Jerry's sister's nose. b. * Jerry has a blemish (At the end of his sister's nose. c. Jerry's sister has a blemish on the end of her nose. It seems to be the case that only animate NP can be copied out of complex NP's. 'Thus while the sentences in (6.171) can be transformed into those in (6.172), those in (6.173) cannot be 441 transformed into those in (6.174). (6.171) a. There is a hole in the rug which Toby bought in Butte. b. There was an error in the proof Prof. Hiatus presented. c. There was a snake behind the car Fred was sitting in. (6.172) a. ? Toby has a hole in the rug which he j bought in Butte. b. he Prof. Hiatus had an error in the proof *Sarah presented. c. Fred had a snake behind the car jhe 1. Joe was sitting in. (6.173) a. There was a yellow collar on the dog which the car injured. b. There's a hole in the tarpaulin which that stone is holding down. c. There was a snake behind the car the time bomb was sitting in. (6.174) a. * The car had a yellow collar on the dog which it injured. b. * That stone has a hole in the tarpaulin WO, which it is holding down. c. * The time bomb had a snake behind the car which it was sitting in. 25 442 liot only does this rule unexpectedly fail to obey the CNPCfand the LBC under certain conditions, it also appears to obey stronger constraints. Thus while the boxed NP in (6.175a) can be relativized (cf. (6.175c)), it cannot be substituted for there, as (6.175c) shows. (6.175) a. There were several hundred people yelling down gently. for me to put b. The hot potato which there were several hundred people yelling for me to put down rr gently turned out to have been filled with TNT. c. * The hot potato had several hundred people yelling for me to put it down gently. 6.2.5. Except for the two rules discussed in § 6.2.4 I know of no chopping rule that does not obey all the constraints of Chapter And I know of no copying rule which does obey them. Thus the distinction made in (6.138) appears to have a basis in linguistic fact, as long as there are so many unresolved problems in the analysis of the two discussed in constructions § 6.2.4. I will provisionally assume, therefore, that the generalization stated in (6.142) is correct. 6.3. Reordering over Variables 6.3.1 In § 4.2.3 4. above, I discussed the rule proposed in 443 Lakoff and Peters (1966) which I will refer to as Conjunct Movement. It is stated approximately as in (6.176). Conjunct Novement26 (6.176) [NP - [and 1 1 . VP NP ]NP 7 1NP 2 3 0 31/2 This rule must apply to (6.177), which underlies (6.178a), to move the circled NP along the path shown by the arraw,"eventually producing (6.178b). (6.177) VP 11-- 0 and 1NP and 1 danced Toli Bartlett (6.178) RI a. Bartlett and Toni danced. b. Bartlett danced with Toni. But as I pointed out in footnote 13 of Chapter 4, as the CSC is presently stated, such. an operation is impossible, for 444 Conjunct Movement is a chopping rule, dnd the subject NP of (6.178a) is a enordinate node. It is not .possible to claim that somehow this particular subject NP is not affected by the CSC, for it is impossible to move either boxed the rule of 05 NP to the end of (6.177) by NP Shift, (5.57), as is shown by the ungrammaticality 6.179). / (6.179) a. * Bartlett and danced Toni. b. * (And (and)) Toni danced Bartlett. Since it is not this particular construction that is exempt from the CSC, it must be some feature of the rule. operation of the two rules of Conjunct Movement and is virtually the same -- in each, some end of a sentence. NP The pi) Shift gets moved to the But there is a significant difference in the statement of the rules; while the latter rule permutes to the end of the first sentence up any NP (because term 2 of (5.57) is surrounded by variables), the former rule specifies that the second conjunct of the conjoined subject NP may be moved to the end of its VP. In other words, the first rule makes crucial use of variables, while the second does not. At present, I believe it to be the case that the constraints of Chapter 4 never affect any rule unless that rule reorders one of its terms around a variable. generalization is stated in (6.180). This 445 Only rules 141 which terms are reordered -(6.180) around variables are subject to the constraints of Chapter 4. In the case just discussed, it is possible to imagine an alternative solution involving rule ordering. Thus it could be argued that if either the first and of (6.177) has been deleted, or if the second has been converted into a preposition, the subject node of (6.178a) would no longer be coordinate, so the CSC would not be in effect any longer. But if this is the correct explanation, it must be possible to order the rule of NP Shift early, so that it precedes all these changes, and I do not know whether such an ordering can be maintained. However, even if such an analysis can be carried through for English, there are languages, like Japanese, where the conjunction is not rewritten as a preposition by the rule which corresponds to (6.176), so such an explanation will not be possible in general. And there are two additional cases, from English, which seem to require the generalization stated in (6.180). These will be presented immediately below. 6.3.2. In sentence (6.181), the N1 her cannot be relativized, as (6.182) shows. (6.181) It bothers me for her to wear that old fedora, 446 (6.182) a. * The only girl for whom it bothers me to wear that nld fedora 3s Annnhellp, b. * The only girl who it bothers me (for) to wear that old fedora is Annabclle. It is not the case that no element of an extraposed for to phrase can be chopped, as (4.273) shows. It therefore seems to be necessary to add (6.183) to the conditions box for English. (6.183) No element in the environment Vy chopped .- : %(1 But now consider the rule of discussed in S 5.1.1.1. [for -- VP] It: Replacement, which was The formal statement of this rule, which raises interesting theoretical problems which I will not take up here (they are discussed brifly in Lakoff (1966)), contains as a subpart the rule shown in (6.184). (6.184) X - [Al for oss NP VP 1S ] 1 2 3 4 5 1 4 3 0 5 NP This ride will convert the structure underlying (6.185a) into the one underlying (6.185b). 447 IF inrw W.J.W., I would prefer it for Ithere) to be no tarkiAg. 1 would prefer there to be no talking. b. Notice Chat the boxd NP of (6.185a), even though it is in the environment which is specified in (6.183), has been chopped by rule (6.184). Once again, however, there is a cortrast in the formal statement of the rules in questit5a. The rule of Relative Clause Fomation, which is subject to (6.183), as the ungrammaticality of (6.182) shows, permutes the relativized NP around a variable, while in (6.184), the chopped term merely moves over the constants in term 3. Thus the fact that (6.185b) is grammatical, and (6.182) ungrammatical, provides further evidence for the correctness of (6.180). A "I 1 In § 3.1.1.3.1, above, t pointed out that it was necessary to constrain the rule of NP Shift somehow, so that sentences like (3A0b), (3.35b), and (3.36b) would not be generated. I But the condition stated there, (3.34), can be generalized, for while the underlined NP in (6.186a) can be questioned (cf. (6.187a)), if the indirect object precedes the direct object, as in (6.186b), the indirect object cannot be questioned (cf. (6.187b)). (6.186) a. He gave my binoculars to that girl. b. He gave that girl my binoculars. 448 -(6.187) a. Which girl did he give my binoculars to? ti b. * Which girl did he give my binocu/ars? Since 27 it is not universally the case that indirect objects cannot be chopped (for instance, in German the sentence Welchem Nadchen b er meinen Feldstecher ?, which translates (6.187b), is grammatical), it would appear that some condition like that stated in (6.188) must appear in the conditicms.box for English. No element may be chopped out of the (6.188) environment following [NP V NP NP ]S, unless the begins with a preposition. However, if this condition is correct, how can both versions of (6.186) be passivized, as the grammaticality of the sentences in (6.189) indicates is necessary? (6.189) a. Ny binoculars were given to that girl-by him. b. That girl was The answer is obvious: given my binoculars by him. since all reordering rules which are subject to (6.188) make crucial use of variables, while the Passi.:2 Rule, however . it is to be stated, need not do so, If the generalization expressO In (6.180) is added to the theory of grammar, the contrast between (6.187) and (6.189) for. z9n be naturally accounted Therefore, on the basis of these facts, and the evidence presented in §§ 6.3.1 - 6.3.2, I tentatively propose the addition of (6.180) to the theory of grammar. 449 6.4. Islands 6.4.0. The fundaMental insight of this section is due to In connection with some extremely important, but Paul Kiparsky. still unpublished, research on complement constructions which he is conducting, he pointed out that the that-clause in (6.190r1) has a factive meaning, while this is not the case in (6.19010. (6.190) a. Bill confirmed that Roger has eaten [the cake I b. f had eaten Bill alleged that Roger ?has ;the cake) One who utters (6.190a) is not only reporting an action of Bill's, he is himself asserting that the content of the that-clause is true. This is not the case with (6.190b) -- there the speaker merely comments on Bill's action, without himself taking any stand on the truth of the embedded sentence. One of the many ways that Kiparsky has discovered this semantic difference to be paralleled by syntactic differences is in the behavior of elements of the two .kinds of that-clauses under chopping rules. Thus while the boxed NP in (6.190b) can be questioned (cf. (6.191b)), the boxed NP of (6.190a) can only be questioned with difficulty, if at all, (cf. (6.19.1a)). (6.191) a.?? What did Bill confirm that Roger had eaten? 450 'That did Eill allege that Roger had b. ontrIn? For the purposes of the present discussion, Kiparsky's most important observation was that the restrictions on a feature- changing rule like z,cor7:9aii)r r Indelf4 (S 71) kj 4.- exactly parallel those on the rule of Question, a chopping rule. a.?* Bill didn't confirm that Roger had eaten (6.192) anything. b. Bill didn't allege that Roger had eaten anything. These facts can be generalized trivially, to yield the hypothesis in (6.193). All feature-changing rules obey the same (6.193) constraints as The rest of of this hypothesis. In 6.4 chopping rules. is devoted to exploring the oonsequem:es § 6.4.1, I will discuss a few of the many pieces of confirming evidence that I know of, and in § 6.4.2, I will discuss all the-disconfirming evidence that has come to light thus far. Finally, in § 6.4.3, I will examine the converse of (6.193) and define the concept island. 6.4.1. 6.4.1.0. This section is divided into four parts. In the first three, 1 will show how various feature-changing rules are subject to 451 the CNPC, the CSC, and the SSC, respectively, and in the fourth, _ .0 ruicse whiph annear cs I will show [low various restrictions on ^!"""-14Pa in the conditions boxes of a number of languages also affect the operations of feature-changing rules. 6.4.1.1. If the rule of IndefilliajasaamIum, (5.71), is subject to the CNPC, the contrast between the sentences of (6.194) is accounted for (cf. also (5.73e)) . Waldo didn't report (* the possibility) (6.194) that anyone had left. The CNPC also correctly predicts that sentences like (5.731), where rule (5.71) has gone down into a relative clause, are ungrammatical. There are, however, relative clauses which can contain words like an, ever, and at all, which typically occur in environments where rule (5.71) operates. The sentences in (6.195) are a representative sample of such clauses. (6.195) a. Nobody who hates to eat anything should we -L in a delicatessen. b. Anybody who ever swears at me better watch his step. c. Everybody around here who ever buys anything on credit talks in his sleep. d. I want all the students who have ever trled to pat Nacavity to show me their scars. , 452 The only e, travelers who anybody has *Only the .ever robbed don't ci:rry machetes, What seems to be going on here is that indeterminates can become indefinites in a relative clause which modifies an NP whose determiner belongs to the set no, an v, a, sma, all, the first (but not the second, third, etc.) the last, the Ad &. 4. est best steak I ever ate) (cf. the (but not only the), etc., whether or not the sentence containing the clause is negated. That this rule cannot be the same as (5.71) is indicated by the following facts. The word an cannot appear in the relative clause of (6.196), because the determiner some of the NP this claust, modifies is not one of the set mentioned above. (6.196) * I can't remember the name of Rbody who had (*any) misgivings. But if the boxed [I- Affective] element of (6.196) has triggered the change of the boxed some to any., then the environment for the rule which allows indefinites to appear in relative clauses will be met, and this rule can go down into the relative clause, as has happened in (6.197). (6.197) I can't remember the name of Anybody who had any misgivings. It is therefore evident, since the rule in question must follow (5.71), that the two rules cannot be collapsed into one. 453 Incidentally, sentence (6.198) shows that this rule must be able to apply to its own output,. in a rather interesting way. (6.198) lEver+ody who has ever, worked in any office which contained any 2 1 typewriter which had ever3 been used to type any3 letters which had to be signed by any4 adniniStrator who ever 5 worked in any 5 department like mine Will know what I mean. The element which allows the presence of all the and ever's in this sentence is the boxed determiner every. ayls The first time the rule in question applies to the structure underlying (6.198), it will produce evert end . But now, the result of this first application, the determinerAng , provides a new environment for the rule to reapply in (recall that this rule could not have gone down into a relative clause on an EP whose determiner was some (cf. (6.196))). The rule must then be ablc to produce any2 on its second application, and this any will provide yet a third environment for 'he rule to reapply in, and so on down the tree. This is the only rule I know of which applies in this''anti-cyclic" way, eating its way from higher sentences into lower ones, in sequence, so to speak, instead of the normal type of rules, which process embedded sentences first, and then the sentences that contain them. This rule is therefore eminently worthy of very detailed inve.-..tigation, which would be 454 beyond the scope of this section, so that it can be determined whether this apparently necessary anti-cyclic ordering is in fact necessary. The second fact which demonstrates the impossibility of collapsing this rule and (5.71.) can be seen from a comparison of the sentences in (6.199). (6.199) student who [everl goes to Europe IT° {*Every has enough money. As sentences (6.195a) and (6.195c) demonstrate, both no and every, belong to the set of determiners which can cause indeterminates in relative clauses to be converted into indefinites (cf. the boxed ever). However, the fact that only the negative determiner no can cause the indeterminate sometimes in the main clause to change to the circled ever shows once again that the rule which produces the sentences in (6.195) must be a different rule from (5.71). But, it might be asked, even granting that the two rules are different, why are not both subject to the CNPC, since both are feature-changing rules? that both are: The answer to this question is the CNPC is stated in (4.20) in such a way that it prevents a constituent from being chopped out of a sentence dominated by a complex NP and from then being moved out of the NP. 455 For it is possible, as Ceorge Lakoff has pointed out to me, for elements to be moved out of the complex they stay within the NP NP's sentence, as long as itself (cf., e.g., rule (4.135)). To say that a feature-changing rule obeys the CNPC is to say that no elomnt not -1,,,,14natP,1 by a complex sentence dominated by that NP. since they are dominated by the of the feature [-h Indefinite in (6.195), NP can ncf-..:t changes In the Thus the determiners under discussion, NP, can cause the introduction into a relative clause, as is the case while [4-Affective] elements which are outside the NP cannot. There are two other sets of facts which can be accounted for readily if the hypothesis stated in (6.193) is correct. In § 3.1.3 above, I pointed out that the Case Markin; Rule must be restricted so that no elements of relative clauses are assigned the case of the head NP, and I stated an ad hoc condition (lit which subscripts had to be used) to this effect on rule (3.58). However, once it has been stated in (6.193) that all feature-changing rules like (3.58) are subject to the CNPC, no restriction need be stated on rule (3.'8). Similarly, in § 4.1.6, I claimed that it was universally true that reflexives do not go down into relative clauses. I know of only one language, Japanese, which contradicts this generalization (the Japanese rule of Reflexivization will be investigated briefly in § 6.4.2 below), so though the generalization must be reformulated in a weaker way, it appears to contain an important truth, a truth 456 which can be explained if Reflexivization is subject to the CNPC. I hope that it will turn out to be the case that if there are other languages whose rules of reflexivization can go down into complex it will be possible to point to some formal property NP, shared by all such languages, on which this unusual behavior can At present, however; this is no more than a be made to depend. hope, so the Japanese facts constitute clear counterevidence for (6.193). 6.4.1.2. To see that rule (5.71) is subject to the CSC, it is sufficient to observe that the boxed some of (6.200) cannot be converted into my if (6.200) is negated: while (6.201a) is possible, (6,201b) is not. (6.200) (6.201) I ate the ice cream and [some cake. a. ? I didn't eat the ice cream and some cake. b. * I didn't eat the ice cream and any cake. Similar facts obtain for sentence (6.202): if negated, as in (6.203a), thr! boxed some of the second conjunct cannot be converted into all, (6.202) I realized that it had rained and crops had been destroyed. 457 i (6.203) a. I didn't realize that it had rained and some crops had been destroyed. b. * I didn't realize that it had rained and any crops had been desLroyed. Interestingly, there appears to be a phenomenon he which is reminiscent of the "across-the-board" rules that were discussed in § 4.2.4.1 above. Thus indefinites can appear in conjuncts if they are conjoined with or, instead of and, as in (6.204). . (6.204) I didn't eat any ice cream *or d any cake. It seems to me that such sentences as those in (6.205), where indefinites appear only in one conjunct, are all ungrammatical in varying degrees, but I am not sure of this intuition. * any ice cream or IlarY's the (6.205) I didn't eat cake ?* the cake or any ice cream ? Mary's cake or any ice cream Even if it should prove to be correct that some kind of across-the-board constraint is operative here, I can see no way of accounting for the differences between the sentences of (6.205), or for the fact that only or can appear in such sentences as (6.204) and (6.205). I Clearly a great deal of further research is needed here. J 458 The CSC appears to restrict feature-changing rules not only in that the feature [I- Indefinite] cannot go down into a conjunct, but also in that the [I. Affective] element which broadcasts the L+ Indefinite] features cannot be in a conjunct. In Lakoff and Peters (op. cit.), (6.206a) and (6.206b) are derived from the same underlying structure, the only difference being that in the derivation of (6.206b), two rules have applied which do not apply in the derivation of the more basic (6.206a) -- the rule of Conjunct Ilbvenent (6.176), and a rule which deletes the preposition with which was originally in front of the superficial object Maxine. (6.206) a. Cottlob and Naxime met in Vienna. b. Cottlob met Maxine in Vienna. Now note that if the determiner few appears in a conjunct of such a conjoined NP subject, rule (5.71) cannot introduce the feature [+Indefinitej into the second conjunct (cf. the ungrammaticality of (6.207a)), but that if the rule of Conjunct Movement has applied, to break up the coordinate structure, the moved conjunct can be converted into an indefinite (cf. (6.207b)). (6.207) a. * Few writers and any playwrights meet in Vienna. b. Few writers meet any playwrights in Vienna. 459 The situation seems to be a great deal more complicated So note that (6.207a) than the above facts would indicate, however. is not improved by replacing any with some, as might be expected. And while (6.208a) is ungrammatical, (6,208b) is grammatical. (6.208) a. * My brother and few Americans meet in Vienna. b. My brother meets few Americans in Vienna. Also, while (6.209a) is grammatical, (6.209b) is not. (6.209) a. No writer, and no playwright, speaks nor any clearly. b. * No writer, and no 1playwright, meets nor anyj in Vienna. These sentences raise so many problems that I can only call attention to them here -- I have no idea what processes are at work. That the Reflexivization Rule is subject to the CSC is immediately apparent from the sentences in (6.210). (6.210) a. Bill understands * Mary and himself * himself and Mary b. * Bill and Mary washed himself. c. * Andy pinched Sarah and tickled herself. d. * The gun and a description of itself lay on the bureau. Ii , 460 A particularly clear example is provided by (6.211), whose underlying structure is that shown in (6.212). 1,, Bill believes that Anna and he are (K 414)111, similar. .re A 1 believes it A / VP . and NP I Anna NP be similar I Billi If the rule of Itieslasenent does not apply, this structure will undergo various rules, and will finally emerge as the grammatical (6.211). and the circled NP If It Replacement does apply, however, has been substituted for it in (6.212), it would 461. be expected that the leftmost occurrence of Bill would be able to r flexivize the rightiimost occurrence, for each commands the other. That this does not happen (cf. the ungrammatical version of (6.213)) is explained if the CSC also constrains feature-changing rules. Bill believes Anna and (6.213) him to be * himself similar. I believe it to be the case that feature-changing rules are also subject to the SSC, but the pieces of evidence I have been able to find to support this claim are based on very delicate intuitions, and these may not be shared. For instance, I believe it to be true that while Indefinite Incorporation can go down into that-clauses, it cannot go down into them if they are in subject position. Thus (6.214a) is ungrammatical, and (6.214b), where the embedded subject clause has been extraposed, is grammatical. (6.214) a. * I deny that that McIntyre has mat b. is certain. I deny that it is certain that McIntyre has any money. The problem is this: since the underlined phrase in (6.214a) is a sentence which is dominated exhaustively by NP, 462 acceptability of (6.214a). outpu,t condition (3.27) will lower the Does, therefore, the fact that rule (5.71) has applied to produce the boxed mx in this sentence contribute to its unacceptability? The answer to this question will lie in a comparison of (6.214a) and (6.215), which is identical to the former sentence except for the fact that any has been replaced by some. (6.215) ?? I deny that that McIntyre has some money is certain. I myself find a clear, if small, difference between (6.214a) and (6.215): while both are unacceptable, I would judge the former to be ungrammatical in addition. If these are the correct facts, it is to the SSC that the difference between (6.214a) and (6.215) must be attributed. The second set of facts that seem to indicate that a feature-changing rule is subject to the SSC has to do with Klima's rule" of NelaumlamEmEELisa (cf. Klima (op. cit.)), which can optionally convert the structure underlying (6.216a) into the one which underlies (6.216b), (6.216) a. Tom will not force you to marry any student. b. Tom will force you to marry no student. and which obligatorily converts the structure underlying (6.217a) into the one underlying (6.217b). 463 (6.217) a. * The writers of any of the reports didn't know the answer. b. The writers of none of the reports ten s.aacz.by 414 "e"""". C.4.44.7%11&11 Klima slipports his claim that (6.216b) and (6,217b) are instances of sentence negation by showing that both may be followed by neither-tags, as in (6.218), (6.218) a. Tom will force you to marry no student, and neither will I. b. The writers of none of the reports knew the answer, and neither did the writers of any of the chronicles. a property which he demonstrates elsewhere in the article to be restricted to sentences whose main verb is negated. Since both (6.216b) and (6.217b) are grammatical, the must be able to operate forward and rule of \e alive backward. And since it can operate forward into an extraposed clause, changing (6.219a) into (6.219b), (6.219) a. It is not certain-that you'll marry any (particular) student. b. It is certain that you'll marry no student. the fact that it cannot, if my intuitions are correct, operate backwards into a subject clause ((6.220a) cannot become (6.220b)), mo.4^1. 464 requires explanatinn, (6.220) a. That you will marry any (particular) student is not certain. .b. * That you will marry no student is certain. 28 The fact that the SSC can block (6.220b), if the rule of 1.1egatart Incorporation is formulated as a feature-changing rule, 29 thus provides further support for the hypothesis that all featureclanging rules obey the same constraints as chopping rules. 6.4.1.4. In in connection with the sentences § 5.1.3.2.3, in (5.103), I pointed out that the Russian rule of Reflexivization, (5.98), could not go down into clauses headed by the word Xto 'that'. But it is necessary in any case to state in the Russian conditions box that no elements of sto-clauses can be chopped out of these clauses. For instance, the NP Ilengginu 'woman' in (6.221) cannot be relativized, as the ungrammaticality of (6.222) shows. (6.221) 'I (6.222) sto ja znal * vot on ijubil that he loved knew v vv. z enscina sto on ijubil. that he loved. the woman.' kotoruju ja anal here is the woman who V v vv. aenscinu. I knew 465a Since some condition must be stated in' the grammar of Russian in any case, so that (6,122) will not be generated, if the hypothesis in (6.193) is adopted as a principle of the theory of language, thp tingrnrilmtirality of (5,103h) can hp explained_ The fact that the rule of Russian Genitive Introduction, (5.92), also does not go down into tto-clauses (cf. the sentences in (6.223)), (6.223) a. ja ne I V znal s to sdelal. on eto not know that he this (acc.) did 'I didn't know that he did this.' b. * ja ne I znal vsto on etovo sdelal. not know that he this (gen.) did is of course to be explained on exactly the same basis. Similarly, it can be shown that the two Finnish rules which were discussed in § 5.1.3.2. -- the rules of Finnish Partitive Introduction, (5.85), and Finnish Nominative Introduction, (5.108), also do not go down into clauses headed by etta 'that', a fact that can be explained on the basis of hypothesis (6.193) and the restriction in the Finnish conditions box that no elements can be chopped out of etta-clauses (cf. the ungrammaticality of (4.249b)). Finally, if (6.193) is in the theory of grammar, the fact, noted in § 4.1.6 above, that there is a parallelism between the relativizability of elements after picture nouns and their 465b ref exivizability (cf., e.g., the parallelism between (6.224) and (6.225)), a ??this The man who I gave John (6.224) 1 of was bald. I gava Jack (6.225) a ?this picture *Ed's picture of myself. *Ed's 1 can be explainLtd, and the correct prediction can be made that other featlre-changing rules will be subject to the same curious constraints involving the determiners of picture nouns (cf. (6.226)). I didn't give Jack (6.226) anybody. 6.4:2. 30 While the facts presented in a *this *Ed's § 6.4.1 picture of provide very strong evidence that (6.193) is correct, there are still some puzzling countercases. features of NP's Thus while (6.193) would predict that no which are on the left branch.of larger NP's could be changed, this in fact can happen, as (6.227) indicates. (6.227) I hope I'm not treading on anyone's toes. 466 Secondly, while sentences like (6.210a) show that the normal rule of Reflexivization cannot go down into conjuncts, there is an interesting rule which produces emphatic reflexives, in free variation with non-reflexive pronouns, which can do so. (cf. (6.220). (6.228) 31 Abernathy admitted that thR poison pen letter had been written by my sister' t and him thimself 11. Thirdly, while the facts presented in § 6.4.1.3 show that there are environments in which features cannot be changed in subject clauses, as the SSC and (6.193) would predict, it is obvious that there are circumstances in which features can be changed. Thus the rule of Sequence of Tenses, (5.115), must operate backwards in (6.229) to change the ungrammatical is of the subject clause to was. (6.229) That the sun is out was obvious. was A particularly puzzling fact, in light of the contrast between (6.214a) and (6.215), is the fact that indefinite Incorporation can go backwards into the subject Clauses of negated verbs and adjectives, or EE Affective] verbs and adjectives, as (6.230) shows. (6.230) That.anybody ever left at all in not known is not certain is impossible 'surprises me is odd 467 In . Japanese, it appears to be possible to violate at least the CNPC, with *respect to the rule of Reflexivization. Thus the boxed of tree (6.231), which underlies (6.232), can NP be reflexivized, yielding (6.233). (6.231) VP NP /\ S tabeta VP Biru. 0----1 sakana NP sakana (6.232) katta Biru i Bill wa kare ga katta sakana o tabeta. i he bought fish ate 'Bill ate the fish he bought.' 0.233) Biru Bill i wa zibun self i ga katta bought sakana o tabeta. fish ate. 468 The same situation appears to obtain with respect to sentences in apposition to Sentential nouns like syutyno 'claim'. Thus in (6.234), either the reflexive pronoun zibun 'self' or the third person non-reflexive pronoun kare 'he, she, it' can be used to refer back to the subject of the sentence, Biru 'Bill'. fkare4 1 (6.234) Biro_ wa 1 zibun l he Bill ga kono sakana o i 11 this fish self ..; iu syutyoo o sinzita. katta to bought that say claim believed. 'Bill believed the claim that he had bought the fish.' 1-do not know what the facts are in Japanese with respect to whether Reflexivization can violate the CSC; but if it can, the obvious conclusion is that (6.193) cannot be universal, and that particular grammars must designate in their conditions boxes whether (6.193) is operative In the language or not. That is, (6.193) would be a language-particular "option". Whatever the outcome of the investigation of the question as to whether (6.193) is a universal condition (which now seems unlikely), or an option, it seems reasonably clear that it is operative in English. 469 In the next section, I will investigatc.the consequences of assuming the converse of (6.193) also to be operative in English. 6.4.3. The converse of (6.193) is stated in (6.235): 6.4.3.1. (6.235) All chopping rules obey the same constraints as feature-changing rules. The only constraint that I know to hold for all featurechanging rules is the one which was stated in (5.77), and then restated in (5.122) in terms of command: if an element A in a phrase marker is to have the feature f+ F] added to it, the element(s) which triggers this change must command A. Graphically, then, (5.122) says that if A, at the bottom of the schematic phrase marker shown in (6.236), is to be changed, then the triggering element must lie within the shaded "strip" of (6.236), for it is only elemmts of this strip that command A. . 470 6) s s s AA LAA s A A There is an independently motivated principle of derived constituent structure, which restricts reordering transformations in a way highly reminiscent of (5.122): (6.237). this principle is stated in 471 If the structural change of a transformation (6.237) specifies that one term of the structural index is to be adjoined to a variable, pick the highest proper analysis which the variable allows, and adjoin the term to this string. 32 Instead of attempting a formal definition of the term "highest proper analysis", which would be straightforward, if difficult, I will illustrate the effect this principle has with an example. Supposing that (6.238a) is converted to (6.238b) by the rule of Adverb Prepos-Incv, (5.67) (6.238) a. . What Bob cooked yesterday still tastes good tonight. b. Tonight, what Bob cooked yesterday still tastes good. If (6.238a) is assumed to have the structure shown in (6.239) (whether (6.239) is correct in all details -- tonight should be dominated by VP, in particular whether the adverb S1, or by some other node, is not important), then which of the possible derived constituent structures shown in (6.240) should be assigned to (6.238b)? 472 (6.23 fNNS VP NP still tastes rood NP r I VAdverb tonight Bob cooked (6.240) ./4NP /, / // // 1 ,141) 2 NP what I / still tastes good 473 Intuitively, of course, it is clear that the preposed tonight can only be the daughter of S; NP 1 or S2, if it were dominated by the couatc.rintuitive claim would be made that the string tonight what Bob cooked yesterday is a constituent, and if it were dominated by NP2, that tonight what is a constituent. Syntactic evidence is available to show that tonight cannot be immediately dominated by NP1, S2, or NP2. Since Adverb Preposing must precede all rules of pronominalization (cf., e.g., the paradigm in (5.151), where the subject of will go can only be pronominalized if the adverbial if-clause has been preposed by (5.67)), (6.241b) will only be derivable from (6.241a) if the string whatBol2ccLokecczrclay is a constituent, for it is clear that this string is what the it of (6.241b) refers to, and pronominalization is restricted to delete constituents under identity. (6.241) a. Tonight, what Bob cooked yesterday still tastes good, so tonight, what Bob cooked yesterday will be eaten up. b. Tonight, what Bob cooked yesterday still tastes good, so tonight it will be eaten up. If tonioht were dominated by S2 or NP2, the string what Bob :ecizescootesclay would not be a constituent, and if NP 1 dominated tonight, while this string would be a constituent, it would not be 474. an NP. Since it seems most reasonable to analyze the it of (6.241b) as being a pro-NP, the only place the adverb tonight can be attached is as a sister to dotted line in (6.240) to NP1, connected by the highest Since principle (6.237) would S1. ensure that this d.c.s., and none of the other counterintuitive possibilities indicated by the other dotted lines of (6.240) would result, there is good reason to believe that (6.237), or its/equivalent, must appear in any adequate theory of grammar. I element But now note that (6.237) will also ensure that if A of phrase marker (6.236) is permuted around a variable, It is of course theoretically it will not move out of its strip. possible to state a reordering rule which makes crucial use of variables and which can move an element out of its strip; one such rule is stated in (6.242). VP ]s 16.242) 4 4- - X - NP Y 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 0 5 This rule could apply to a structure like (6.243a) and convert it to (6.243b), moving the circled NP off its shaded strip in (6.243a). 475 (6,243) a, if.Y2P try x_t ] EilLa.k.usc to th.. King Ron Ring Kong you will laugh yourself sick see 476 The question is, will the grammar of any natural :Imagine ever have to contain such a rule? My present answer to such a question, an answer based on all the rules I know of is an unequivocal "no". Not only must the "highest proper analysis" principle of (6.237) be stated in the theory of grammar, but some formal constraint must be stated so that rules like (6.242)can never be stated in any grammar. So little is known at present, however, that it is pointless to propose a formal constraint to this effect at the present juncture. To point up the close conceptual parallels between (5.122) and (6.237), a paraphrase which makes use of command may (5.122) asserts that if the feature prove helpful. added to an element A, (is in the strip above [4- F] is the cause of the change commands A A). (6.237) asserts that if A moves, it will move to a position which commands (is in the strip above) its original. position. Actually, this last paraphrase of (6.237) is inaccurate, for if it is only required that a preposed adverb command its place of departure, the adverb tonight could be attached as the daughter of S 1 of or NP S2 or departure. in tree (6.240): VP 2 only if it were to become a daughter in (6.240) would it no longer command its point of 00 Thus (6.237) is a stronger condition, for reordering transformations, than (5.122) is for feature-changing transformations. 477 If we accept both (6.193) and (6.235) as 'working hypotheses, then, since (6.237) is necessary in any event, as the discussion of (6.238) and (6.241) showed, it should be possible to logically deduce (5.122) from the stronger (6.237). In other words, if the conditions on feature-changing rules are all and only the conditions on reordering rules (but cf. the discussion on Japanese in of § 5.1.4 § 6.4.2), then the asymmetry mentioned at the end above, that while there are upward bounded rules which are downward unbounded, there are no downward bounded, upward unbounded rules,should follow from the "highest analysis" principle of (6.237). Intuitively. (5.122) "feels" the same as (6.237), although I have as yet been unable to construct a rigorous proof, along the lines sketched above, that the former is a consequence of the latter. 6.4.3.2. As I showed in phrase marker (6.,236), the converse of the relation command selects for each element A of phrase marker P na1strj2.ofAthernaxiiint. Element A cannot be moved off its maximal strip, nor can any element of this strip cause any feature to be added to P A. which is not on In other words, the maximal strip of A is the maximal domain of application for all chopping or feature-changing rules. 478 But how do the constraints of Chapter 4 affect the maximal strips of a. phrase marker? The answer is easy to see: the main branch of the maximal strip of A consisting of all and only those nodes of if (that is, the branch P that dominate A) contains one of the types of nodes which is specified in the statement of the CNPC, the CSC, the LBC or the SSC as not permitting the chopping of one of its subconstituents, then the maximal strip is cut into a smaller strip at that node. branch contains a complex node, an NP NP That is, if the main with a lexical head, a coordinate on the left branch of a larger subject position, the main is cut at ell'a node. NP. or a sentence in branch (and the strip it is a part of) The resulting substrips I call islands, and it is these islands that the feature-changing and chopping rules are constrained to operate within. Summary, 6.5. The rules of pronominalization which were discussed in § 5.3 above, and copying rules, like Left Dislocation, (6.126), or the rule which forms relative clauses with a "returning pronoun", like those in (6.154), are the rules which can cross island boundaries. But what of the deletion rules of shown not to be able to cross island boundaries? § 6.1.3, which were Under the ela.remely broad definition of pronominalization that was given in (5.148) of § 5.3.1, the rules of § 6.1.3 would be characterized 479 chopping as pronominalizations, and would not obey the constraints on . and feature-changing rules which were developed in Chapters 4 and 5, but inst-aA ;m1,1 be QflhjPnt to the less restrictive condition which , is stated in (5.152). There is, however, one formal difference between the rules of § 5.3 and the rules in § 6.1.3: while the former rules can delete under identity in either direction, the latter rules are stated to delete only in one direction. mentioned in is § 6.1.3 The English rules all deleted from the left to right (that the element on the right was deleted), while the Japanese 1 rule of Relative Clause Formation deleted only from right to left. And the rule of Reflexivization, (5.98), can, in every language I know of, be formulated unidirectionally ; so the puzzling fact noted in footnote 24 of Chapter 5, that Reflexivization obeys the constraints on feature-changing rules rather than the normal constraint on pronominalization, can also be accounted for. It is at present a total mystery as to why unidirectional pronominalizations should obey the constraints of Chapters 4 and 5, but it does seem to be the case in the few languages I have studied. Summing up, then, the results of the investigation of formal properties exhibited by rules which are subject to the constraints of Chapters 4 and 5 can be expressed as in (6.244) below, where I have used the term "cross" in an undefined, but I think intuitively clear, sense: 480 Variables in chopping rules, featurechanging rules, and unidirectional rules of deletion cannot cross island boundaries; variables in other rules can. 1 , -, 481 . Chapter 6 FOOTNOTES I ! It has been assumed since the inception of transformational 1. grammar (cf., e.g., Harris (1957), section 11.2) that these two rules are the same, an assumption that I find extremely dubious. The arguments that have been used are that the relative pronouns (except for that) are a subset of the wh-words used in questions, and that both rules are subject to the same constraints. But 1 l / if the main argument of this chapter is correct, that all chopping transformations which move constituents over variables are subject to the same constraints, then the second argument for assuming the existence of a "WH-Rule", such as Chomsky's rule (6), which I quoted in § 2.4.0 above, can be disregarded. And the first argument for such a rule, which is essentially a is weak. morphological onea Although there are many parallels between the uses of wh-words in questions and in relative clauses, there are also puzzling differences. So while it is desirable to relate the fact that who replaces human nouns in questions, and the fact that it also does so in rcomr-hrpq, the fact that whose can be used for both human nouns (the boy whose body was lithe snored on) and non-human nouns (trie car whose body was dented still runs) in relatives, but only for human nouns in questions (Whose body was lithe? ici,lhose body was dented?) causes problems 44., .4 4,,,r ,.... 4 I: 482 for those who assume that the two rules are the same. A more importarit argument against identifying these rules can be derived from the following considerations. In sentences introduced by the expletive there, the subject NP cannot be relativized (*The two men who there were Euarding the door wore shoulder holsters). It cannot be argued that sentences beginning with there are frozen to relativization, for such strings as This is a problem which there are a lot of people working on are grammatical. Nor can it be argued that there is a restriction in the English conditions box which pro* hibits any reordering transformation from moving the subject of a there-sentence, for such subjects can be questioned (How many men were there guarding the door?). To me, it seems most likely that the reason that such subjects behave differently under Relative Clause Formation and Question will be connected with the fact that subjects of there-sentences are always indefinite, and a restriction on the former rule that the identical in the constituent sentence always be definite. NP But whether or not this analysis proves to he correct, unless the facts just presented can be explained even on the assumption that the rules of Question and Relative Clause Formation are the same, it seems to me that the only arguments I know of which argue for this are far too weak to be regarded as having established such an identity. e 483 2. This sentence is of course perfectly grammatical as an expression of surprise, but on such a reading; the wh-word why does riot replace a purpose adverb, as it usually does in questions (witness the grammaticality of Why, he left for that reason after all!), and can be followed by a pause, unlike the word how in (6.4a) and (6.4b). These facts are indicative of the clear intuitive difference between this reading of (6.5b) and the exclamatory sentences of (6.4). 3. The six-pointed star which I have prefixed to these examples, one of McCawlPy's many bahnbrechenden ErfindunRen (cf. NcCawley (1964), fn. 2), indicates that these sentences are only grammatical if Yiddish. A particularly clear example of such a sentence, for which I am indebted to David. M. Perlmutter, is 4 Egg', creams you want, bananas 4. you'll get. In sentence (4.18) above, 1 showed that while elements of clauses which follow believe can be relativized, elements of clauses which follow believe the claim cannot. Since such sentences provide such a clear case of the operation of the CNPC, I will use them as a paradigm example of this constraint throughout § 6.1. 484 5. For some reason I cannot explain, elements cannot be extracted by the rule which makes exclamatory sentences from most extraposed clauses, although elements can be relativized here. Compare, e.g., *How brave it is certain that Tom is! with Here is a house which it is certain that Tom lived in. 6. This sentence is acceptable with the meaning "I don't see how he is so brave", if prefixed by the six-pointed star discussed in fn. 3. It cannot, however, have the intended meaning of (6.4a) 7. Personal communication. 8. Of course, since (6.15a) contains an internal sentence which is exhaustively dominated by NP, the output condition stated in (3.27) will lower its acceptability. But it should not be considered to be merely unacceptable, for the following sentence, where when modifies had been established, while awkward, is still far better than (6.15a): Bill left when that noone else was awake had been established. 9. These facts were first pointed out by Katharine Gilbert, in Gilbert (1967). 485 10. This fact was pointed out to me by Morris Halle. II. A rough estimate of the perils that await the unwary grammarian who stumbles into this quagmire can be obtained from a quick perusal of the myriad confusions and inconsistencies in Ross (1964). 12. This sentence cannot be blocked by any ordering of the rules of NP Shift and Conjunction Reduction if the analysis presented in Peters (in preparation) is correct. Peters argues that on the reading of (6.57a) where the meaning is that the playing of the guitar and the singing areS simultaneous, the conjoined VP node should derive from a conjoined node in deep structure. 13. If both versions of (6.76b) are felt to be ungrammatical, this rule must have the general constraint imposed upon it that no element'of a clause containing a finite verb can be preposed. 14. These facts were brought to my attention by Maurice Gross. 15. That is, the morpheme en'of it' must command the verb to which it is to be prefixed as a clitic. For a detailed treatment of the grammar of clitics in several Romance languages, cf. .Perlmutter (in preparation): 486 16. In fact, if la maison is pronominalized fully, not merely to some form such as celle -la that one there', nothing can save The CSC will not allow the (6.81a) from ungraMmaticality. clitic to be moved, but the rule which moves clitics to preverbal position will not let it stay where it is. In such an impasse, no matter which rule wins out, an ungrammatical sentence will result. 17. As a rough indicator of the superficiality with which I heve discussed this construction (indeed, all th.e constructions in § 6.1), consider the following facts, which were pointed out to me by Sylvain Bromberger. in the sentence below, Je vois les fenAtres de la maison et la porte 'I see the windows 211.LgAgaf. of the house and the door of the garage.' while it is not possible to pronominalize and convert into en either of the underlined phrases in isolation, if both are pronominalized, a grammatical sentence results: J'en vois les fenetres et la porte. I of it see the windows and the door. 'I see the windows and the door What I of it thereof particularly interesting is that the en here seems to refer neither to de la maison 'of the house', nor to du garage of the garage', but rather to the set, or gestalt, or individual (to use Nelson Goodman's terms consisting of them both, a concept only roughly translatable into English by such locutions 487 as the house-gaIme. Notice that the reason that the CSC can be "violated" here. is, in a strange new way, the same reason that across-the-board rules (cf. § 4.2.4.2) can "violate" it. I cannot deal further with this extremely interesting problem here. 18. The grammar of comparatives in general, and of these lzphrases in particular, has been intensively examined by Austin Hale. Cf. Hale (1965), Hale (to appear). 19. This term is due to Maurice Gross. 20. The ungrammatical versions of the sentences of (6.150), where the pronouns are in the nominative case, can be blocked by imposing the condition on Left Dislocation that the dislocated NP be marked with the feature [4. objective ] . will only produce a phonetic difference if the it is attached is one of the pronouns 21. Personal communication. This feature NP to which I, he, she, we, Iha. Classical Arabic grammarians refer to pronouns like the boxed ones in (6.154) as "returning pronouns." 488 22. That the rule which converts (6.162b) to (6.162c) changes be to have.should occasion no surprise. There are a number of deep ways in which these two verbs behave the same under transformational rules, but a discussion of these facts would be out of place here. One interesting rule of Italian, which changes have to be in certain circumstances, will be discussed in Perlmutter (op. cit.) 23. That this sentence may be acceptable to some, with the meaning "Jack will cause a hole to appear in my pocket", need not concern us here. 24. This sentence is grammatical if Joe appears in the relative clause, but T am not surf it is an instance of the saue construction. 25. I am not sure that the contrast in acceptability between (6.172c) and (6.174c) 26. is great. I have greatly oversimplified the statement of this rule. Lakoff and Peters (op. cit.) argue, e.g., that the and in term 2 of (6.176) should have been converted into some preposi ...... , tion (cf. He left. With her, She is similar to him, different from her) before this rule applies. ... ..... I am Also it is an open 489 question as to whether term 2 should be Chomsky-adjoined or daughter-adjoined to term 3. 27. There are some speakers who appear to find no difference in acceptability between the sentences in (6.181), but I know of no one for whom sentences like (3.20b), (3.35b), and (3036b) are grammatical. 28. I cannot explain this asymmetry. Of course, (6.220b) is not ungrammatical on all readings. It can mean 'That your spouse won't be a student is certain', but this meaning is not related to the structure underlying (6.220a). 29. Klima postulates a negative constituent, net, so his rule of agative Incorporation is not a feature-changing rule but rather a chopping rule which inserts the chopped nea into some other part of a phrase marker. But I know of no valid argument for treating negation as being anything but a feature; Klima's main argument that negation is a constituent has to do with his notion in construction with, which I have already argued (cf. § 5.2.2 above) is not adequate to the task of accounting for the facts of Indefinite Incorporation, to say nothing of restrictions on the other members of the class of feature- changing rules. Even " Klima's analysis is right, however, so that Negative Incorporation has be considered to be a rule 490 which chops and inserts, it would still be possible to account i for the difference between (6.219b) and (6.220b) by broadening ! the hypothesis stated in (6.193) so that it covered all kinds of chopping rules. Note also that the contrast between (6.220b) and (6.217b) provides an additional argument for pruning. Thus if the NP the writers of some of the reports is sententially derived, / which I believe is inescapable, then by the time the rule of 1 d iiesotivi applies, the sentence must have been pruned, for otherwise the SSC will not allow (6.217a) to be converted into (6.217b). 30. I have no explanation at present for the differential behavior of the sentences in (6.224), (6.225) and (6.226) , if the determiner of picture is this. 31. In Ross (1967c), I show how this rule provides evidence that all declarative sentences are embedded as the direct object of a verb like sax, whose subject is I, in deep structure. Note, by the way, that this rule is unlike the normal rule of Reflexivization in that it can go down into clauses. 32. For a definition of the term 'proper analysis', cf. Chomsky (1955), Fraser (1963). 491 Chapter 7 CONCLUSION This thesis has been an attempt to provide the theory of grammar with a more adequate notion of syntactic variable, a notion which I showed in Chapter 1 and elsewhere to be absolutely essential if the central fact of syntax -- that there are unbounded syntactic processes -is to be captured. In Chapter 2, I argued that the earliest attempt at limiting the power of variables, Chomsky's A-over-A principle, is both too strong and too weak. A far more serious inadequacy in this principle than those I discussed in Chapter 2 is the fact that it cannot be extended in any natural way, as far as I can see, to account for the phenomena which led me to construct a theory of syntactic Islands. In Chapter 3, I gave a preliminary sketch of a theory of node deletion, or pruning -- a theory which interacts closely with the constraints developed in later chapters. In this chapter, I also gave some evidence that a rather substantial revision in the syntactic component was necessary -- that many conditions previously thought to te best stated as restrictions on particular rules should instead be regarded as static output conditions, with the rules in question being freed of all restrictions. These output conditions effect no changes on final derived constituent structures -- rather they lower the acceptability of sentences output by the transformational component, if these sentences exhibit certain formal properties which are specified in 492 the conditions. Thus the relationship between grammaticality and acceptability must become.much more abstract than has been assumed. In Chapter 4, I formulated two putatively univc.rsal constraints and one putatively universal convention, as well as a number of language-particular constraints, which I showed to be intermediate in generality between conditions on particular rules and universal constraints, and thus to necessitate a further addition to the syntactic component -- the conditions In Chapter 5, I showed that various facts made necessary the adoption of a new mechanism into the theory of grammar, so that rules whose variables would otherwise be too strong could be correctly stated. Langacker's notion of command, with suitable extensions, was demonstrated to be adequate to this task, and a number of interesting restrictions on types of rules were shown to be stateable in terms of this notion. Various rules of pronominalization were discussed, and it was shown that while these rules did not obey the constraints of Chapter 4, they also did not obey restrictions which could be stated in terms of command. And in Chapter 6, I discussed a large number of rules, showing them all to be subject to the constraints developed in Chapters 4 and 5. A close examination of all rules subject to these constraints reveals that not only are feature-changing rules and unidirectional deletion rules subject to the same constraints as the chopping rules for which the constraints were first developed, but that it is only rules which 493 make crucial use of variables which are subject to them. Thus, in a sense, it is wrong to speak of constraints on rules -- the constraints in Chapters 4 and 5 are rather to be construed as limiting the power of variables that can appear in a certain type of rules. In conjunction with the notion command, the constraints divide up phrase markers into islands, the maximal domains of rules of the type in question. JAll the proposals I have made should be regarded as being extremely tentative, for our present knowledge of syntax is ridiculously small. This thesis has raised far more questions than it has attempted to answer. Among thaam are: Why should rules which adjoin terms to the right side of a variable be upward bounded, and not those which adjoin terms to the left of a variable? Why should it be that chopping rules, feature-changing rules and uni__directional deletion rules share the property of being subject to the constraints, to the exclusion of other rules? Why should there be a difference between unidirectional and bidirectional pronominalization? Why should it be that the constraints are all "downward- oriented" that is, why should it be that there are phrase marker configurations that prevent elements indefinitely far below them from undergoing various syntactic operations, whereas there are no configurations which affect elements indefinitely far above them? Why should complex NP's) coordinate nodes, sentential subject clauses, 494 1 and IIP's on the left branches of larger NP's all function the i same in defining islands? Can islands be shown to behave like psycholinguistic entities? While none of these questions can now he answered, the fact that they can now be asked is a major result of the thesis. For as e.e. cummings has said, "always the more beautiful answer who / asks the more beautiful question." i if 495 BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, Stephen R. M.I.T. (1957),. "How do so does so." Unpublished paper, Bach, Emmon (1967). "ProWominalization." Unpublished mimeograph, University of Texas, Austin, Texas. Bierwisch, Manfred (1966). "Regeln fur die Intonation deutscher Studia Crammatica, VII, pp. 99-201. Akademie Verlag, S'gtze." East Berlin. Blass, Birgit (1965). A Comparison of the Adverbs and Prepositions of Danish and English. Master's thesis, Columbia University. Bolinger, Dwight (1967). "The Imperative in English." To appear in Festschrift for Roman Jakobson. The Hague: Mouton & Co. "On the problem of enclitic placement Browne, E. Wayles, III.(1966). in Serbo-Croatian." Unpublished paper, M.I.T. lhelogicalstrt.tgziuisticTheor. Chomsky, Noam (1955). Mimeographed, M.I.T. Library, Cambridge, Masse Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton & Co. "On the notion 'rule of grammar'." In Chomsky, Noam (1961). R. Jakobson (ed.), Structure of Language and Its Mathematical Aspects, Proceedings of the Twelfth SyTposiumipApplied ----Mathematics, Vol. 12, pp. 6-24. Providence, R.I.: American Mathematical Society. Chomsky, Noam (1962). "A transformational approach to syntax." In A.A. Hill (ed.), Proceedings of the 1958 Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English, pp. 124-148. Austin, Texas. Reprinted in Fodor and Katz (1964). "The logical basis of linguistic theory." Chomsky, Noam (1964a). In H. Lunt (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge, Mass., 1962Q The Hague: Mouton & Co. Chomsky, Noam (1964b). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Hague: Mouton & Co. The 496 Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Press, Cambridge, Nass. M.I.T. English and Dean, Janet (1967). "Noun phrase complementation in German." Unpublished paper, M.I.T. Fillmore, Charles J. (1965a). "On the notion of 'equivalent sentence Analysis, Report No. 11. structure'." Project on Linguistic Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. in Fillmore, Charles J. (1965b). Indirect Object Constructions English and the Orderina of Transformations. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Fodor, Jerry A., and Jerrold J. Katz (1964). The Structure of Language:_ Readings in the Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Fraser, J. Bruce (1963). "The linguistic framework for a sentence recognition and analysis routine: Transformation structure." Working Paper W-6266. Bedford, Mass.: Mitre Corporation. Fraser, J. Bruce (1965). An Examination of the Verb-Particle Construction in English. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, M.I.T. Gilbert, Katharine F. (1967). "Which-sentential relatives and as-clauses." Unpublished paper, M.I.T. "Quantification and the English comparative.' Hale, Austin (1965). Unpublished mimeograph, University of Illinois. Hale, Austin (to appear), quantification and the English Comparative. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Halle, Morris, and Noam Chomsky (to appear). English. New York: Harper & Row. The Sound Pattern of Harris, Zellig S. (1957). "Co-occurrence and transformation in linguistic structure." Language, 33, pp. L93-340. Reprinted in Fodor and Katz (1964). "Pronominalization, reflexivizatic. Jackendoff, Ray (1966a). semantic component." Unpublished paper, M.I.T. ,Ind the "The erased NP in relative clauses and Jackendoff, Ray (1966b). complements." Unpublished %paper, M.I.T. Katz, Jerrold 3., and Paul M. Postal (1964). An Integrated Theory of linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Positions in Keyser, S. Jay (1964). Review of Jacobson, Adverbial To appear in Language.' kcal..Lat. 497 "On emphasis and word order in Hungarian." Kiefer, Ferenc (1966). Unpublished paper, M.I.T. Klima, Edward S. (1964). "Negation in English." In Fodor and Katz (1964). Kuroda, Sige-Yuki (1964). "A note on English relativization." Unpublished paper, M.I.T. Generative Grammatical. Studies in the Japanese Lannage. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, M.I.T. Kuroda, Sige-Yuki (1965). Lakoff, George (1965). On the Nature of Syntactic Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation, Report No. NSF-16 to The National Science Foundation, Harvard University, Computation Laboratory. "Deep and surface grammar." Unpublished Lakoff, George (1966). paper, Harvard University. Lakoff, George (1965). "Pronominalization and the analysis of adverbs." To appear in Rosenbaum, Teter S., and Roderick Jacobs (ed.), Readings in English Trnsformational Grammar. "Phrasal conjunction Lakoff, George, and P. Stanley Peters (1966). and symmetric predicates." Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation, Report No. NSF-17 to The National Science Foundation, Harvard University, Computation Laboratory. "A criterion for verb Lakoff, George, and John Robert Ross (1966). phrase constituency." Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic --Translation, Report No. NSF-17 to The National Science Foundation, Harvard University, Computation Laboratory. Lakoff, George, and John Robert Ross (in preparation a). ness of Underlying Structures. Lakoff, George and John Robert Ross (in preparation b). formational Component. The Abstract- The Trans- "On pronominalization and the chain of Langacker, Ronald W. (1966). command." Unpublished multilith, University of California at (Page references are to this version.) San Diego, La Jolla. To appear in Schane, Sanford A., and David A. Reibel (ed.), Modern Studies in English. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall. 498 Lees,.Robert B. (1960). The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Hague: Mouton & Co. The "Grammatical analysis of the English comLees; Robert B. (1961) parative construction." Word, 17, pp. 171-185. . Lees, Robert B., and Edward S. Klima (1963). "Rules for English pronominalization." Language, 39, pp. 17-28. McCawley, James D. (1964). "Quantitative and qualitative comparison in English." Paper presented at the Winter Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, December 29, 1964. Perlmutter, David M. (in preparation). Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Grammar. Ph.D. thesis, M.I.T. (in preparation). Ph.D. thesis, M.I.T. Pester :, P. Stanley Coordinate Conjunction in English. 1 Postal, Paul M. (1964). "Underlying and superficial linguistic structure." Harvard Educational Review, 34, pp. 246-266. "On so-called 'pronouns' in English." In Postal, Paul M. (1966a). Dineen, F.P., S.J. (ed.), Report of the Seventeenth Annual Roundtable Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, pp. 177-206. "A note on 'understood transitively'." Postal, Paul M. (1966b). International Journal of American Linguistics, 32.1 (1966). Qualls, Brandon (to appear). Ph.D. thesis, M.I.T. Quine, Willard V. (1960). Word and Oblect. M.I.T. Press, and New York: Wiley. Rosenbaum, Peter S. (1965). ment Constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: The Grammar of English Predicate CompleUnpublished Ph.D. thesis, M.I.T. Ross, John Robert (1964). A Partial Grammar of English Superlatives. Master's thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Ross, John Robert (1966a). "Relativization in Extraposed Clauses (A Problem which Evidence is Presented that Help is Needed to Solve)." Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation, Report No. NSF-17 to The National Science Foundation, Harvard University, Computation Laboratory. Ross, John Robert (1966b). "On the nature of bounding in syntactic rules." Unpublished paper, M.I.T. MEM. ...M1111 - --4,,t1.16111.000)Par 499 "Adjectives as noun phrases." Ross, John Robert (1966c). ditto, M.I.T. Unpublished "A proposed rule of tree-pruning." Ross, John Rcbert (1966d). Mathematical Linguistics and Automatic Translation. Report No. NSF-17 to The National Science Foundation, Harvard University, Computation Laboratory. "On the cyclic nature of English pronominalization." To appear in Festschrift for Roman Jakobson. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Ross, John Robert (1967a ).. Ross, John Robert (1967b). utimeograph,-M.I.T. "Auxiliaries as main verbs." "On declarative sentences." Ross, John Robert (1967c). Jacobs, Roderick and Peter S. Rosenbaum (ed.), English Transformational Grammar. Unpublished To appear in in '!Gapping and the order of constituents." Ross, John Robert (1967d). To appear in the Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Linguists. Smith, C. (1961). "A class of complex modifiers in English." 37, pp, 342-365. Language Vendler, Z. (1962). "The order of adjectives. ". Transformations and Discourse Analysis Project paper no. 31, University of Pennsylvania. Warshawsky, F. (1965a). "Reflexivization." Unpublished paper, M.I.T. Warshawsky, F. (1965b). "Reflexivization." Unpublished paper, M.I.T. "Transforms without kernels?" Winter, W.(1965). pp. 484-489. Language, 41.3, Zwicky, A.M., Jr., and S. Isard (1963). "Some aspects of tree theory." Working Paper W-6674. Bedford; Mass.: Mitre Corporation. 500 BIOGRAPHY I was born on May 7, 1938, in Boston, Massachusetts, the son iof I Dr. Douglas Allen Ross and Eleanor Campbell Mott Ross. lived in Montreal and then in Sudbury, Massachusetts, until I was nine, when we moved to Poughkeepsie, New York. I had the good fortune to go to the Poughkeepsie Day School from the third grade to the eighth grade, graduating in 1952. My luck continuing, I was accepted at, arid managed, despite many disciplinary problems, to stay in, Phillips Academy, Andover Massachusetts, where I graduated in 1956. As I entered Yale in the fall of that year, intending to major in mathematics, I stumbled by chance into a brilliant and fascinating introductory course in linguistics -- which I had never heard of -- a course taught by the late Bernard After I had failed out of mathematics, he allowed me to piece together a special undergraduate major in linguistics, and became my adviser. It is to his understanding, humor, and patience that I owe the fact that I am now a linguist. After graduating from Yale in 1960, I received a grant from the Deutscher Akademische Austauschdienst and went for two semestersz to the University of Bonn)and for one semester to Berlin, to the Free University and to the Technical University, where I studied a little linguistics and a lot of everything else. Having returned to the United States, I received a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship to study at the University of Pennsylvania, 501 where Zellig Harris put me forever profoundly in his debt by introducing me to the fascinatingly complex realm of syntax. Under his tutelage, I wrote a Master's Thesis entitled "A P:rtial Grammar of English Superlatives", receiving the degree in MAy 1964. Since January 1964, I have been a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where 1 nave had the privilege of studying with Foam Chomsky, Morris Halle, .:oman Jakobson, Paul Kiparsky, Edward Klima, G. Hubert Matthews, aid Paul Postal. 4ti A eP111r .1.1441,0( , . (7... a, '. Alt *. . .t-C I, (7 . I . 4k r Fe 1 11."/I: IV P 5 14.j I 1XA.' . ( 1 iI' -1: ,- 1'4 Cf.--,:/,.. e i / 1,";',,:%**./..; ''' ....... -......II2,,........,........-----------..., p ......% I .., (,!--),!,.,...a."!1-4 t..!* e .0, .:i -----:"--:-----" ..) . -., I ( 1,. r,---..."1-17.".i-.I -:. , ..!- . -:.!.i...,-.,e,I,IAN, . 3? a7P.PC I I 6ti-c06.4,4 4.2..3)1 21 7471 r`r 1 is k4 Io 4 4 111. so Irc.(1.3.-/-.-1,)) etc i, .3 / .:. / 1 I 1 / '311 '1."'":"'..."'"*--....."..".""7. : o . (3.0-e) I "C3 .t 4 RoC -fe. tv iT:-..e a ) j*2) ..s, -V a / te _I r C/J4,2:). 1 1:-/-:-.2 6-1k - iii: riP. (.., eC 3. -.'_, i - 1 . r2 1' 1/ !NI) (d;* .1-.Si: ) c.t.q.n.. 1'73 6) re. C3 31 3t: .3 33?) .31C-1. Alfa- 2 t ,o) 1. 3 /6o (ic.Di-) . c1 4-1 3 a. (.) 62 t:j ......... / 1.7.1 4. /.1.7:'2=1 , , 4 S.5- ) 34. !,,o of) 1gal 30e, it11 /7 i al./ 3 eigi:c (i C. i. tr. krICA .0.4,..c.s,,, . i/1 1."1',J.:^"k v Ir 1) ... ..... f ,,i.,...,,..,;.......,,,,......,......,... I ejt 'II' ?",:,..I. C : VC 1,.. It ' ( C (5 1(6) -.I .r.-.0. 4 . ir'irs....'..-ATt'.'t: - .1. a I I' f:t ia ftit./Hg.. I .. -.., ) V' 1Cu) ..1.'`j /"-C. tel. 5 -- .--)- 1 i 17 C 1 / 2^ ...,...,1 iv! 33:14 -c , ( ,.--;z)--,:i.p.3.6-)) 3/0)36-6) 465.4%. f.) " ft , ,i) i .. 1.. ( .4:, b. 1...),I. ( - P1 ,..",:i 4.) , D.14:1 4. 7 =' 1 ) -.3.)0) L-# -rle -, / ,, iCti.- t 11 - .31.0. 31 AN- ?..?o, 331 6 ,, . / 6- 71. ',....'4..; I.... ;A-0 .,,..,..........4..............................7. 1,, 7 #.?*: I 1144),1 If 4 a(?) 1,P6-./Qoa, CA, 5 ft. 30 , q- r 3 C§ 1.1,a), '10 ) 1... 1 j 4 AA14, t . ; (Lta 6) II loa-Cr(^ C.21) t 1(30 ) ) I, 13(7--r6!f-./41 ff. 06.1,4.3)) (4.6 .60.1 tt S 57) f.y,. f4.LlfCsc C. "'''-e r ,j 11 ,tti.,(:). . 2. 47 -12.e. (:-; 3 . 1,1) la ?, 130) 13-) (%1 .-=. 1.% Ism 4 3 -(1. . /4-2 /7:') ) j .;. /o 3) zi-47cf.01.3,3) .: r) 1.3)% 473 oSffi h,-/ " --/IA I, 4.1. 7 7 / .1. .4 . A. ::"....... .i. i.; , id (i :./;:)r .,..... ,f LI ,. . % 447 14.50 ) 1 4.-53 ILO! 7? i.:" Q Tit 2 3/P t/i'd 3 ..1 CI trici p ad -0) 76) tivc ...{..-- 1%. 3 I Li 0- 92 14 1 , ) _., (4.1 i. I....1; a ;Is.) ".° 1 .4". to cA4i 1f,A 7 1 } ,,,.,) )i1' '1'.)/ ... ,','', t :it.)i 1 4t. 1 i 1 C.1t. . L,477 v.) e..1'1.1.) 1.41) r.e ( i t; .-1 . . 41 . t . 1)0 469- 4 .3 44i)si......,.-,',0. ) ....,,,, , I LpC7) .. I :.fr..--,) I ) 11.1 v,,. tt .4s-7)/ ) , ( 5.1?..Q 3 -!0 JP-e-1 p 1. S4,i t' ) (t.iti3) ,,,, 341 ,34.1....) JJ . L... :-.; 1:".. » `-) 335- L3 ,. a& ../ 6 ) Ricp-,--.. 0 "1. , -I . rn 3p.),, ,A) _3%4 s ,- ...),/f/AP-1,4?)1s.,A%;-.am* 1,/ , ; / ) ti?; i;z3 1.1 2. I 0 1 31 a Pi 121 ) 2 J-,/ , I 17T ar - aet) 3 -tr;.. . S.. 3uis(f 31.1',/:0L/1.(c).)) 11it-fP4(11,341))447#.0.1.3.s ) .! : ga 3.1)63 ) ) 2.,2 t 1- 2- 3/ ":2 ) 8e(1( be 4, " *0 61.3,a,Q) 3q0 117CA- : . /,n )k) , .....amerta 1 (2... if `'. . 0 \ 1 " '''..."- ...1. -:". 3 el '1 ri / ; 1 ofts e sl.sa) C_._, ( t - . ) 1,L.a.4)) ye C :7 2,2 .J `a I .--, :.:...) ! 6..3.3.3-- 6.3.3.0 ) a » )1 33 6T3'tf- G c , )44 h,,17 .y ter t, a s. I \-1 -. bil4,..../i i ftrom. .,. ''11. -..........* it V dit /; , !.. 4. e 6i ! ,1. 130. if ' /4:1 ? °O)S g f t 41J / -1-1. lit13 , if . c4). (f:c.).ci....-)..) it. a) ,qt.ft.,24.:e))gratif at-az 2 Lit ') ) ?; e:e. 1'4" (5f6; s 6) 114. .tr, 5% 13) V if4 \