Linguistic Theory Lecture 8 Meaning and Grammar

A brief history In classical and traditional grammar not much distinction was made between grammar and meaning: In classical and traditional grammar not much distinction was made between grammar and meaning: –Word categories (noun, verb, adjective, etc.) and syntactic functions (subject, object, etc.) were defined in semantic terms In American structuralism meaning was shunned as it was not observable In American structuralism meaning was shunned as it was not observable In Generative grammar, meaning was considered relevant, but separate from grammar In Generative grammar, meaning was considered relevant, but separate from grammar

The generative position Grammaticality and ‘semanticality’ are not the same thing: Grammaticality and ‘semanticality’ are not the same thing: –Colourless green ideas sleep furiously –* Furiously sleep ideas green colourless Grammatical facts have semantic consequences because semantics ‘interprets’ what syntax provides: Grammatical facts have semantic consequences because semantics ‘interprets’ what syntax provides:

The generative position Syntax  structure  Semantics (produces) (interprets)

Problems How do we know what are syntactic facts and what are semantic facts? How do we know what are syntactic facts and what are semantic facts? E.g. ‘selectional restrictions’ E.g. ‘selectional restrictions’ –Sincerity frightens John –John frightens sincerity Is the oddity of the second sentence a syntactic or semantic fact? Is the oddity of the second sentence a syntactic or semantic fact? It depends on your theory – we do not have reliable intuitions about this. It depends on your theory – we do not have reliable intuitions about this.

How do grammar and meaning interact? An early theory was that transformations do not change meaning (Katz Postal Hypothesis) An early theory was that transformations do not change meaning (Katz Postal Hypothesis) This lead to the idea that meaning was associated with Deep Structure, while Surface Structure was associated with phonology: This lead to the idea that meaning was associated with Deep Structure, while Surface Structure was associated with phonology:

How do grammar and meaning interact? Deep Structure meaning Deep Structure meaning transformations transformations Surface Structure phonology Surface Structure phonology

How do grammar and meaning interact? But this is problematic as there are certain surface structure facts that influence meaning: But this is problematic as there are certain surface structure facts that influence meaning: –It seems to John that he is smart –He 1 seems to John [ t 1 to be smart] –John believes the king of France is bald –The king of France 1 is believed [t 1 to be bald]

How do grammar and meaning interact? So it seems that the situation should be: So it seems that the situation should be: Deep Structure meaning Deep Structure meaning transformations transformations Surface Structure phonology Surface Structure phonology But what is the nature of D-structure and S-structure meaning? But what is the nature of D-structure and S-structure meaning?

Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure In 1965 Chomsky proposed to account for the oddity of ‘John frightens sincerity’ through a lexical property (=selectional restriction): In 1965 Chomsky proposed to account for the oddity of ‘John frightens sincerity’ through a lexical property (=selectional restriction): –Frighten: sentient object These restrictions apply at D-structure: These restrictions apply at D-structure: –* John frightens sincerity –* sincerity is frightened by John

Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure In 1967 Fillmore proposed a limited set of ‘cases’ which play a role in determining the interpretation of elements accompanying verbs: In 1967 Fillmore proposed a limited set of ‘cases’ which play a role in determining the interpretation of elements accompanying verbs:

Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure Agentive (perceived instigator of an action): John broke the window Agentive (perceived instigator of an action): John broke the window Instrumental (object used to put into effect an action): the stone broke the window Instrumental (object used to put into effect an action): the stone broke the window Dative (affected object): the window broke Dative (affected object): the window broke Factive (resulting object): bake a cake Factive (resulting object): bake a cake Locative (place at, also to): put the pen on the table, went to London Locative (place at, also to): put the pen on the table, went to London Objective (dustbin category) Objective (dustbin category)

Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure These roles were stated in the verb’s lexical entry, restricting the contexts which they can be used: These roles were stated in the verb’s lexical entry, restricting the contexts which they can be used: –Break: [(A) (I) D] John broke the window John broke the window John broke the window with a brick John broke the window with a brick The brick broke the window The brick broke the window The window broke The window broke Case hierarchy – determines what will be subject Case hierarchy – determines what will be subject –A > I > D

Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure These ideas transformed into ‘theta theory’ in GB syntax (1981) These ideas transformed into ‘theta theory’ in GB syntax (1981) –‘theta’ = thematic = semantic relations between predicates and their arguments (who does what to who)

Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure Theta theory operated with a set of theta roles (agent, experiencer, goal, theme, patient, etc.) Theta theory operated with a set of theta roles (agent, experiencer, goal, theme, patient, etc.) Theta roles are stated in a predicate’s lexical entry but assigned to elements in certain positions Theta roles are stated in a predicate’s lexical entry but assigned to elements in certain positions –John hit Bill agent patient agent patient –But: No one agrees on how many or what the definitions of these roles are No one agrees on how many or what the definitions of these roles are There is disagreement over how involved in syntax they are There is disagreement over how involved in syntax they are

Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure A theory of minimal involvement: A theory of minimal involvement: –The theta criterion All theta roles must be assigned to an argument All theta roles must be assigned to an argument All arguments must be assigned a theta role All arguments must be assigned a theta role –* John hit(not enough arguments) –* John smiled Mary(not enough theta roles) –Theta roles are assigned to governed positions

Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure But this theory cannot account for why subjects tend to be agents not patients But this theory cannot account for why subjects tend to be agents not patients For this you seem to need to refer to specific theta roles For this you seem to need to refer to specific theta roles Solutions Solutions –Grimshaw: specific theta roles play a role in determining the ‘prominence’ of an argument –Hale and Keyser: the lexicon stores argument structure as sub-trees so the positions of arguments are given in the lexicon

Aspects of meaning associated with S-structure Binding relations: Binding relations: –John 1 seems to himself 1 [t 1 to be smart] –* it seems to himself 1 [that John 1 is smart] –It seems to John 1 [that he 1 is smart] –* he 1 seems to John 1 [t 1 to be smart] These relations seem to be established after movement and therefore do not apply at D- structure but at S-structure These relations seem to be established after movement and therefore do not apply at D- structure but at S-structure

Aspects of meaning associated with S-structure Binding relations: Binding relations: –But there are problems: [Which picture of himself 1 ] 2 did Mary say John 1 thinks Susan likes t 2 [Which picture of himself 1 ] 2 did Mary say John 1 thinks Susan likes t 2 –At S-structure the reflexive is not in a position where it can be properly bound by John --- Mary (did) say John 1 thinks Susan likes [Which picture of himself 1 ] --- Mary (did) say John 1 thinks Susan likes [Which picture of himself 1 ] –At D-structure the reflexive is not in a position where it can be properly bound by John –So where are binding relations established?

Aspects of meaning associated with S-structure Binding relations: Binding relations: –Due to restrictions on movement, the wh-phrase cannot move in one go, but moves to the beginning of each clause –wh-P 1 did Mary say [t 1 John believes [t 1 Susan likes t 1 ]]] –In one of the intermediate positions it is in the relevant relation with John –But these are neither D- or S-structure positions

A new level of representation The following sentence is ambiguous: The following sentence is ambiguous: –Every man loves a woman For every man there is a woman (a different one) who he loves For every man there is a woman (a different one) who he loves There is a woman (the same one) and every man loves her There is a woman (the same one) and every man loves her In some languages these meanings are associated with different sentences: In some languages these meanings are associated with different sentences: –Minden férfi szeret egy nőt –Egy nőt minden férfi szeret It is not accident that the quantified phrase at the beginning is interpreted like this (see English examples too) It is not accident that the quantified phrase at the beginning is interpreted like this (see English examples too)

A new level of representation It has been proposed that these quantified expressions undergo a movement to the front of the clause and their order determines the interpretation: It has been proposed that these quantified expressions undergo a movement to the front of the clause and their order determines the interpretation: –Every man 1 a woman 2 [t 1 loves t 2 ] –A woman 1 every man 2 [t 2 loves t 1 ] But where does this movement take place and why can’t we see it (in English) But where does this movement take place and why can’t we see it (in English)

A new level of representation Suppose there is another level of representation after S-structure which is associated with semantic interpretation = Logical Form Suppose there is another level of representation after S-structure which is associated with semantic interpretation = Logical Form Suppose S-structure feeds phonological interpretation = Phonological Form Suppose S-structure feeds phonological interpretation = Phonological Form

A new level of representation D-structure movement S-structure LF PF D-structure movement S-structure LF PF

A new level of representation Any movement that takes place between S-structure and LF will not affect PF, but will affect meaning Any movement that takes place between S-structure and LF will not affect PF, but will affect meaning Therefore we have semantically motivated but phonologically invisible movement Therefore we have semantically motivated but phonologically invisible movement

A new level of representation This helps to unify languages even more This helps to unify languages even more –Chinese does not have (overt) wh-movement –But the Chinese can still ask questions –Thus we either assume that asking questions in Chinese involves a very different process –Or we assume that Chinese does have wh- movement, but only at LF