Download Transformation I: Phrasal Categories

潘姿妏
69312301
Transformation I: Phrasal Categories
Ex. 4.1
i)
DS: John wonders [S’ Bill saw [NP which match]]
SS: John wonders [S’ [NP which match]i [S Bill saw [NP t]i]
The verb “wonder” subcategorizes for an interrogative clause. Thus the Comp of the
embedded clause is marked with a [+Q] feature. This [+Q]-Comp feature then triggers
transformation to move the wh-phrase “which match” to the [+Q]-Comp position in
order to fulfill the [+Q]-Comp condition. The derived structure is then to have satisfied
the [+Q]-Comp condition of wh-movement, that is “move wh-XP to Comp provided
Comp is [+Q].”
ii)
DS: [S [NP Mary] [Aux Tense] [VP buy [NP what]]]
SS: [S’ [NP what]i did [S [NP Mary] [Aux Tense] [VP buy [NP t] i]]]
Sentence ii) is an interrogative clause. Therefore, it has a [+Q] feature in its comp
position. The empty [+Q]-comp position triggers the transformation which moves the
wh-phrase “what” from the object position to the empty [+Q]-Comp position. The
application of this transformation is said to fulfill the [+Q]-Comp condition of
wh-movement in which the wh-phrase is moved to the [+Q]-Comp position.
iii)
DS: John knows [NP the book [S’ Bill [VP bought [NP which]]
SS: John knows [NP the booki [S’ [NP which]i [S Bill [VP bought [NP t]i]]]
The subordinate clause in sentence iii) is a relative clause which acts to modify the
noun “book” by restricting its reference to a particular instance. The object of the
relative clause, which appears in the form of the wh-phrase, is treated as a wh-clause,
which is similar to the wh-phrase in interrogative clauses. This similarity is taken as a
reason why relative clause also involves wh-movement. The wh-movement moves the
wh-clause from the object position to the target Comp position within the relative
clause. As a result, there is co-indexation relationship between the trace, wh-phrase, and
the head noun “book”. And the head noun is said to be the antecedent of the wh-phrase.
iv)
DS: [S [NP The play [S’ Bill wrote [NP Op]]] disappointed John]
SS: [S [NP The playi [S’ [NP Op]i [S Bill wrote [NP t]i]] disappointed John]
In order to satisfy subcategorization, the operator (Op), also known as a null element, is
-1-
潘姿妏
69312301
base generated as the object of the verb “wrote”. The null object is seen as the
equivalent of the wh-phrase in the relative clause. Therefore it is also moved to Comp
by wh-movement, which involves the same process as illustrated in iii).
v)
DS: [S You think [S’(that) [S’ Mary criticize [NP who]]]]
SS: [S [NP who]i did [S you think [S’ [NP t’]i (that) [S Mary criticized [NP t]i]]]]
(2)
(1)
The derivation involves wh-movement which satisfies the [+Q]-Comp condition and
cyclicity condition. The wh-phrase “who” is first moved to the nearest Comp to satisfy
the cyclicity condition, and then moved again to the [+Q]-Comp of the root clause. The
[+Q]-Comp condition only applies to the position in which the wh-phrase finally rests,
and the intermediate Comp is said to be exempted from such condition. Therefore, we
can allow trace to occupy the intermediate Comp so that the cyclicity condition can be
satisfied.
Ex. 4.2
i)
*Mary thinks which English city Bill visited.
*Mary thinks [S’ [NP which English city]i [S Bill visited [NP t]i]]
The ungrammatical sentence above violates the [+Q]-Comp condition of wh-movement.
The [+Q]-Comp condition requires transformation to move a wh-phrase to a Comp
marked with a [+Q] feature. However, the Comp of the embedded clause is marked by
[-Q] feature as required by the subcategorization of the verb “think”. Therefore, the
sentence violates the condition by moving a wh-phrase to a [-Q] Comp.
ii)
*Why does Mary know John did it?
(with ”how” modifying the embedded verb)
*[S’ [Adv why]i does [S Mary Know [S’ [t’ ]i [S John [VP did it [Adv t]i]]]]]
We can see that this sentence adheres to the cyclicity condition. However, since the
wh-phrase “why” is a modifier of the embedded verb, it cannot move out of its local
domain (the embedded clause). Therefore, sentence ii) is illegitimate on the grounds
that the wh-phrase “why” is not recoverable from its domain, which is the embedded
clause. “Why” can only be recoverable from the root VP, and receive the interpretation
as the modifier of the root verb, thus violating the restriction that “why” is to modify
the embedded verb.
-2-
潘姿妏
69312301
(Cindy: You can elaborate more on the contrastive sentences, like
“Why,” Mary wonders, “did John do it?”
Does Mary know why John did it?
*Does Mary think why John did it? etc.
iii)
*How does Bill regret the claim that John treated him.
*[S [How]i does [S Bill regret [NP the claim [S’ that [S John treated him [t]i]]]]]
Sentence iii) violate the complex NP condition (CNPC). CNPC restricts wh-movement
to move a wh-phrase out of complex noun phrase. A complex noun phrase, by its
definition, is a noun phrase which includes a clause S’ in addition to N and Det.
Therefore, the cause of ungrammaticality in sentence iii) resulted from moving a
wh-element “how” out of a complex noun phrase “the claim that John treated him”.
iv)
*In which direction does John know the people who went?
(with in which direction modifying the verb went)
*[S’ [in which direction]j does [S John know [NP the peoplei [S’ whoi[S [t]i went [t]j]]]]
Sentence iv) violates the complex NP condition because CNPC does not allow a
wh-movement, in this case, it is “in which direction”, to move out of a complex noun
phrase. The complex noun phrase in this sentence is the NP that consists of “the
people” and its relative clause (S’).
Ex 4.3
i)
DS: [S [NP e] seems [S [NP Bill] to have lost the match]]
SS: [S [NP Bill]i seems [S [NP t]i to have lost the match]]
Sentence i) involves NP-movement in which the subject “Bill” of the embedded clause
is raised to the empty subject clause of the root clause, which is also called subject-to
subject raising. The movement involved in this sentence satisfies the Tensed S
Condition because the moved NP “Bill” is not base generated in a tensed clause.
ii)
DS: [S [NP e] appears [S [NP e] to have been excluded [NP Bill]]
SS: [S [NP Bill]i appears [S [NP t’]i to have been excluded [NP t]i]]
(2)
(1)
Sentence ii) involves two NP-movements. First, it undergoes passivization
(object-to-subject raising) in which the object of the embedded clause “Bill” is moved
to the subject position of the embedded clause. The second step involves
-3-
潘姿妏
69312301
subject-to-subject raising in which the subject of the embedded clause is moved to the
subject position of the root clause.
iii)
DS: [S[NP e] was criticized [NP the book]] strongly
SS: [S[NP The book]i was criticized [NP t]i] strongly
Sentence iii) is a NP movement. The process is also called object-to-subject raising
because the logical object of the clause “the book” is raised to the subject position. The
transformation applied legally because there is a passive verb within the sentence and
the subject position is also empty.
iv)
DS: [S Mary think [S [NP e] has been praised [NP which author]]]
SS: [S’ [NP Which author]i does [S Mary think [S’ [NP t]i[S [NP t]i has been praised [NP t]i]]]]
(3)
(2)
(1)
Sentence iv) undergoes three transformations. The first movement is a NP-movement in
which the object of the passive verb is moved to the subject position. This process is
also called object-to-subject raising. The next movement is a wh-movement in which
the wh-phrase “which author” is moved from the subject position to the Comp position
of the embedded clause. The last movement is also a wh-movement. It moves the
wh-phrase from the embedded Comp position to the Comp position in the root clause.
Ex. 4.4
i)
*Bill is believed John to have criticized
*[S [NP Bill]i is believed [S John to have criticized [NP t]i]]
The sentence is ungrammatical because it violates the Specified Subject Condition
(SSC). SSC forbids NP-movement to move a NP across a specified subject. Therefore,
sentense i) is said to violate the SSC on the grounds that the NP “Bill” is moved across
a specified subject “John”.
ii)
*Mary seems (that) has left suddenly
*[S [NP Mary]i seems (that) [S [NP t]i [Aux Tense] has left suddenly]]
Sentence ii) violates the Tensed S Condition. The Tensed S Condition restricts NPmovement to move a NP out of a tensed clause. The sentence is ungrammatical under
TSC which forbids the NP “Mary” to be moved out of the tensed clause “Mary has left
-4-
潘姿妏
69312301
suddenly”.
iii)
*This is the book which that Mary wrote.
*[S This is the booki [S’ [NP which]i that [S Mary wrote [NP t]i]]]
Sentence iii) violates the Doubly Filled Comp Filter which rules out sentences when a
Comp is occupied by an overt wh-phrase and a “that”. The sentence is therefore filtered
out on the grounds that “which” and “that” both appears under the same Comp position.
iv)
*John appears it is likely to resign.
*[S [NP John]i appears [S it is likely [NP t]i to resign]]
Sentence i) violates the Specified Subject Condition which restricts NP movement to
move a NP across a specified subject. The sentence is illegitimate because the NP
“John” moves across an intervening subject “it”, therefore violating the SSC.
Ex. 4.5
i)
I found a book in the library which I had not seen before.
SS: I [VP found a booki [S’ t]i [PP in the library] [S’ which I had not seen before]i]
The sentence involves Extraposition, which moves an XP and attach it as the rightmost
constituent of VP. Extraposition moves the relative clause “which I had not seen
before” from the position preceding PP “in the library” to the rightmost position of the
VP. (Cindy: That is all. There is another XP movement here.)
ii)
Mary donated to the library all the money she had inherited.
SS: Mary donated [VP [NP t]i [PP to the library] [NP all the money she had inherited]i]
The transformational rule involved in the derivation of this sentence is Heavy NP Shift.
Heavy NP Shift is a transformational rule which moves a ‘heavy’ NP and attach it as the
rightmost constituent of VP. In this sentence, the heavy NP is “all the money she had
inherited” and it has been moved from the position preceding the PP “to the library” to
the rightmost position of VP. (Cindy: That is all. There is another XP movement
here.)
iii)
These accusations I resent very much.
-5-
潘姿妏
69312301
SS: [S [NP These accusations]i I resent [NP t]i very much]
The transformational rule involved in sentence iii) is Topcalization. Topicalization is a
transformational rule which moves a XP and attach it as the leftmost constituent of S.
The moved phrase is the NP “these accusations”, and it is attached to the leftmost
position of S.
iv)
Who saw Bill?
SS: [S’ [NP who]i [S [NP t]i saw Bill]]
The transformational rule involved in sentence iv) is wh-movement. Wh-movement
moves a wh-phrase to a Comp position which is marked with a [+Q] feature. The
wh-phrase, “who”, is moved to the Comp position marked with a [+Q] feature because
it is an interrogative sentence.
Ex. 4.6
i)
[S’ [How]i do [S you know [S’ [t’]i that [S John fixed the car [t]i]]]]?
ii)
*[S’ [How]i do[S you wonder [S’ whether [S John fixed the car [t]i]]]?
iii)
*[S’ [How]i do [S you reject the rumor [S’ [t’]i that [S John fixed the car [t]
]]]]?
i
iv)
*[S’ [How]i do [S you know the car [S’ [t’]i that [S John fixed [t]i]]]]?
Based on my judgment from the sentences provided above, I think it is possible for
Wh-island to reduce to the Cyclicity Condition but the Complex NP Condition cannot.
Cyclicity Condition is a rule which stipulates wh-movement to move a wh-phrase to the
nearest Comp position. As we can see in sentence i), the wh-phrase “how” has been
moved in two successive cyclic steps, first to the Comp of the embedded clause and
then to the Comp of the root clause. Sentence i) obeys the cyclicity condition and is
thus grammatical. When turn to take at look at sentence ii), we can see the closest
Comp position of the wh-phrase is already occupied by a wh-phrase “whether”. The
wh-phrase “whether” is said to block the movement of another wh-phrase to move into
the Comp it is occupying. Therefore, the wh-phrase “how” has to cross one Comp and
-6-
潘姿妏
69312301
move directly to the Comp position of the root clause, thus violating the Cyclicity
Condition, and is therefore marked ungrammatical for this reason. Although it appears
that Wh-island Condition can be reduced to the Cyclicity Condition, CNPC cannot be
the case. From sentence iii) and iv) we can see that both sentences adheres to the
Cyclicity Condition because the wh-phrase “how” can move in cyclical steps first to the
embedded Comp and then to the Comp of the root clause. This is supported by the fact
that the intermediate trace can coexist with “that”, which is a claim stated in the text
book on page 80 “an overt wh-phrase cannot co-occur with the complemtiser ‘that’
under Comp but a null one can”. Since trace is also a null category, it is allowed to
co-occur with “that” and act as an intermediate trace. It seems that the Cyclicity
Condition cannot account for the ungrammaticality of sentence iii) and iv). Without the
restriction imposed by CNPC, there would be no explanation for the ungrammaticality
of sentence iii) and iv).
Ex. 4.7
i)a
i)b
Bill sent a message to John.
Bill sent John a message.
ii)a
ii)b
John gave money to the charity.
John gave the charity money.
iii)a Bill transmitted a message to John.
iii)b * Bill transmitted John a message.
iv)a John donated money to the charity.
iv)b *John donated the charity money.
The verbs in sentence i) and ii), which is “sent” and “gave” both subcategorize a NP
and a PP as their complements. So we have the subcategorization frame:
send: [V; __NP PP]
give: [V; __NP PP]
Therefore, sentence i)a and ii)a is the deep structure representation since it is generated
by the context-free PS rules (S→NP Aux VP; VP→V NP PP; NP→(Det) N; PP→P NP)
and LIR. When we turn to look at sentence i)b and sentence ii)b, we find that these two
sentences convey the same meaning as sentence i)a and ii)a, but have a slightly
different structure from sentence i) and ii)a. Since sentence i) and ii)b convey the same
meaning as their a) counterpart, we know that i) and ii)b must have the same DS as i)
-7-
潘姿妏
69312301
and ii)a. The reason why the b) sentences in i) and ii) differ slightly in their structural
forms from their a) counterparts is due to transformations.
DS: [S Bill sent a message to John]
SS: [S Bill sent [NP t]i [PP [P to] [NP John] [NP a message]i]
If sentence i)b is said to have undergone transformations in order to arrive at its SS,
then it must have underwent two transformations which is the movement of the direct
object “a message” to the rightmost position of VP, and the deletion of the preposition
“to”. The same transformations also took place in sentence ii)b in order to arrive at its
surface structure. However, we encounter problems when we turn to look at sentence iii)
and iv). We know that the verb “transmit” and “donate” also have the same
subcategorization frame as “sent” and “give”. What’s more is that the verbs “sent” and
“transmit”/ “give” and “donate” are semantically similar. That is, to “transmit”
something to someone means to “send” something to someone, and to “donate”
something to the charity has the same meaning as to “give” something to the charity.
Despite these similar properties that “sent” and “transmit” share, “transmit” differ to
“send” in that it cannot undergo the transformations mentioned above. (Cindy: How
would the transformation rule know? The transformation rule is only sensitive to
the structure.) That is why sentence iii) b is ungrammatical. The reason may be
attributed to the features of verbs in which verbs such as “transmit” and “donate” have
a minus property for the transformations mentioned above, while “send” and “give”
have a plus feature. Therefore, we can derive the conclusion that verbs such as “sent”
and “give” subcategorize the transformations feature [+ movement of direct object],
while verbs such as “transmit” and “donate” subcategorize [- movement of direct
object]. So the reason why sentence iii)b and iv)b is ungrammatical is now clear.
-8-