Download Linking Theory

Linking Theory
Richard C. DeArmond
1.
Linking Theory — Introduction.
In this paper, I will propose Linking Theory.
The concept of links and chains was
proposed by Chomsky (1981). A link holds between two nodes in a syntactic structure.
Two or more links may form a chain. The original links was to link a moved node and its
trace:
(1)
The house1 was built t1 in three days.
The noun phrase the house is linked with its trace.
I will propose that Linking Theory is a theory of information retrieval in a grammar
of a language. In (1), the information ‘the house’ is copied from its trace in the standard
theory. Alternatively, I am proposing that the A-bar--position of the house is linked to its
trace from which information is retrieved when needed. The information is not stored in
the A-bar-position. I am also proposing that linking is a shortcut for agreement based on
the simplicity criterion. I will also mention other links that will be required.
2.
2.1
Agreement
The Operators Determiner and Quantifier
In this section, I will discuss the noun phrase. I will limit this discussion to the head noun
and to two operators that modify the head. I will also discuss the links that account for
agreement within the noun phrase.
The noun phrase must contain a head noun, the demonstrative operator and the
quantifier operator. Operators are grammatical forms that are required by the grammar.
Operators may be the same as the as function words. I will use the term operator from
logic.
1
The operator demonstrative is required for all English nouns. The operator may
be phonetic or it may be phonetically null:
(2)
a.
the boy, boys
b.
the grass, grass
a.
The boy is tall.
b.
Boys are tall.
c.
The grass is green.
d.
Grass is green.
as in:
(3)
The determiner operator may be understood as a set with two members: [+Def]
(definite) and [-Def]. In (3b) and (3d) there is a determiner operator and it is phonetically
null. The null determiner operator is always interpreted as [-Def]. A phonetically null
string as in ‘X ø Y’ differs from a sequence of two strings ‘X Y.’ For example, if no
adjective is modifying a noun (‘X Y’), no adjective is implied:
(4)
The boy came home.
Here there is no adjective modifying boy. An adjective cannot be interpreted here.
Adjectives are lexical; they are not operators. There is no overt quantifier here.
Nevertheless, the NP is interpreted as one boy.
(5)
Both boys came home.
There is no overt quantifier here either. The quantifier must be interpreted as two
because of the predeterminer both. Both refers to two and it must be linked to the null
quantifier. Linking is the formal apparatus that I will use to account for the interpretation
here.
2
2.1
Three Tiered Morphemes
Before I discuss linking formally, I will propose that nearly all morphemes have a threetiered system. All morphemes must contain logico-conceptual information, form, and
phonological representation.
(6)
BOY
+Human
+Male
+Yo ung
(o t her feat ures)
Log icoconcept ual
inf ormat io n
noun
Form
/ b oy/
Pho nological
Represent at ion
The first tier contains the logico-conceptual (semantic) information informally stated
here. The first line in the tier contains the arbitrary form used to represent the form in a
simple format: {BOY = +Human, +Male, +Young, … }. The second tier contains the
information concerning the form; here it is a noun. The third line contains the
phonological representation: /boy/. The quantifier ONE has the following three-tiered
information box: (usually a morpheme, a word, or a phrase that has idiomatic meaning:
(7)
ONE
Logico-
[-Pl]
Conceptual
3
[+Count]
Information
ONE / ____ NP
Quantifier
Form
{wʌn, æn, ə, {},}
Phonological
Representation
There are three allomorphs of ONE as shown in the phonological representation
of ONE in (7). The symbols ‘{}’ represents an empty set. In (7) it means that the
phonological representation is null. It is also a quantifier and contains the features [-Pl]
(singular) and [+Count] (quantifiers such as much, a little are [-Count]). Thus, ONE,
which has a phonetically null allomorph, contains its logico-conceptual information. It
also contains the information that it is a noun. The null allomorph is valid since it
contains necessary information. The only words in English that have no meaning are
the non-modal auxiliary verbs: be, have, d, and the expletive pronouns it and there.
The grammatical entry for ONE is not complete. The distribution of the four
allomorphs of ONE cannot be predicted entirely on phonological information. Only the
subset {æn, ə} has a phonological environment. As is well known, an occurs before a
phonemic vowel and schwa before a consonant. This alternation is limited to this
grammatical item only. This information must be included in the grammatical entry of
ONE. The ampersand means that the form it precedes is the default. The default must
be selected unless there is a constraint against it. The sequence [*əV] is constrained for
this morpheme:
(8)
{{ &ə, æn}, *əV}
The allomorph [wʌn] occurs only when it is stressed by pragmatic rules:
4
(9)
One book, not two books.
The subset {{ &ə, æn} is barred if it is S-stressed (sentential stress):
{ { &ə, æn}, *[+S-stressed]}.
(10)
The {} allomorph can never be phonetically stressed nor sententially stressed. This
constraint applies as constraint in the grammar. This constraint is most likely universal.
Example (10) is a constraint that blocks these two allomorphs from being stressed. 1
The null allomorph occurs when the morpheme is not pragmatically stressed.
There is an overt determiner or predeterminer:
(11)
a.
the book, *the a book, the one book
b.
each book, * each a book
c.
every book, *every a book
The subset {{ &ə, æn} is marked as:
(12)
{{&ə, æn}, */phonetically overt predeterminer or determiner
[NP … _].
The constraint blocks {{&ə, æn} from occurring in an NP after any overt form preceding
it.
The grammatical entry for ONE is now modified to include these specific
constraints. The stressed-null constraint is not a lexical constraint It. is not limited to the
morpheme ONE, but it is probably a universal phonetic constraint:
Some dialects may permit stressed { &ə, æn}. In this case, the constraint does not apply. If { &ə, æn}
and not in free variation, then another constraint must be proposed.
1
5
(13)
ONE
Logico-
[-Pl]
Conceptual
[+Count]
Information
____ NP
Quantifier
Form
{wʌn, æn, ə, {},}
Phonological
Representation
{{ &ə,
Default and
Constraints
*ə / ____ V}
*[+S-stressed]}.
*/
phonetically
overt
predeterminer or determiner
[NP ____].
2.1
Definition
I will now define a link:
(14)
A link connects a governor and a governee.
In the sense of Chomsky (1981), a governor has the following properties:
6
(15)
A governs B iff:
a.
A c-commands B
b.
A is a head
c.
A is a governor
d.
There is no node C such that A governs C, and C governs B.
Chomsky (1995: 90) revises government with the following: 2
(16)
governsif c-commands and there is no barrier for ccommanded by .
Chomsky’s definition does not include (15b) and (15c). I will revise (15) to (17). I will call
it ‘head government’, which I consider a subset of (16):
(16)
governsif c-commands  is a head,and there is no barrier
for c-commanded by .
A link links a governor to a governee. I will limit a governee to be the maximal
projection for the sake of simplicity. For example, in the VP eat a sandwich, a link is
established from the head eat to the its governee the NP a sandwich:
2
For Chomsky’s definition of barrier, I refer the reader to Chomsky (1995: 78-92).
7
(17)
VP
NP
V
EAT
ONE SANDWICH
(18)
D and Q are fully expanded, and N contains only the features that are relevant for
agreement. The verb is not expanded since is not involved in Quantifier-agreement.
The quantifier ONE is marked as [+Count, -Pl] and for the required argument NP, which
is realized as a complement in the syntax. The noun SANDWICH is marked for its
inherent feature [+Count]. Since both the quantifier and its argument are marked for
count, the features must agree or the sequence will fail.
First, agreement is constrained to government (or c-command). Then a link is
automatically inserted to connect the governor and the governee; if two or more links
are required, they form a chain. The advantage of the link is that the number of links is
reduced to one or possibly a chain with two or three links.
I consider a branch of a tree diagram to be another kinds of link that is capable of
transmitting information. This was assumed by Chomsky although he never used the
term link. For example, {Q, NP} is a branch-link where NP immediately dominates A as
in Figure (15) above. The set {NP, NP} forms a second link, and {NP, N} a third link.
Together these three links form the chain {Q, N}. Given this chain, the feature [+Ct] is
first copied to NP, then down to the next NP, and finally to N. Then an internal lexical
8
link links N with the feature [+Ct] in SANDWICH. The feature [+Ct] in the quantifier
agrees with the same in the noun. The sequence is rendered acceptable.
Next, I will illustrate the advantage of a link. I claimed above that a governor
governs its governee. Thus, a link occurs between Q and the NP it governs. Although
the node N is technically governed. I will assume that the only a phrasal node may be a
governee for the problems under discussion here. I will defend this claim below:
(15)
NP
NP
Q
ONE
N
[+Ct]
SANDWICH
[+Ct]
The feature count at both ends of the double arrow agrees for the positive value.
There must be agreement for the feature plural as well. The above notation does
not make this clear, though it may be used when it is clear that all features must agree.
In the more detail approach, there are two sublinks. A sublink links two specific like
features. A sublink is a member of a link. In the following diagram two sublinks are
shown connecting [+Ct] and [-Pl], respectively:
9
(19)
NP
NP
Q
ONE
[+Ct]
N
[-Pl]
SANDWICH
[+Ct]
[-Pl]
2.1
Determiner Agreement
Determiners and quantifiers must agree as well.
As is well-known, only the
demonstratives show agreement with quantifiers for plural:
(20)
a.
this book, these books
b.
that goose, those geese
The links for this book (17a) is shown in Figure (18):
10
(21)
NP
D
NP
[+Def]
[+Dem]
Q
NP
[+Prox]
ONE
[-Pl]
[+Ct]
N
[-Pl]
BOOK
[+Ct]
[-Pl]
The underlying plural feature is not marked for a value. Since D is linked to [-Pl] in Q,
then the value minus must be assigned to it if the string is to be acceptable in Standard
English. The feature plural links D and Q, and Q and N, thus forming a chain {D, Q, N}.
The feature definite is not inherent is the vast majority of nouns, though a few
nouns are inherent definite:
(22)
a.
police, the police (*Police are here.)
b.
measles, the measles (*Betty has measles.)3
If a noun is inherently definite (or possibly inherently indefinite) then the feature of
definite must agree. If the feature is not inherent, then a value must be assigned to the
noun, which must agree for definiteness:
The vast majority of English nouns are not marked for inherent definiteness. As I
mentioned above, a few nouns are inherently definite. If the null indefinite article occurs
in construction with such a noun, the construction fails:
3
As a topic rather than a disease, ‘measles’ may be indefinite: All doctors must take Measles 101.
11
(23)
Mary talked to {*{} police, the police}.
The one thing a grammar cannot do is change the meaning of the intended sentence. If
someone should utter something like the following:
(24)
Mary talked to police, uh, I mean, to the police.
This is a problem of performance. Given some form of linking theory above, the speaker
has linked [-Def] in the null determiner with [+Def] in D in ”the {} police.” Since this is
unacceptable, the clash of values for the feature definite somehow sends a message to
the speaker that it is unacceptable. The speaker then corrects himself producing the
second clause after the performance marker uh. Just how this happens lies beyond the
topic of this paper. 4
However, an interesting problem arises. In the following diagram representing
(18):
(25)
NP
D
NP
[+Def]
[+Dem]
Q
NP
[-Ct]
N
[+Pl]
POLICE
[+Prox]
[-Pl]
[+Def]
[-Ct]
[+Pl]
4
12
D governs Q, Q governs N, but D does not govern N because Q blocks government.
Given the government restriction on linking, the configuration should fail.
There at least three solutions to the problem. First, government could be
eliminated as a constraint on linking. This is not an acceptable solution in that a highly
constrained grammar is preferable to a less constrained one. Second, Q could be
marked as [_Def], in which case, it would receive the positive value for definiteness
agreeing with definite under N, and then D would have to be entered as [+Def] in order
to agree with definite under Q. This a less than satisfying solution because Q would
then have to be marked for a feature, definite, even though there is no overt evidence
that definite is a feature of Q. This solution is ad hoc.
Third, perhaps government should be reexamined here. A node is a set of
features that define a given lexeme or grammeme. It may be a set of words that define
a phrase or a clause.5 Or, it may be a set of features that define a morpheme. Suppose
that government is not a property of nodes, but of features instead. In this case, feature
A governs feature B if feature A c-commands feature B:
(26)
Feature A governs Feature B iff:
a.
A and B are the same feature
b.
A c-commands B
c.
A is a member of a head
d.
A is a governor
e.
There is no feature C such that A governs C, and C governs B.
In figure (21) [+Def], a member of D, c-commands [+Def], a member of N; [+Def] is a
member of the head D; [+Def] is a governor; and there is no intervening governor.
5
Technically, a clause is a phrase whose dominate node is S in older theories, or CP in modern theories.
13
Condition (22a) is justified since a given feature may be linked only to a similar
feature. There is no known reason for dissimilar features to be linked.6 Condition (22d)
is the most tenuous condition. Chomsky (1981) points out that certain nodes such as [Tense] do not govern their complements. It is unclear at this time where [-Tense] is a
governor or not when it is viewed as a feature rather than a node. Subrule (22d) may be
unnecessary.
3.
On the Head – complement Structure
4.
More Examples of Linking
There are more cases of linking than agreement in NP. I won’t cover them in detail.
Rather I will mention some examples that remain for further research.
2.1
Predeterminers
Predeterminers include such forms as all, every, each, both and any. Every is inherently
[-Pl] and [+Ct]:
(23)
every book, *every books, *every rice.
All is singular if it agrees with a mass noun or it is plural if it agrees with a count noun:
(24)
all books, all book, all rice, *all rices.
The example *all rices fails if rices refers to rice in general. If it refers to kinds of rice or
species of rice, it succeeds because in the second meaning it is a count noun.
3.1
Subject-Verb Agreement
Subject-Verb Agreement occurs in many languages. In many languages the
subject and the verb must agree for person and number such as English:
(25) a.
The cat is happy.
6
Node government still exists as in the case of a head assigning arguments to a complement that is a
different node: John likes Mary. V governs NP.
14
b.
The cats are happy.
In Russian, gender agreement occurs in the past tense but not in the present tense.
Possessive pronouns must agree with the noun they are modifying:
(2)
a.
Moja sestra pishet pis’mo.
My+{fem, singular) sister+{ singular, feminine} is+writing a+letter.
‘My sister is writing a letter.’
Moja sestra napilsala pis’mo.
My+{fem, singular) sister+{fem, singular, feminine} write+{past,
feminine, singular} pis’mo.
‘My sister wrote a letter.’
The features in the verb are not marked for a binary value: [_First], [_Personal],
and [_Plural]. They must be linked to the same features in a governor. The feature
Personal differentiates the personal features. The feature [+Personal] includes the first
and second persons. If it is negative, it refers to the third person.
The feature First differentiates the first person from the second person. If it is
positive, then it refers to the speaker (I), if it is negative, the referent is the addressee.
My argument is the following. The speaker is the most marked form since it can refer in
a discourse to exactly one referent, the speaker. The second person is less marked
since there can be more than one addressee. Markedness means that the marked
feature has a larger restriction in some sense than the unmarked one.
This theory of linking should apply to any framework that accepts the theory of
government. I am putting aside the problem of the position of the subject in syntax. In
the following diagram, I will not indicate the position of the subject, but I will show the
links between the appropriate features in the subject and appropriate features in the
verbal set of endings.
15
(3)
NP
D
NP
[+Def]
[-Dem]
Q
NP
VP
ONE
[_Ct]
[-Pl]
V
N
AP
CAT
[+Ct]
V
BE
[_Pl]
[-Personal]
T
[-Past]
A
HAPPY
[_Plural]
[_Personal]
The feature [-Personal] is inherent in CAT, and there must be agreement with the same
in T. The feature [-Pl] is inherent in ONE, and there must be agreement with the same
features in N and in T. The non-valued features must receive a value, as shown below:
16
(28)
NP
D
NP
[+Def]
[-Dem]
Q
NP
VP
ONE
[+Ct]
[-Pl]
V
N
AP
CAT
[+Ct]
V
BE
[-Pl]
[-Personal]
T
[-Past]
A
HAPPY
[-Plural]
[-Personal]
Starting from the left, each morpheme is spell out as “the + {} + cat + i + s + happy,”
respectively.
2.1
Relative Pronoun Antecedent Agreement
In English and many languages a relative pronoun must agree with its antecedent,
which affects subject verb agreement, even though the relative pronoun does not over
show gender:
(4)
a.
Did you see my sister who lives in Moscow?
b.
Did you see my sisters who live in Moscow?
The embedded verb must agree with the relative pronoun, which in turn agrees with my
sister for person and number. The principles of agreement determine the relative
pronoun is the center of agreement here. In Russian, the relative pronoun shows overt
agreement with its antecedent for case and number:
17
(5)
a.
Vy videli moju sestru, kotoraja zhivet v Moskve?
b.
Vy videli mojii sestri, kotoryje zhivut v Moskve?
There is also subject-verb agreement in both clauses.
In the following diagram, representing (28a) the initial subject and verb is omitted.
The links are represented by the open rectangles:
(30)
my {} sister who live+s in Moscow
The feature [-Pl] is inherent in ONE. Sister is linked to who since sister is the antecedent
of who, and who is linked the tense marker ‘s’ through subject-verb agreement.
2.1
Antecedents
Links are established between an antecedent and an appropriate anaphor. There are
two types. The first type holds between an antecedent and its trace:
(31) a
b.
Jason1 seems t1 be rather bright.
These books are t1 bound to be banned in school.
The second type includes a link between an antecedent and a visible anaphor:
(32) a.
b.
Jerome1 looked at himself1 in the mirror.
Beatrice1 wants t1 to buy herself1 a new coat.
A third type includes a link between an antecedent and a an empty anaphor in control
constructions:
(33) a.
b.
A bear1 tried PRO1 to get into the garbage can last night.
The bouillabaise1 is ready1 O1 to eat v1.
18
In [33a] PRO is an anaphor, which is bound to bear, which is the only antecedent in the
governing category of PRO. Example [33b] contains an example of a parasitic gap. The
parasitic gap is represented by “On”7. “O” is bound to bouillabaisse.
A link is also established between an antecedent and a variable:
(34) a.
Who1 did John see v1?
b.
What did the wolf find Little Red Riding Hood doing v1?
c.
[The books listed in the course outline]1 you should be reading v1.
A variable is free in its governing category. That is, it cannot be bound in its governing
category. The pronominal who in [34a] occurs outside the governing category of the
variable “v1 “. The variable is an empty category (an empty set). It is linked to the WHword in [34a] and [34b]. In [34c] the NP enclosed in square brackets functions as the
antecedent of the variable, and is thus linked to it.8
5.
Extrasentential Linking
There is linking agreement that goes beyond the limits of a sentence. The first type
occurs in pragmatic contexts:
(35)
A. ‘Did someone1 see Mary2 ?’ B. ‘Yes, someone1 saw her2. (*Yes,
someone1 saw him2.)
Linking also connects the lexicon and the grammaticon to each form in the sentence.
Each lexical and grammatical item in (35) must be linked to the same form in the lexicon
and grammaticon, respectively.9 The link provides the information stored in the lexicon
and grammaticon to the connected word10. I won’t cover these types of linking in this
paper.
7
See Chomsky (1986) and Culicover (1997) for further discussion on parasitic gaps.
The history of such constructions as those in [34] need not concern us here. I am assuming, however,
that the variable is an empty set. In each of these three examples, the direct object of see, do, and read is
phonetically empty, though it has a function. It has no inherent meaning.
9
It is impossible for every from in every conceivable sentence to be simultaneously linked to the lexicon
and grammaticon. Linking is subject to the concept of ‘activation’, discussed in
10
I am unsure where proper names are stored. The problem is not directly related to linking.
8
19
6.
Concord
Wechsler and Zlati¡ (2003) first differentiate between pragmatic and grammatical
agreement. Pragmatic agreement is semantic and it is not determined by grammatical
rules. Wechsler and Zlati¡ (W&Z, p. 9) provide the following example:
(1)
A cowboy approached the bar. She ordered a drink.
The pronoun she cannot be coindexed with cowboy since the latter is semantically
male, whereas the pronoun can have only a female referent. I will return to this below.
W&Z next differentiate between concord agreement and index agreement. The
former is grammatical. Lack of agreement is unacceptable:
(2)
a.
This one book
b.
These two books
c.
*This one books
d.
*This two book
e,
*These one book(s)
Linking occurs with concord agreement.
Index agreement is semantic in nature. W&Z (2003: 12) cite the following
examples to illustrate this. It is well known that anaphors must agree with their
antecedents within their governing category. Index agreement is not evident in English.
It is evident in inflected languages. For example, consider the Russian examples:
(3)
Ona xoroshij professor.
she good(m. sg. nom) professor (m .sg. third pers.
‘She is a good professor. ‘
20
The professor is masculine, and concord requires that the adjectives that modify it must
be masculine. The pronoun ona is feminine singular nominative. The selection of this
pronoun is an example of index agreement. Certain nouns referring to profession are
masculine in concord, but may be feminine or masculine in index. If it is known that the
professor is female, the feminine form must be used. Whether one uses the masculine
or the feminine form depends on the pragmatic knowledge, whether the person is male
or female. In unknown cases, the default is the masculine.
W&Z cite as an example of pragmatic agreement the generic pronouns one and
you that differ in register only:
(4)
a.
You really have to watch yourself around here. One can easily get
in trouble.
b.
One really has to watch himself around here. You can easily get in
trouble here.
c.
*You really have to watch oneself around here.
d.
*One really has to watch yourself around here.
In the first two examples, the reflexive anaphor must agree with the subject pronoun.
This is grammatically determined (concord) as the last two examples show. Such words
as ship have two gender indices: feminine (marked) and neuter (default). Register may
be mixed in selected the index, but mixing is not possible in cases of concord. This
mixing seems reasonably acceptable. It might not be acceptable in very formal
grammar, but the lower register (you) is not acceptable in formal grammar.
The links that I have been discussing occur in concord agreement, which is
bound in syntax. It is not my intention here to develop a theory of index linking. This is
due in part to the problem of discourse analysis where the speaker and the addressee
interchange between sentences in a discourse:
21
(5)
Did you1 buy yourself1 another book on syntax?
No, but I1 did buy myself1 a book on set theory.
I see little hope for a theory of pragmatic linking.
In this paper I am restricting linking to that of concord and put aside whether links
exist in index and pragmatic agreement.
7.
2.1
Movement (or the lack thereof)
Governor - Trace
If it is assumed that movement exists (transformational grammar) then a link is created
between a movement phrase and the original position of the phrase. Consider the
following based on example (1):11
(2)
These houses1 were built t1.
In most versions of the theory, if not all, the subject NP is moved from the complement
position of the verb where it receives a theta role but no Case, to the subject position of
the sentence where it is assigned Case or is checked for Case. I will now propose that
two links and the lack of a link are useful here. In the first case, a link is established
between the house and its trace (or phonetically empty category). The house ccommands its trace and in non-minimalist theories, it governs its trace, as there is no
closer governor.
11
Example (2) is questionable as it stands. It is much better with a temporal phrase, which is omitted for
the sake of simplicity here.
(1)
These houses were built in three days.
22
(3)
VP
These houses
VP
V
were
V
built
NP
[variable]
Agreement must still apply here. The house contains a set of features, which I will
arbitrarily label fx. If it is assumed that features are copying from the original position,
then the original features remain in the original position (a trace). This feature must
agree. This is almost assured since a grammar cannot introduce semantic features in
any operation.
There is more agreement in the above diagram than shown. The auxiliary verb
must agree with the subject for the feature [+Plural]:
23
(4)
VP
These houses
VP
V
were
V
built
NP
[variable]
In the second situation, the one that triggers copying, Case must also agree
between the head and the NP in question. To do this, I argue, that Case is an inherent
feature of most governors, and that a link must be established between the Casegovernor and the Case-governee:
The claim (Chomsky 1981) that NPs need to be Case-marked seems to be
fundamentally sound. I propose that NPs have a feature Case, which is either empty or
a NP contains a specific Case is filled which is then checked. In either case, a link is
established between the Case-feature in the governor and the Case-feature in the
governee. The Case in both forms must agree.
The same principles hold in subject-to-subject raising. The subject of an infinitive
is unable to be assigned or checked for Case:
(5)
*It seems John to be happy.
John cannot be assigned for check for Case. According Chomsky (1981), John occurs
in Spec-I whose head is [-Tense]. This form cannot assign or check for Case. Although
I may be dubious of the positional claim, if it is true, then [-Tense] fails to bear the
24
feature Case. John, or any infinitival subject, must be moved, or better, its features
copied to next subject position:
(6)
John1 seems tt to be happy.
Now John receives or is checked for Case. According to Chomsky, the governor should
be Spec-T with the head [+Tense]. Another possible governor is C. Regardless of these
two differing hypotheses, a link is established between the governor and the governee.
2.1
Governor – Variable
Variables occur in Case-marked positions. Movement or feature copying accounts for
the variable:
(7)
What1 did you buy v1?
The subindex “1” indicates that the two forms must share features — the features
inherent in the moved form or the WH-form. Once again, a link is established. This link
was developed by Chomsky in his discussion of chains. A chain consists of one or more
links, where one end of a link shares a node with another link:
(8)
What1 did Bill know that v1 Mary was to bring v1 for dinner?
The WH-word what is linked to the first variable, which in turn is linked to the second
variable. Together, these two links form a chain. The features in all three of these
variables must agree.
8.
Looking Ahead
One of the more interesting applications of theory might be in the issue of
transformational theory (movement). Chomsky 1(995) has suggested that a
transformation may be the copying of features. Let me suppose that this is correct.
Given a string X … Y, such X is the landing position for copying features, and X is the
position from which such features are copied. X must govern Y. If so, then a link is built
from X to Y: X1 … Y1.The features are copied directly from Y1 to X1.
25
In any kind of a surface generative grammar (e.g. Brame 1970), suppose Y is
generated. For example, consider a variation of (7):
(1)
a.
John seems to be happy.
b.
John1 seems PRO1 to be happy.
John needs to be assigned a theta role, which is impossible from seem because it
assigns a theme to the infinitive. Furthermore, happy assigns the theta role experiencer,
it must assign it to an NP in its subject position. Suppose John is X, and the subject
position is Y. X governs Y. Consequently, a link is created between: X1 … Y1. The theta
role experiencer is assigned to X1 through feature copying or feature matching. Should
X1 be assigned a theta role by the matrix predicate, then it can’t receive a theta role
from any embedded predicate:
(2)
a.
John tried to go.
b.
John1 tried PRO1 to go.
Here john receives its theta role agent from the verb TRY. The missing subject12 of the
infinitive PRO receives its theta role agent from GO. John is linked to PRO through the
theory of control. A problem arises: through linking both John and PRO should receive
the theta roles agent. However, they can’t because of the following example
(3)
a.
John tried to be seen by everyone.
b.
John1 tried PRO1 to be seen by everyone.
Here, PRO receives the theta role goal (Gruber) from SEE, but JOHN is still an agent.
JOHN in the matrix clause is not both an agent and a goal. The theory of linking must
be revised such that similar features are linked, but dissimilar features cannot be linked.
12
This empty position is called PRO in transformational theory. I will call it PRO here, putting aside the
controversy of PRO.
26
In (1) John needs a theta role. There is a feature theta role that must be
determined for noun phrases with the possible exception of vocatives. It must receive a
theta and if it is linked to another feature theta role, the specific theta role is copied. If
two noun phrases are linked by another feature, it is not necessarily the case that the
theta role features are linked. They are linked only if needs a theta and other conditions
on linking hold, such as government.
In control constructions, reference must agree, that is, the referent of the matrix
subject or object (the controller) must agree with the referent of PRO in the embedded
clause. I will suggest a feature set rn, such that rn is a set of referential features required
for reference. In control constructions, these features much match in above given
context.
In still another framework and similar frameworks, suppose that the lexicon is
connect to a component that I will call the lexico-conceptual component, that in turn is
connected to a theta grid that is connected to the syntactic component that is connect to
the phonological component. The word connected obviously implies linking. This is too
complex to go into here, but linking, I am relatively sure, will play an important role here.
Even in phonology linking may have a role. Consider assimilation, for example. If
a vowel and a nasal occur adjacent to each other, the feature is copied to the vowel
Suppose that the feature nasal in not marked plus or minus in the vowel, and it needs to
be filled. Under certain conditions the vowel and the nasal are linked. The feature of
nasality must be specified as either plus or minus. Linking provides the mechanism for
copying the feature of nasality from the nasal to the vowel.
A filter is a possible account reflecting optimality theory. Suppose that there is
filter such that an unnasalized vowel cannot be connected to a nasal:
(4)
*[æ] — [n].
No filter bars [˜æ] — [n].
2.1
Set theory
27
Another possible framework is that of set theory. Briefly, a set is a construct such that it
may contain one subset or multiple subsets, there is no known restriction on what a set
may contain. A set may be completely void, in which call we have the null set or zero.
In a language that has nasal vowels and nonnasal vowels that are not in contrast. The
mother set of a phoneme that contains two allophones, one nasalized and one
unnasalized. Given as string V, N 13
9.
Conclusion
10.
Bibliography
Barlow, Michael. 1992. A Situated Theory of Agreement. Garland Publishing: 1988
Stanford PhD. Dissertation.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Barriers. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Culicover, Peter W. 1997. Principles and Parameters: An Introduction to Syntactic
Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Corbett, Greville. 1994. ‘Agreement.’ In R.E. Asher (ed.), The Encyclopedia of
Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 54 - 60.
Givon, Talmy. 1984. Syntax. A Functional Typological Introduction. Vol 1. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins. Chapter 10.
Moravcsik,
(ed.),
Edith
A.
197).
Universals
of
"Agreement".
Human
In:
Language.
Joseph
vol.
4.
Greenberg,
Stanford:
Stanford University Press. 331- 374.
Safir, Kenneth J. 1985. Syntactic Chains. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
13
Actually, V, N is a set that contains V and N.
28
Wechsler, Steven, and Zarisa Zlati¡. 2003. The Many Faces of
Agreement. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
This page last updated 25 JA 2006
29