Linguistic Theory Lecture 5 Filters

The Structure of the Grammar 1960s (Standard Theory) LexiconPhrase Structure Rules Deep Structure Transformations Surface Structure LexiconPhrase Structure Rules Deep Structure Transformations Surface Structure

The Structure of the Grammar 1970s (Extended Standard Theory) LexiconPS RulesX-bar Deep Structure TransformationsConstraints Surface Structure LexiconPS RulesX-bar Deep Structure TransformationsConstraints Surface Structure

Some Further Developments The treatment of Complementisers The treatment of Complementisers –A group of subordinating particles (that, if, for) were identified as a separate category: Complementisers –These occupied a position separate from the clause, but forming a constituent with the clause:

S COMP S NP INFL VP S COMP S NP INFL VP

The COMP position not only hosted the complementiser but also fronted wh- phrases: The COMP position not only hosted the complementiser but also fronted wh- phrases: S COMP S Wh- COMP NP INFL VP who will leave S COMP S Wh- COMP NP INFL VP who will leave

Trace Theory Trace Theory –As a way to reduce the power of transformations it was proposed that movement does not alter structure or lexical properties –For example: passive movement

S S NP INFL VP  NP INFL VP - was V NPJohn was V detested John detested S S NP INFL VP  NP INFL VP - was V NPJohn was V detested John detested If transformations can change structure and lexical properties, they are very powerful If transformations can change structure and lexical properties, they are very powerful

So it was proposed that all transformations do is move something from one place to another without changing anything So it was proposed that all transformations do is move something from one place to another without changing anything

S S NP INFL VP  NP INFL VP - was V NPJohn 1 was V NP detested John detested t 1 S S NP INFL VP  NP INFL VP - was V NPJohn 1 was V NP detested John detested t 1 A ‘trace’ of the moved element remains in the extraction position (co-indexed with the moved element to show the connection) A ‘trace’ of the moved element remains in the extraction position (co-indexed with the moved element to show the connection)

Reasons to believe in traces: Reasons to believe in traces: –Clause bound phenomena I thought [they left together] I thought [they left together] * they thought [I left together] * they thought [I left together] They 1 seem [ t 1 to have left together] They 1 seem [ t 1 to have left together] –Phonological argument You want to beat him You want to beat him Who 1 do you want to beat t 1 Who 1 do you want to beat t 1 Who 1 do you wanna beat t 1 Who 1 do you wanna beat t 1 You want him to win You want him to win Who 1 do you want t 1 to win Who 1 do you want t 1 to win * Who do you wanna win * Who do you wanna win

Filters Filters do the same job as constraints Filters do the same job as constraints –i.e. Stop overgeneration But instead of imposing restrictions on transformations, they impose restrictions on structures But instead of imposing restrictions on transformations, they impose restrictions on structures

Adding Filters LexiconPS RulesX-bar Deep Structure TransformationsConstraints Surface StructureFilters LexiconPS RulesX-bar Deep Structure TransformationsConstraints Surface StructureFilters

Continuous gerunds Continuous gerunds –His leaving He left He left –His having left He had left He had left –His being beaten He was beaten He was beaten –* His being leaving He was leaving He was leaving Continuous with gerund complement Continuous with gerund complement –It started to rain –It started raining –It is starting to rain –* it is starting raining E.g. The double –ing filter * X-ing Y-ing

How superficial are filters? How superficial are filters? –The for-for filter He hoped for peace He hoped for peace Peace is what he hoped for Peace is what he hoped for For there to be peace is what he hoped for For there to be peace is what he hoped for * He hoped for for there to be peace * He hoped for for there to be peace He hoped for there to be peace He hoped for there to be peace *... for for... *... for for...

How superficial are filters? How superficial are filters? –The az a(z) filter Az ő autója Az ő autója –* az ő elment Az ember autója Az ember autója –* ember elment * Az az ember autója * Az az ember autója –*... az a(z)...

How superficial are filters? How superficial are filters? –It seems there is a general ban on having two formally identical elements one after the other –There is a similar restriction in suprasegmental phonology: HL HL LH LH *LL *LL *HH *HH You can’t have two similar tones one after the other You can’t have two similar tones one after the other Obligatory Contour Principle Obligatory Contour Principle But not all filters are so general and so they appear rather descriptive But not all filters are so general and so they appear rather descriptive

More early filters (Chomsky and Lasnik 1973) The root clause filter The root clause filter –I think [that he left] –He left –* that he left * [ S COMP [ …if COMP is filled by an overt complementiser and S is root

More early filters (Chomsky and Lasnik 1973) The doubly filled COMP filter The doubly filled COMP filter –The man [who I met] –The man [who that I met] –* the man [who that I met] * [ S WH + COMP [ …if WH is not deleted or COMP is not empty

More early filters (Chomsky and Lasnik 1973) The that – trace filter The that – trace filter –Who 1 did you think [ e Mary liked t 1 ] –Who 1 did you think [ that Mary liked t 1 ] –Who 1 did you think [ e t 1 liked Mary ] –* Who 1 did you think [ that t 1 liked Mary ] * [that [ t …

More early filters (Chomsky and Lasnik 1973) The for – to filter The for – to filter –I want [him to win] –I want [ to win] –I want very much for [him to win] –* I want very much for [ to win] * [for [__ to …

Later filters (more explanatory) The Case Filter The Case Filter –Subject of finite clause = nominative position –Object of a verb = accusative position –Every NP must occupy a Case position * NP if NP is not in a Case position * NP if NP is not in a Case position –This is so, even for languages which have little or no morphological Case

The subject of a infinitive is not a Case position The subject of a infinitive is not a Case position –I tried [ - to leave] –* I tried [myself to leave] Unless: Unless: –It has a for complementiser in front of it I hoped for [him to leave] I hoped for [him to leave] –It is the complement of certain verbs: I believed [him to be smart] I believed [him to be smart]

What this accounts for: What this accounts for: –Nouns never take NP complements They destroyed the city They destroyed the city * their destruction the city * their destruction the city The complement of a noun is not a Case position The complement of a noun is not a Case position –Why certain NPs have to move: It seems [John is smart] It seems [John is smart] John 1 seems [ t 1 to be smart] John 1 seems [ t 1 to be smart] * it seems [ John to be smart] * it seems [ John to be smart] The subject position of an infinitive is a Caseless position The subject position of an infinitive is a Caseless position

–The for – to filter Clauses must have subjects Clauses must have subjects –It seems he is rich –* seems he is rich So infinitives which appear to lack subjects must really have one: So infinitives which appear to lack subjects must really have one: –I tried [ PRO to leave] PRO is an NP which cannot sit in a Case position: PRO is an NP which cannot sit in a Case position: –* PRO is rich –* I like PRO The subject of an infinitive introduced by for is a Case position: The subject of an infinitive introduced by for is a Case position: –* I hoped for [PRO to leave]

Do we need Constraints and D- structure? Filters cannot do the same thing as constraints: Filters cannot do the same thing as constraints: –A constraint limits the relationships between D- and S-structures –Filters limit S-structures But you can achieve the same effects with a filter providing the S-structure is rich enough But you can achieve the same effects with a filter providing the S-structure is rich enough

The complex NP Island: The complex NP Island: –You can’t move anything out of a complex NP The complex NP Filter The complex NP Filter –* XP 1... [ NP... [ S... t 1...

So why do we need D-structure and constraints? So why do we need D-structure and constraints? –Some have argued the we don’t Lexical Functional Grammar Lexical Functional Grammar Generalised Phrase Structure Grammar Generalised Phrase Structure Grammar –Others argue that we do: Filters tend to be too ‘surfacy’ Filters tend to be too ‘surfacy’ To do everything that constraints do, we need devices that apply at S-structure which do exactly what transformations do To do everything that constraints do, we need devices that apply at S-structure which do exactly what transformations do So there is no difference between the two models So there is no difference between the two models