Linguistic Theory Lecture 7 About Nothing. Nothing in grammar Language often contains irregular paradigms where one or more expected forms are absent.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Structure of Complementation
Advertisements

Syntax Lecture 2: Categories and Subcategorisation.
Lecture 2: Constraints on Movement.  Formal movement rules (called Transformations) were first introduced in the late 1950s  During the 1960s a lot.
Lecture 4: The Complementiser System
NP Movement Passives, Raising: When NPs are not in their theta positions.
Syntax Lecture 10: Auxiliaries. Types of auxiliary verb Modal auxiliaries belong to the category of inflection – They are in complementary distribution.
Syntax Lecture 9: Verb Types 2.
Statistical NLP: Lecture 3
Lecture 11: Binding and Reflexivity.  Pronouns differ from nouns in that their reference is determined in context  The reference of the word dog is.
Syntax Lecture 12: Adjectival Phrases. Introduction Adjectives, like any other word, must conform to X-bar principles We expect them – to be heads – to.
Lecture 6: Verbs with Clausal Arguments
Linguistic Theory Lecture 8 Meaning and Grammar. A brief history In classical and traditional grammar not much distinction was made between grammar and.
University of Alberta6/3/20151 Governing Category and Coreference Dekang Lin Department of Computing Science University of Alberta.
Week 5a. Binding theory CAS LX 522 Syntax I. Structural ambiguity John said that Bill slipped in the kitchen. John said that Bill slipped in the kitchen.
Week 8. Midterm debrief CAS LX 522 Syntax I. Midterm results Mean: 88 Mean: 88 Median: 93 Median: 93 A A- B+ B B-
1 CSC 594 Topics in AI – Applied Natural Language Processing Fall 2009/ Outline of English Syntax.
Syntax Lecture 3: The Subject. The Basic Structure of the Clause Recall that our theory of structure says that all structures follow this pattern: It.
Week 14b. PRO and control CAS LX 522 Syntax I. It is likely… This satisfies the EPP in both clauses. The main clause has Mary in SpecIP. The embedded.
Week 9.5. Relative clauses CAS LX 522 Syntax I. Finishing up from last week… Last week, we covered wh-movement in questions like: Last week, we covered.
Linguistic Theory Lecture 2 Phrase Structure. What was there before structure? Classical studies: Classical studies: –Languages such as Latin Rich morphology.
Linguistic Theory Lecture 3 Movement. A brief history of movement Movements as ‘special rules’ proposed to capture facts that phrase structure rules cannot.
THE PARTS OF SYNTAX Don’t worry, it’s just a phrase ELL113 Week 4.
VP: [VP[Vhelp[ [PRNyou]]
Embedded Clauses in TAG
Albert Gatt LIN 3098 Corpus Linguistics. In this lecture Some more on corpora and grammar Construction Grammar as a theoretical framework Collostructional.
1 LIN 1310B Introduction to Linguistics Prof: Nikolay Slavkov TA: Qinghua Tang CLASS 14, Feb 27, 2007.
Extending X-bar Theory DPs, TPs, and CPs. The Puzzle of Determiners  Specifier RuleXP  (YP) X’ – requires the specifier to be phrasal – *That the book.
Lecture 14 Relative clause
Syntax Lecture 8: Verb Types 1. Introduction We have seen: – The subject starts off close to the verb, but moves to specifier of IP – The verb starts.
Lecture 9: The Gerund.  The English gerund is an intriguing structure which causes a particular problem for X-bar theory  [His constantly complaining.
IV. SYNTAX. 1.1 What is syntax? Syntax is the study of how sentences are structured, or in other words, it tries to state what words can be combined with.
Binding Theory Describing Relationships between Nouns.
Syntax Lecture 5: More On Wh-movement. Review Wh-movement: – Moves interrogative ‘wh’-phrase – from various positions inside the IP – to the specifier.
October 15, 2007 Non-finite clauses and control : Grammars and Lexicons Lori Levin.
1 LIN 1310B Introduction to Linguistics Prof: Nikolay Slavkov TA: Qinghua Tang CLASS 24, April 3, 2007.
Clause Types A descriptive tangent into the types of clauses Note: much of this discussion is based on Radford, Andrew (1989) Transformational Grammar.
Lecture 7: Tense and Negation.  The clause is made up of distinct structural areas with different semantic purposes  The VP  One or more verbal head.
ENGLISH. PUNCTUATION Apostrophes Commas Semi-colons GRAMMAR Subject-Verb Agreement Verb Tense Pronoun – Antecedent Agreement Subject – Object Pronouns.
Semantic Construction lecture 2. Semantic Construction Is there a systematic way of constructing semantic representation from a sentence of English? This.
Revision.  Movements leave behind a phonologically null trace in all their extraction sites.
Rules, Movement, Ambiguity
Linguistic Theory Lecture 5 Filters. The Structure of the Grammar 1960s (Standard Theory) LexiconPhrase Structure Rules Deep Structure Transformations.
1 LIN 1310B Introduction to Linguistics Prof: Nikolay Slavkov TA: Qinghua Tang CLASS 16, March 6, 2007.
Syntax Lecture 6: Missing Subjects of Non-finite Clauses.
SYNTAX.
3 Phonology: Speech Sounds as a System No language has all the speech sounds possible in human languages; each language contains a selection of the possible.
◦ Process of describing the structure of phrases and sentences Chapter 8 - Phrases and sentences: grammar1.
Lecture 1: Trace Theory.  We have seen that things move :  Arguments move out of the VP into subject position  Wh-phrases move out of IP into CP 
1 Some English Constructions Transformational Framework October 2, 2012 Lecture 7.
Linguistics Lecture-1: Words Pushpak Bhattacharyya, CSE Department, IIT Bombay 14 June, 2008.
Clauses The building blocks of sentences: units of syntactic construction made of more than one phrase.
1 Principles & Parameters Approach in Linguistics II Bibhuti Bhusan Mahapatra.
X-Bar Theory. The part of the grammar regulating the structure of phrases has come to be known as X'-theory (X’-bar theory'). X-bar theory brings out.
Chapter 3 Language Acquisition: A Linguistic Treatment Jang, HaYoung Biointelligence Laborotary Seoul National University.
LECT. 11 DR. AMAL ALSAIKHAN Government and Case Theories.
Chapter 4 Syntax a branch of linguistics that studies how words are combined to form sentences and the rules that govern the formation of sentences.
Lecture 6: More On Wh-movement
Lecture 2: Categories and Subcategorisation
Lecture 4: The Complementiser System
Lecture 3: Functional Phrases
Syntax Lecture 9: Verb Types 1.
Statistical NLP: Lecture 3
Describing Relationships between Nouns
Lecture 7: Missing Subjects of Non-finite Clauses
4.3 The Generative Approach
Lecture 8: Verb Positions
:.
:.
Syntax Lecture 12: Extended VP.
Presentation transcript:

Linguistic Theory Lecture 7 About Nothing

Nothing in grammar Language often contains irregular paradigms where one or more expected forms are absent Language often contains irregular paradigms where one or more expected forms are absent E.g. English present tense verb agreement E.g. English present tense verb agreement –We see from the paradigm for be that number and person play a role in determining the form of the verb in the present tense: 1 st 2 nd 3 rd SingularAmAreIs pluralAre

But other verbs do not show the same pattern But other verbs do not show the same pattern The only form which shows any agreement is the 3 rd person singular The only form which shows any agreement is the 3 rd person singular Two choices: Two choices: –Assume that there is no verbal agreement except for 3 rd person singular and for 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd person singular with the verb be –Assume that there is a complete set of verbal agreements, only most of them are realised by a null morpheme The second choice is the one usually made as it makes the system more regular The second choice is the one usually made as it makes the system more regular 1 st 2 nd 3 rd SingularSmile Smiles PluralSmile

Other kinds of nothing Ellipsis Ellipsis –She wanted to watch the TV, but I didn’t –(want to watch the TV) –* (take any notice) There is a difference: There is a difference: –null morpheme = absent at the phonological level –elliptical material = present at the semantic level

Nothing in the 1960s One possible way to treat ellipsis is as a deletion: One possible way to treat ellipsis is as a deletion: –John drank beer and Bill wine John drank beer and Bill drank wine John drank beer and Bill drank wine Deletions are recoverable: Deletions are recoverable: –* John drank beer and Bill biscuits John drank beer and Bill ate biscuits John drank beer and Bill ate biscuits This shows that ‘recoverability’ is a limited notion: This shows that ‘recoverability’ is a limited notion: –Recoverable from syntactic not pragmatic context

A similar approach can account for the following observations: A similar approach can account for the following observations: It is assumed that the same process is involved in relative clause and interrogative clause formation It is assumed that the same process is involved in relative clause and interrogative clause formation But if so, why can the wh-relative delete but not the wh-interrogative? But if so, why can the wh-relative delete but not the wh-interrogative? The wh-relative has an antecedent in the noun that it modifies, so is recoverable. The wh-interrogative does not and so is unrecoverable. The wh-relative has an antecedent in the noun that it modifies, so is recoverable. The wh-interrogative does not and so is unrecoverable. –The man [who I spoke to] –He asked [who I spoke to] –* He asked [who I spoke to]

Equi NP Deletion John wants [Bill to leave] John wants [Bill to leave] Bill wants [to leave] Bill wants [to leave] Bill 1 wants [Bill 1 to leave] Bill 1 wants [Bill 1 to leave] Equi-NP deletion: Equi-NP deletion: In structures:... NP 1... NP 1... Delete the second NP

But due to constraints on transformations, deletion transformations fell out of favour But due to constraints on transformations, deletion transformations fell out of favour Chomsky and Lasnik (1977) proposed that instead of a deletion, ‘Equi’ structures involve a phonologically null pronoun (PRO): Chomsky and Lasnik (1977) proposed that instead of a deletion, ‘Equi’ structures involve a phonologically null pronoun (PRO): Bill 1 wants [PRO 1 to leave] Bill 1 wants [PRO 1 to leave] PRO has two properties that need to be accounted for: PRO has two properties that need to be accounted for: –Its referential behaviour (control) –Its distribution

Control Like most pronouns, PRO can take its reference from an antecedent: Like most pronouns, PRO can take its reference from an antecedent: –John 1 dressed himself 1 –John 1 thinks Mary likes him 1 –John 1 wants [PRO 1 to be loved]

However, it has special referential properties of its own However, it has special referential properties of its own –Subject/Object control John 1 promised Bill [PRO 1 to be good] John 1 promised Bill [PRO 1 to be good] John persuaded Bill 1 [PRO 1 to be good] John persuaded Bill 1 [PRO 1 to be good] –Obligatory/Arbitrary control John 1 tried [PRO 1/*2 to sing] John 1 tried [PRO 1/*2 to sing] [PRO arb to sing now] would be inappropriate [PRO arb to sing now] would be inappropriate

The distribution of PRO: the PRO theorem PRO is an NP PRO is an NP But its distribution is not the same as a typical NP: But its distribution is not the same as a typical NP: * I saw PRO * I saw PRO * I spoke to PRO * I spoke to PRO * PRO left * PRO left I tried [PRO to sing] I tried [PRO to sing] I saw him I saw him I spoke to him I spoke to him He left He left * I tried [him to sing] * I tried [him to sing]

At first sight it seems that PRO cannot appear in a Case position (it is an exception to the Case Filter) At first sight it seems that PRO cannot appear in a Case position (it is an exception to the Case Filter) But there are non-Case positions where PRO cannot go either But there are non-Case positions where PRO cannot go either –* John’s picture PRO –* John is very fond PRO So the restriction on the distribution of PRO is more stringent So the restriction on the distribution of PRO is more stringent

Government Government is a relationship between certain elements (governors) and certain positions: Government is a relationship between certain elements (governors) and certain positions: –Governors = lexical heads (N, V, P and A) and finite Inflection –Governors govern complement and specifier positions: XP spec X’ X comp XP spec X’ X comp

Case assigners are governors Case assigners are governors (but not all governors are Case assignors) (but not all governors are Case assignors) So the set of all Case positions is a subset of the set of all governed positions: So the set of all Case positions is a subset of the set of all governed positions: Governed positions Case positions

PRO must be ungoverned PRO must be ungoverned Therefore it cannot appear in a Case position Therefore it cannot appear in a Case position Governed positions Case positions PRO

Explaining the PRO theorem Anaphors (reflexive pronouns and NP traces) must have a close by antecedent Anaphors (reflexive pronouns and NP traces) must have a close by antecedent –John 1 admires himself 1 –* John 1 thinks [Mary admires himself 1 ] –John 1 was admired t 1 –* John 1 was believed [Mary to admire t 1 ]

Pronominals (personal pronouns) cannot have a close by antecedent: Pronominals (personal pronouns) cannot have a close by antecedent: –* John 1 admires him 1 –John 1 thinks [Mary admires him 1 ] Pronominals don’t have to have antecedents at all (anaphors do): Pronominals don’t have to have antecedents at all (anaphors do): –He left –* himself left

There is a part of the structure which contains (at least) the pronoun and a governor There is a part of the structure which contains (at least) the pronoun and a governor = the governing category Binding theory Binding theory –A: an anaphor must be bound in its governing category –B: a pronominal must be free in its governing category Bound = coindexed with an appropriate antecedent Bound = coindexed with an appropriate antecedent Free = not bound Free = not bound So pronominals and anaphors are in complementary distribution So pronominals and anaphors are in complementary distribution

(Controled) PRO is like an anaphor (Controled) PRO is like an anaphor –Because it must have an antecedent (Arbitrary) PRO is like a pronominal (Arbitrary) PRO is like a pronominal –Because it does not need an antecedent So PRO is a pronominal anaphor So PRO is a pronominal anaphor So PRO must be bound and free in its governing category So PRO must be bound and free in its governing category But this is a contradiction!!! But this is a contradiction!!! The contradiction can be solved if PRO has no governing category The contradiction can be solved if PRO has no governing category PRO will have no governing category if it is not governed PRO will have no governing category if it is not governed Hence the PRO theorem Hence the PRO theorem

A typology of empty categories: Overt+ pronominal- pronominal + anaphor*himself - anaphorhimJohn Covert+ pronominal- pronominal + anaphorPRONP-trace - anaphor**Wh-trace * doesn’t exist because all (overt) NPs must have Case and therefore must be governed ** exists, but not in English: missing subject of finite clause in e.g. (most) Romance languages, Slavic languages, Semitic languages, Hungarian, etc.