Chapter 11

MOVE , MINIMALISM

0.

INTRODUCTION

Let's look at what we've done so far. At the beginning of this book, we looked at rules that generate the basic phrase structure of human syntax. These rules generated trees which represent hierarchical structure and constituency. These trees have particular mathematical properties (investigated in chapters 3 and 4). In chapter 5, we saw that stipulated phrase structure rules missed some very basic generalizations, and developed the X-bar Schema. The X-bar schema, being very general, allows us (informed by parameter settings) to generate a wide variety of trees, and capture structural differences between heads, complements, adjuncts and specifiers. In chapter 6, we extended the schema to various clause types, complementizers, and DPs. In chapter 7, we saw that in fact the X-bar schema actually generated too many structures, and that we had to constrain its power. The device we use to limit it is a semantic one: the thematic properties of predicates (stored in the lexicon) and the theta criterion. What results from the output of the X-bar schema and the lexicon is called Dstructure. The theta criterion holds of D-structures (as do the binding conditions). In chapters 8, 9, 10, we saw a variety of cases where we saw lexical items that either could not be generated where they surfaced by X-bar theory 291

292

Sentence Structure: A Generative Introduction

(eg. head adjunct complement ordering in French) or where lexical items appeared in positions other than the ones predicted by theta theory. We developed a new kind of rule: the transformation, which moved items around from their base position in the D-structure to the actual position they appear in on the surface. There are three movement transformations: Head-to-head movement (I C and V I), NP movement and Wh-movement. In each of these cases movement happened because it had to. Each movement had a trigger or motivation. Heads move to fill empty [Q] features or to take an inflectional suffix. NPs move to get case. Wh-phrases move to be near the [+Wh] feature. The output of the transformations is called S-structure, which is itself subject to several constraints: the case filter, the EPP and the subjacency constraint. The model (flowchart) of the grammar looks like (1)

Andrew Carnie

Chapter11 Move Alpha 1) The Lexicon

293 The Computational Component X-bar rules the base

D-structure (constrained by Theta criterion)

Transformational Rules Head to Head Movement NP Movement Wh-Movement Do insertion Expletive Insertion

S-Structure (constrained by EPP, case filter, and Subjacency constraint)

Grammatical Sentences This is a remarkably simple system that at the same time can generate a large number of sentence types. Not only that, it is a system with explanatory adequacy, which makes specific predictions about how a child goes about learning their language (via parameters). Now, this said, a number of questions arise. Can the system be made even simpler? Are we missing any generalizations here? Recent work in syntactic theory answers this questions with a resounding yes.

Andrew Carnie

294

Sentence Structure: A Generative Introduction

The minimalist program The system of grammar described in this chapter is a very cursory look at some of the principles underlying the most recent version of generative grammar: The Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1993, 1995). The minimalist program is motivated not only by the search for explanatory adequacy but also for a certain level of formal simplicity and elegance. What is outlined here is by no means a complete and accurate picture, but is meant to give you a taste of what current work is striving for

1.0 MOVE
In this book weve proposed the following motivations for the transformations. 2) a) Head movement -to get a suffix or fill Null [+Q] b) NP movement -to appear in a position where case is assigned c) Wh-movement -to appear near a [+WH] feature.

Notice that while there are significant differences between the motivations for the various types of movement, there is one overwhelming similarity. The movements all occur so that one item can appear near another. In the case of Head-movement the V or INFL head needs to appear as part of the same word as the place it moves to. With Wh-movement, the Wh-phrase needs to be near the [WH] feature. NP movement is a slightly bigger stretch, but you can see that the NP needs to be near its case assigners (INFL, V). All the motivations for movement then seem to be locality constraint s. That is, two items must be near or local to one another. If this is the case, then there isn't really a significant difference between the rule types. Perhaps we can unify them into a single rule. This unified rule is

Andrew Carnie

Chapter11 Move Alpha

295

called Move .. Move says simply "move something" (but only if you have to): 3) Move (very informal version) Move something somewhere Now of course, this is a bit vague and we'll have to sharpen it up in some way. In particular, we will want to constrain this so there isn't just random movement all over the sentence! So the next step is to formulate a constraint that motivates and forces this transformation to apply (in all the different circumstances.) Let's take wh movement as our paradigm case. In wh-movement the wh-phrase moves to the specifier of CP so as to be local with a [WH] feature. Another way to think of this is to say that both the wh-phrase and the complementizer have a [WH] feature, and they need to compare them, or check them. Checking of features can only occur in a local configuration. In this case between a specifier and its head. 4) NP N C [+WH] = [+WH] CP C' ...

checking configuration The constraint that requires this movement is called the Principle of Full Interpretation (Chomsky 1993, 1995) 5) Full Interpretation Features must be checked in a local configuration. Local Configuration: WH features: Specifier/Head configuration.

6)

Andrew Carnie

296

Sentence Structure: A Generative Introduction

We can extend this to the other cases of movement too. Imagine that Case is not simply an ending, but is also a feature. An subject NP bears a [+NOM] case feature. Imagine also that the heads of the phrases that assign case (INFL and V) also bear this feature (although they don't show it morphologically).

Case and Agreement The notion that INFL bears some kind of case feature often troubles people, since Case is an inherently nominal kind of inflection and INFL seems to be associated with verbal material. One clever solution to this problem is to claim that verbal items like INFL do in fact bear case, we just call case on verbs "agreement". In fact, crosslinguistically there does seem to be some kind of correlation between the kinds of agreement markers that are found on verbs and the case marking on the subjects. So we could claim that [NOM] when on a noun is case, but when on INFL or a V is agreement, thus at least partly motivating the structure in (7)

We can thus reduce the case filter to the Full Interpretation: Nominative case is a feature checking like that in () and accusative case is like that in (8): 7) NP N INFL [+NOM] = [+NOM] IP I' ...

checking configuration

Andrew Carnie

Chapter11 Move Alpha 8) V [+ACC] V' NP [+ACC]

297

checking configuration (Notice that this also allows a very elegant account of the passive. The passive morpheme absorbs the V's external theta role and its [+ACC] feature). Because of the configuration in (8) we are going to have slightly modify our definition of local: 9) Local Configuration: WH features: Specifier/Head configuration. NOM features: Specifier/Head configuration ACC features: Head/Complement configuration

Finally, this can be extended to the head movement cases. Instead of claiming that verbs move to pick up inflectional suffixes in V INFL movement, let's claim that both the V and the INFL head bear some kind of abstract inflectional features (e.g. [past]), when the verb and INFL check against one another then the suffix representing that tense feature (or agreement feature) is allowed to surface on the verb. The local configuration in this setting is within the head itself (a relationship which is called a head-head configuration): 10) INFL (morphology V+ed)

V + [+past] [+past] checking configuration Similarly, both INFL and C bear a [+Q] feature, and they must be in a headhead checking relationship:

Andrew Carnie

298 11) INFL [+Q] C + [+Q]

Sentence Structure: A Generative Introduction

checking configuration Of course again the definition of local configuration must be massaged somewhat: 12) Local Configuration: [WH], [NOM] features: Specifier/Head configuration. [ACC] features: Head/Complement configuration [PST] etc, [Q] features: Head-head configuration.

With this in place we actually have a very elegant transformational system. There is one transformational rule (instead of 3): Move-, one constraint (instead of 3): Full Interpretation, and an admittedly stipulative definition of local configuration. Economy conditions The minimalist program also has a set of constraints (called economy constraints) that don't hold of particular derivations of sentences or levels in a syntactic derivation, but hold across derivations. That is if you have two possible derivations for the same surface sentence, the two derivations are compared with each other, and the one with the least movement, the set of shortest movements etc is chosen over the one with more and longer movements. In this book, we don't have the space to look at what economy constraints achieve for the theory of grammar, see some of the readings listed at the end of the chapter for this.

Andrew Carnie

Chapter11 Move Alpha

299

2. EXPLAINING CROSS-LINGUISTIC DIFFERENCES

The system outlined above in section 1, is extremely simple and elegant. It does however, make the unfortunate prediction that all languages will have exactly the same set of transformational rules (although differ in phrase structure due to the parameters). This is clearly not the case. English does not have V I movement. Many other languages lack passive and raising. Still others lack Whmovement. Take the case of Chinese. 13) a) ni xiang chi sheme you want eat what "what do you want to eat?" *sheme ni xiang chi what you want eat "what do you want to eat?" ni kanjian-le shei you see-asp who "who did you see?" *shei ni kanjian-le who you see-asp "who did you see?"

b)

c)

d)

Chinese appears to have no wh-movement. Languages like this are called wh-insitu languages. Why then is it the case that the [WH] features on the WHphrases don't violate Full Interpretation? They are not in a local configuration with their C. Full Interpretation predicts that (13a) should be ungrammatical and (13b) should be grammatical -- the exact opposite of the facts. One possible solution to this problem is to slightly develop our model of grammar. Consider what actually happens when you say a sentence. Presumably after you construct the sentence in your head you pronounce it. So the next step after creation of S-structure is the phonological component of the grammar. Similarly, the sentence is not fully interpretable (or semantically Andrew Carnie

300

Sentence Structure: A Generative Introduction

comprehensible) until after S-structure. The semantic/interpretive part of the grammar must also follow S-structure. The name given to the phonological component in minimalist approaches to grammar is Phonetic Form or PF. Th e name given to the semantic/interpretive component is Logical Form or LF. With these two additions the model of the grammar now looks like: 14) The Lexicon The Computational Component X-bar rules the base

D-structure (constrained by Theta criterion)

Transformational Rules Move

S-Structure (constrained by EPP, and Subjacency constraint)

LF Full Interpretation.

PF

Chomsky (1993) makes two important claims. First he claims that Full Interpretation is a constraint that holds of sentences at LF, not S-Structure. Second, he claims that the operations that happen between D-structure and S Andrew Carnie

Chapter11 Move Alpha

301

structure can also happen between S-Structure and LF. That means that transformations can apply on the left arrow between S-structure and LF in (14). Notice what this does, it means that some kinds of movement could happen after you say the sentence. At first glance this may seem very counterintuitive, but it actually allows us to make the following remarkable claim about cross-linguistic variation: All feature-checking movement happens in every single language. The differences between languages are in when that movement occurs: before you start to say the sentence or after! Essentially there are two kinds of movement, movement that happens between D-structure and Sstructure (called overt movement) and movement that happens between Sstructure and LF (called covert movement). Since covert movement happens after the branching off to the PF (phonology) component you simply can't hear it happen. The differences between languages then, are in when they time specific instances of the general operation move-. English times those instances involving [WH] features before S-structure, Chinese times those same movements covertly (after S-structure). This can be simply encoded in a parameter: 15) WH-parameter: Overt/Covert (English sets Overt, Chinese sets covert) This kind of story also allows us to get rid of the odd-man-out of transformations: Affix (INFL) lowering. This was the only movement that we looked at that went downwards. It also appeared to be in complementary distribution with V-movement. If a language has one, it doesn't have the other. With the system described above we can get rid of the affix lowering account of English. English doesnt have affix lowering. Instead, it has V INFL movement like any other language, only in English it is timed covertly, so you never hear it.

3. CONCLUSION
The story I've spun you here covers a remarkable amount of material. It also unfortunately has many holes. This is partially because this is only meant to be an introductory textbook in syntactic structure. We couldn't possibly get into all Andrew Carnie

302

Sentence Structure: A Generative Introduction

the details of all the material, nor could we possibly consider all the possible arguments for (or against) a proposal like the overt/covert movement approach. In order to properly give such ideas their due, you'll need to take more advanced courses in Syntax. Some good books that will take you on from where I've left you here are listed below, in the further reading section. I hope that while other sections of this book have given you a firm foundation upon which you can build your syntactic knowledge, this chapter has given you a taste of current research in syntax and the future of the discipline.

IDEAS, RULES AND CONSTRAINTS INTRODUCED IN THIS CHAPTER i) Move (very informal version) Move something somewhere Full Interpretation Features must be checked in a local configuration. Local Configuration: [WH], [NOM] features: Specifier/Head configuration. [ACC] features: Head/Complement configuration [PST] etc, [Q] features: Head-head configuration. Logical Form (LF): The semantic/interpretive system. Phonetic Form (PF): The component of grammar where phonology occurs Overt Movement Movement between D-structure and S-structure (heard movement) Covert Movement Movement between S-structure and LF (silent movement)

ii)

iii)

iv)

v)

vi)

vii)

Andrew Carnie

Chapter11 Move Alpha viii) . WH-parameter: Overt/Covert

303

FURTHER READING: Saito & Lasnik Uriagereka Chomsky 1993 Chomsky 1995 Radford, Haegeman Haegeman and Gueron

PROBLEM SETS
(TO BE WRITTEN)

Andrew Carnie