1. Linguistic Theory Lecture 10 Grammaticality

2. How do grammars determine what is grammatical? 1 st idea (traditional – 1970): 1 st idea (traditional – 1970): –Anything which conforms to rules is grammatical, anything which violates rules is ungrammatical This may be the obvious way to do things, but - This may be the obvious way to do things, but - Requires construct specific rules (for any grammaticality) Requires construct specific rules (for any grammaticality) Problems for Problems for –generalisation –learnability

3. How do grammars determine what is grammatical? 2 nd idea (1970 – 1990) 2 nd idea (1970 – 1990) –Anything is grammatical except those things that the grammar rules out Requires Requires –General principles (Move , X-bar principles)  To define the limits of ‘linguistic phenomena’ –A set of constraints/filters Does better for generalisation and learnability Does better for generalisation and learnability Assumes grammaticality is absolute Assumes grammaticality is absolute –Anything that violates the grammar is ungrammatical

4. Is grammaticality absolute? Gradient grammaticality Gradient grammaticality –Some things are worse than others a man who I remember I met on Monday a man who I remember I met on Monday ? a man who I can’t remember when I met him ? a man who I can’t remember when I met him * a man who I can’t remember when I met * a man who I can’t remember when I met –Might be handled by assuming that some grammatical principles are worse to violate than others

5. Is grammaticality absolute? –The first sentence is out because it violates the Case Filter –The second is grammatical because it doesn’t Relative Grammaticality Relative Grammaticality Something is ungrammatical because there is a better alternative Something is ungrammatical because there is a better alternative * it seems [John to like Mary]it seems [John likes Mary] John seems [ t to like Mary]* John seems [ t likes Mary]

6. Is grammaticality absolute? –The first sentence is out because it violates the Case Filter –The second is grammatical because it doesn’t Relative Grammaticality Relative Grammaticality Something is ungrammatical because there is a better alternative Something is ungrammatical because there is a better alternative * it seems [John to like Mary]it seems [John likes Mary] John seems [ t to like Mary]* John seems [ t likes Mary] –The first sentence is grammatical because it satisfies the Case Filter –Why is the second ungrammatical?

7. Is grammaticality absolute? Original explanation: Original explanation: –It violates the Binding theory But But –This misses an obvious generalisation –Binding theory isn’t so straightforward A better explanation A better explanation –It is ungrammatical because the alternative is better (it is grammatical and it does not involve movement)

8. One view of relative grammaticality Some principles are absolute Some principles are absolute Some are ‘soft’ (can be violated if needed) Some are ‘soft’ (can be violated if needed) E.g. E.g. –Case Filter (rigid) –Don’t move (soft) So movement can happen if this will satisfy the Case filter, but not otherwise So movement can happen if this will satisfy the Case filter, but not otherwise

9. Another view All constraints are soft All constraints are soft They are ranked in order of importance They are ranked in order of importance Lower ranked constraints can be violated in order to satisfy higher ranked constraints Lower ranked constraints can be violated in order to satisfy higher ranked constraints Optimality Theory Optimality Theory

10. What OT can do that the other can’t Suppose we have three ranked constraints: Suppose we have three ranked constraints: C1 > C2 > C3 C1 > C2 > C3 C3 will be violated if this means C2 can be satisfied C3 will be violated if this means C2 can be satisfied C2 will be violated if this means C1 can be satisfied C2 will be violated if this means C1 can be satisfied But if what is violated depends on if it is rigid or soft, then C2 must be both rigid and soft! But if what is violated depends on if it is rigid or soft, then C2 must be both rigid and soft!

11. Grimshaw 1997: inversion Data Data –English: Wh-elements moved to the front of clauses Wh-elements moved to the front of clauses –Who lefthe left –Who did you seeI saw Sam Inversion with non-subject wh-elements Inversion with non-subject wh-elements –Who did you see* who you saw No inversion with subject wh-elements No inversion with subject wh-elements –Who saw you* who did see you

12. Grimshaw 1997: inversion Data Data –Chinese: Wh-elements not moved to the front of clauses Wh-elements not moved to the front of clauses –Shei zuo leta zuo le who leave perfhe leave perf –Ta shi sheita shi Zhang he is whohe is Zhang

13. Grimshaw 1997: inversion Wh-elements move to specifier of CP Wh-elements move to specifier of CP Auxiliaries invert to head of CP: Auxiliaries invert to head of CP: CP who 1 C’ C IP did 2 DP I’ you I VP t 2 see t 1 CP who 1 C’ C IP did 2 DP I’ you I VP t 2 see t 1

14. Grimshaw 1997: inversion Clauses are CPs only when necessary Clauses are CPs only when necessary Wh-subjects are in specifier of IP Wh-subjects are in specifier of IP IP DP I’ who I VP could see you IP DP I’ who I VP could see you

15. Grimshaw 1997: inversion Constraints: Constraints: –OpSpec = operators in specifier positions –ObHead = head positions are filled –Stay = don’t move English: English: –OpSpec > ObHead > Stay

16. Grimshaw 1997: inversion Competing structures (subject wh-) Competing structures (subject wh-) –[ IP who saw you] –[ CP e [ IP who saw you]] –[ CP did 1 [ IP who t 1 see you]] –[ CP who 1 e [ IP t 1 saw you]] –[ CP who 2 did 1 [ IP t 2 t 1 see you]]

17. Grimshaw 1997: inversion Competition (wh-subject) Competition (wh-subject) OpSpecObHdStay [ IP who saw you] [ CP e [ IP who saw you]]*! [ CP did 1 [ IP who t 1 see you]]*! [ CP who 1 e [ IP t 1 saw you]]*!* [ CP who 2 did 1 [ IP t 2 t 1 see you]]**! 

18. Grimshaw 1997: inversion Competing structures (object wh-) Competing structures (object wh-) –[ IP you saw who] –[ CP e [ IP you saw who]] –[ CP did 1 [ IP you t 1 see who]] –[ CP who e [ IP you saw t 1 ]] –[ CP who 2 did 1 [ IP you t 1 see t 2 ]]

19. Grimshaw 1997: inversion Competition (wh-subject) Competition (wh-subject) OpSpecObHdStay [ IP you saw who]*! [ CP e [ IP you saw who]]*! [ CP did 1 [ IP you t 1 see who]]*! [ CP who e [ IP you saw t 1 ]]*!* [ CP who 2 did 1 [ IP you t 1 see t 2 ]]**! 

20. Grimshaw 1997: inversion Re-ranking - Chinese Re-ranking - Chinese StayOpSpecObHd [ IP you saw who]* [ CP e [ IP you saw who]]**! [ CP did 1 [ IP you t 1 see who]]*!* [ CP who e [ IP you saw t 1 ]]*!* [ CP who 2 did 1 [ IP you t 1 see t 2 ]]**! 

21. Grimshaw 1997: inversion Re-ranking – wh-movement without inversion Re-ranking – wh-movement without inversion OpSpecStayObHd [ IP you saw who]*! [ CP e [ IP you saw who]]*!* [ CP did 1 [ IP you t 1 see who]]*!* [ CP who e [ IP you saw t 1 ]]** [ CP who 2 did 1 [ IP you t 1 see t 2 ]]**! 

22. Grimshaw 1997: inversion Re-ranking – no inversion without wh- movement Re-ranking – no inversion without wh- movement ObHdStayOpSpec [ IP you saw who]* [ CP e [ IP you saw who]]*!* [ CP did 1 [ IP you t 1 see who]]*!* [ CP who e [ IP you saw t 1 ]]*!* [ CP who 2 did 1 [ IP you t 1 see t 2 ]]**! 

23. Problems for relative grammaticality Absolute grammaticality Absolute grammaticality –Who saw what –* what did who see –How did you fix what –* what did you fix how –* who fixed the car how –* how did who fix the car –Who fixed the car and how

24. Problems for relative grammaticality The ba-problem The ba-problem –If grammaticality is all relative, the whole languages should reduce to the best sentence containing the best phrase containing the best word made up of the best syllable, perhaps “ba”

25. Problems for relative grammaticality The ba-problem The ba-problem –But OT assumes that competitions are limited by a given input: –Input  GEN  competitors  evaluation  optimal expression –So not everything competes and different winners will be determined for each input

26. Problems for relative grammaticality Optionality Optionality –A film about hobbits was made –A film was made about hobbits How can two different structures violate the same constraints to the same degree? How can two different structures violate the same constraints to the same degree?

27. Problems for relative grammaticality Solutions Solutions –Tied ranking Two constraints which differentiate the two expressions are given the same rank and so both expressions violate one constraint each at that rank Two constraints which differentiate the two expressions are given the same rank and so both expressions violate one constraint each at that rank But this may be problematic for learning But this may be problematic for learning

28. Problems for relative grammaticality Solutions Solutions –There is no such thing as optionality Apparent options are associated with different inputs and so are not really optional winners of the same competition, but winners of different competitions. Apparent options are associated with different inputs and so are not really optional winners of the same competition, but winners of different competitions. E.g. Postposing may be related to focus: a post posed PP is focussed an in situ one is not. E.g. Postposing may be related to focus: a post posed PP is focussed an in situ one is not.