T-G grammar

TRANSFORMATIONAL - GENERATIVE GRAMMAR

Lecturer: Prof. Dr. Trần Hữu MạnhStudents: Nguyễn Thị Vân Anh Nguyễn Thị Hoàn Lê Thị Nhung Nguyễn Diệu Linh Nguyễn Phương Yến (K17)Class: K18

T-G GRAMMAR1. X-bar theory

2. Government-binding theory

2.1. Theta theory

2.2. Projection principle

2.3. Bounding theory

2.4. Government

2.5. Binding theory

2.6. Case theory

2.7. Control theory

Nguyễn Diệu Linh

1. X-bar theorya. The first generalisation

The head of each phrase its name

e.g. nouns head noun phrases

verbs head verb phrases

prepositions head prepositional phrases

Variable X generates phrase structures XP contains a head X endocentricity constrain

• Linear order is different from hierarchical order in each languageE.g.

Difference in linear order

The order of heads & objects in languages are fairly consistent

b. The second generalisationAll major class lexical items (Ns, Vs, As and Ps)

project phrasal categories which are at least three levels deep

X”

. . . X’. . .

. . . X . . .

X”:NP, VP, PP and AP

X’(X- bar) :phrasal category, less inclusive than X”

X : lexical (word) level.

Phrases are similar to each other in terms of:

three- level organization

consistent constituents of each level across phrases.

X” = an optional specifier (modifier) + X’:

X” (Spec), X’

In Prepositional phrase -P”, the specifier is an adverbial phrase

e.g. Right up his alley

In Noun phrase - N”, the specifier is a NP modifier, such as a genitive:

e.g. Bill’s bookIn Verb phrase - V”, the specifier is an adverbial

phrase:

e.g. Inadvertently trippedIn S, the specifier is the subject.

2 expansions of X’:

(1) X’= X + complements:

X’ X, (XP*)

(2) X’= X’ + adjuncts (modifying phrases):

X’ X’, (NP*)

The complements of:V & P: N”s

e.g. win the gameN & A : P”s

e.g. students of linguisticsAdjuncts : P”s

e.g. studied at MIT

V”

Adv’ V’

Adv’ V’ P”

Adv Adv’ P’

V N” Adv P N”

Det N’ Adv Det N’

N N

Quickly tosses the ball right across the room

Nguyễn Thị Hoàn

THETA THEORYPresenter: Nguyễn Thị Hoàn

Main points: Definition of Theta Theory Theta Roles Theta Criterion The Projection Principle

1. Definition Theta Theory, or Thematic Theory (θ-theory) is the module that deals with the valency requirements of verbs. It incorporates a set of participant roles, called Theta Roles. Their distribution in sentence structure is mediated chiefly by the Projection Principle and the Theta-Criterion. (A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics)

Types of Theta RolesTypes of Theta Roles

A Theta Role represents the semantic relationship of arguments with the predicate .

Type Definition ExampleAgent It is the initiator or the doer of the action.

Also it should be alive and able to take conscious decisions; it is mostly subject of a clause

“Sarah finished the work”

Experiencer It is the argument that feels or perceives events; it might also be experiencing some psychological state.

“John was happy”

Theme/Patient

It is an entity that undergoes actions, is moved, experienced, or perceived; it is also called “patient”

“John killed the bird”

Goal The entity towards which something moves.

“She goes to the library”

Recipient It occurs only with verbs denoting change of possession.

-“Peter got a book from her”.

Source It is the unit from which the action takes place

“He returned from Taza”.

Type Definition ExampleLocation It is the place in which the action

occurs or in which a theme is located.

“In the seminar, we discussed the topics”.

Instrument It is a means by which something comes about.

“John killed Mary with a gun”.

Benificative It is the one who is given some help or to whose best something happens

“He bought some flowers for his wife”.

Possessor It is the one who has or owns something.

“John has a big car”.

Percept It is someone or something that is perceived.

“John smelled funny”.

The Theta-Criterion &The Theta-Criterion & TThe he PProjection Principlerojection Principle

Theta Theory operates at D-structure through the assignment of θ-roles to arguments. This theory is based on two fundamental principles, namely the Theta-Criterion and the Projection Principle.

The Theta-CriterionThe Theta-Criterion

Definition:

Each argument bears one and only one θ- role, and each θ-role is assigned to one and only one argument.

( Chomsky (1981)

ExamplesExamples

Example 1: look back the table

(a) John killed the bird.

- [John] is assigned the Theta- role “agent”

- [the bird] is assigned the θ-role “patient”.

ExamplesExamplesExample 2:(b) The navy sank the enemy ship by

a torpedo.

Both [the navy] and [by a torpedo] bear the same theta role ‘agent’

The sentence is considered to be ungrammatical

Replace "by" with "with"

TThe he PProjection rojection PPrinciplerinciple Definition

Representations at each syntactic level must be projected from the lexicon, in that they observe the Subcategorization properties of lexical items. Chomsky (1981)

Help us to judge the grammaticality of some syntactic structures

DefinitionDefinition

According to the generalized Projection Principle, a verb that takes an agent subject cannot take a theme or a goal subject, while verbs that have a non-thematic subject cannot be inserted in a structure where its subject has received a θ-role.

ExamplesExamples(2a) John murdered Mary.

(2b) It seems to be a day of troubles- In (2a), “John” is assigned the θ-role

‘agent’ and “to murder” cannot take a theme subject

- In (2b), the verb “seem” has a non-thematic subject and therefore cannot take a thematic subject.

ValencyValency

(linguistics) the number of grammatical elements that a word, especially a verb, combines with in a sentence

LexiconLexicon

All the words and phrases used in a particular language or subject; all the words and phrases used and known by a particular person or group of people.

Lê Thị Nhung

2.3. Bounding theory

2.3.1. Limits the range of the movement

2.3.2. A generalization of the subjacency condition

2.3.1 Limits the range of the movement

Syntactic rules apply locally

Move α cannot move a pharse very far from its source

position

→ Island constraints/Ross’s constraints

2.3.1 Limits the range of the movement

a. Move a phrase out of an object:E.g.: He took [a photograph of Oscar]

Whoi did he take [a photograph of ti]Move a phrase out of a subject:

[A photograph of Oscar] was in the album

Whoi was [a photograph of ti] in the album

possible

impossible

2.3.1 Limits the range of the movementb. Move a phrase out of a compliment/modifier clause

of a noun (complex NP)He knew [the fact that Oscar had a good look].

What did he consider [the fact that Oscar had].c. Move a phrase out of a clause whose Comp already

contains a wh-phraseI wonder [whether he bought a book].

Whati do [you wonder [s whether[s he bought]]]

impossible

impossible

2.3.2 A generalization of the subjacency condition2.3.2.1 Subjacency Condition: no single application of a

movement rule may cross more than one bounding node

*Whati do [s you wonder [whether[s he bought ti]]]

Cross 2 S- boundary

Hi gh

es

t

Co

mp

Low

es

t

Co

mp

2.3.2.2 Bounding theory: replaces Subjacency Condition states that a phrase cannot cross more than one barrier

in a single movementBut not all language strictly follow thisE.g.: English allows extraction of NPs from PPsWhoi did you give the book to ti?

S

Comp S1

What i NP1 Infl VP

Det N PP V

the student P NP will laugh

of ti

2.4. Government Is the structural relationship which lexical items bear to

their complements and to a small set of other phrases

Affect distribution of anaphors and pronouns (binding)

Affects assignment of case

VP

V NP1 PP

P NP2

VP

V NP1 PP

P NP2

Governgovern Not govern

Not govern

VP

V S’

Comp S

NP InflVP

Not govern

Not govern

General structure of phrases:

X” (Spec) X’ X’ (Adjuncts) X (Complement)

Nguyễn Phương Yến (K17)

2.5. Binding theory controls coreference relationships between

(1) Reflexive and reciprocal expressions (anaphors) and

their antecedents

(2) Pronouns and their antecedents

(3) Referring expressions, i.e., nonpronominal,

nonanaphoric NPs

(1) Reflexive and reciprocal expressions (anaphors) and their antecedents

the reflexives and reciprocals must have antecedents that agree with them in person and number.

The antecedents must:- Occur in an argument position such as object or

object- Not too far away from the anaphore.g: John shaved himself.

(2)Pronouns and their antecedents

è the antecedent of a pronoun must agree with its number

and person. The patterns of distribution of pronouns and

anaphors are comlementary

e.g: John believes him to be magnificent.

--believes governs the pronoun so that the entire S is the

governing category, and this contains the antecedent

(3)Referring expressions, i.e., nonpronominal, nonanaphoric NPs

Referring expressions are referential NPs which are

neither pronouns nor anaphors

2.6. Case theory It is a theory of the Government and Binding framework

and its successors.

Case theory determines where NPs with overt lexical

content can occur.

Every NP with phonological content must be assigned a

case but cannot be assigned more than one case.

A sentence is ungrammatical if it contains an NP which

has phonetic content but no case.

There are two Cases that are generally recognized in

English--the nominative Case and the accusative Case--

the latter is also called the objective Case.

Nguyễn Thị Vân Anh

2.7. Control theoryControl Theory is about the understood subject of infinitival

clauses.E.g.:ØMary wants [John to go home]. The subject of the infinitival clause is an overt NP.Ø Mary decided [to celebrate your success].There is no overt NP operating as the subject of the infinitival

clause although Mary is understood to be its implied subject. The subject of the infinitival clause is a PRO.PRO is an empty pronoun. It is an abstraction that contains

inherent person, number and gender features.

2.7. Control theoryControl theory determines the interpretation of PRO, the

subject of English infinitival clauses. PRO cannot be governed.PRO does occur in subject position and therefore may

receive a theta role from the VP of its clause. However, its reference is determined from outside that clause. It may be coreferential with a phrase in a higher clause of its sentence. This coreferential phrase is referred to as the controller of PRO.

2.7. Control theorySometimes the controller is the subject of the higher

clause, as in (126a), which means approximately (126b):(126a) Oscar promised PRO to leave.(126b) Oscari promised that hei would leave.Sometimes the controller is an object in the higher

clause, as in (127a), which means approximately (127b):(127a) Oscar told Sylvia PRO to leave.(127b) Oscar told Sylviai that shei should leave.

Three major classes of verbs that take infinitival complements whose subjects are controlled:

üClass 1 contains verbs like promise and includes agree, vow, try and intend. These verbs denote a commitment, and the NP representing the entity making the commitment (i.e., the Agent) is the controller:(128) Ii promised/ tried/ agreed/ intended PROi to leave.

Three major classes of verbs that take infinitival complements whose subjects are controlled:

üClass 2 contains verbs like want, such as wish, expect and hope. These denote a mental state, and the NP representing the Experiencer of the state is the controller:(129) Ii wanted/ wished/ expected/ hoped PROi to leave.üClass 3 verbs include verbs like tell, such as force, persuade, order and command. These denote situations in which one entity influences another. The NP representing the influenced entity (i.e., the Patient) is the controller:(130) Ii told/ forced/ persuaded/ ordered Oscari PROi to leave.

2.7. Control theoryPRO is subject to obligatory control and arbitrary control. üObligatory control: PRO has the main sentence subject as an antecedent as in (131a) or the object as antecedent as in (131b).(131a) John asked PRO to go.(131b) John asked Peter PRO to go.üArbitrary control: PRO refers indefinitely to people in general as in (132):(132) It is time PRO to go.

ReferenceCook, V. J. (1988). Chomsky's universal grammar: An

introduction. Oxford; New York: Blackwell.Delahunty, G. P., & Garvey, J. J. (1994). Language, grammar

and communication: a course for teachers of English. New York; London: McGraw-Hill.

Ouhalla, J. (1999). Introducing transformational grammar: From principles and parameters to minimalism (Second ed.). Great Britain: Arnold.

Radford, A. (1988). Tranformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.