Don’t Move!

Robert D. Borsley

Abstract


All versions of Transformational Grammar assume that movement is a central feature of the syntax of human languages. However, frameworks which make no use of movement processes have existed for thirty years, and there has been very little attempt to show that movement analyses are superior to the analyses proposed within these frameworks. The strongest evidence for movement comes from filler-­gap dependencies, where there is an extra clause-­initial constituent of some kind and a gap somewhere later in the clause. Wh-­questions are a typical example. The assumption that the filler has moved from the position of the gap accounts for the appearance of both the filler and the gap. However, consideration of a broader range of data casts doubt on the movement approach. There are (i) cases which look like filler-­gap dependencies where there is no visible filler, (ii) cases with two gaps, (iii) cases where filler and gap do not match, and (iv) cases in various languages which look like filler-­gap dependencies but where there is not a gap but a resumptive pronoun (RP). The alternative to movement that has been developed within Head-­driven Phrase Structure Grammar involves the feature SLASH, which makes certain kinds of information available higher and lower in the structure than would normally be the case. There is no reason (i) why this information should always be associated with a filler, (ii) why it should not be associated with more than one gap, (iii) why it should not be associated with a gap with rather different properties, and (iv) why it should not be associated with an RP. For all these reasons, it seems that the SLASH-­based approach is superior to a movement approach.

Keywords


Movement; Transformational Grammar; Unbounded Dependencies; SLASH

Full Text:

PDF

References


Akmajian, Adrian & Frank Heny. 1975. An Introduction to the Principles of Transformational Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Aoun, Joseph, Lina Choueiri & Norbert Hornstein. 2001. Resumption, movement, and derivational economy, Linguistic Inquiry 32, 371-403.

Aoun, Joseph & Yen-Hui A. Li. 2003. Essays on the Representational and Derivational Nature of Grammar: The Diversity of Wh-constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Arnold Doug & Robert D. Borsley. 2010. Auxiliary-stranding relative clauses, in Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG10 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 80-100.

Boeckx, Cedric. 2003. Islands and Chains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Borsley, Robert D. 1997. Relative clauses and the theory of phrase structure,

Linguistic Inquiry 28, 629-647. Borsley, Robert D. 2001a. What do prepositional complementizers do?, Probus

, 155-171.

Borsley, Robert D. 2001b. More on the raising analysis of relative clauses, Unpublished paper, University of Essex, [12/05/2012].

Borsley, Robert D. 2009. On the superficiality of Welsh agreement, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27, 225-265.

Borsley, Robert D. 2010. An HPSG approach to Welsh unbounded dependencies, in S. Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG10 Conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 47-67.

Bouma, Gosse, Robert Malouf & Ivan A. Sag. 2001. Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 1-65.

Bresnan, Joan W. 2000. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Chaves, Rui P. 2012. On the grammar of extraction and coordination, Natural

Language and Linguistic Theory 30, 465–512.

Chomsky, Noam A. 1980. On binding, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 1-46.

Chomsky, Noam A. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, Noam A. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam A. 2001a. Derivation by phase, in M. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken

Hale: A life in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1–52.

Chomsky, Noam A. 2001b. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in

Linguistics 20. Cambridge, Mass: MIT. Chomsky, Noam A. 2002. An interview on Minimalism, in N. A. Chomsky, On

Nature and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 92-161.

Chomsky, Noam A. & Howard Lasnik. 1995. The theory of principles and parameters, in N. A. Chomsky (1995), The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 13–127.

Culicover, Peter W. 1999. Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Featherston, Sam 2001. Empty Categories in Sentence Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gazdar, Gerald 1981. Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 155-184.

Gazdar, Gerald, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey K. Pullum & Ivan A. Sag. 1985. Generalised Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ginzburg, Jonathan & Ivan A. Sag. 2000. Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Goldsmith, John 1985. A principled exception to the coordinate structure constraint, CLS 21, 133-143.

Hornstein, Norbert, Joao Nunes & Kleanthes K. Grohmann. 2005. Understanding Minimalism: An Introduction to Minimalist Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Kayne, Richard S. 1999. Prepositional complementizers as attractors, Probus 11.1, 39-3.

Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, Reference and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Koster, Jan 2000. Variable-free grammar, ms, University of Groningen. [14/03/2012].

Lakoff, George 1986. Frame semantic control of the coordinate structure constraint, CLS 22, Part 2: Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory, 152-167.

Lappin, Shalom, Robert D. Levine & David E. Johnson (2000), Topic...Comment: The structure of unscientific revolutions, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18, 665-671.

Levine, Robert D. 2004. The syntax of extraction: Derivation or constraint satisfaction? in O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 5, 159–177, [16/04/2012].

Levine, Robert D. & Thomas E. Hukari. 2006. The Unity of Unbounded Dependency Constructions. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Levine, Robert D., Thomas E. Hukari & Mike Calcagno. 2000. Some overlooked parasitic gap constructions in English and their theoretical implications, in Peter Culicover and Paul M. Postal (eds.), Parasitic Gaps. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 181–222.

Levine, Robert D. & Ivan A. Sag. 2003. Some empirical issues in the grammar of extraction. In S. Mueller (ed.). Proceedings of the HPSG03 Conference. CSLI Publications [23/02/2012].

McCawley, James D. 1968. Concerning the base component of a transformational grammar, Foundations of Language 4, 243–269.

McCloskey, James 2002. Resumption, successive cyclicity and the locality of operations, in. Samuel D. Epstein and T. Daniel Seeley (eds.), Derivation and Explanation in the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell, 184-226.

McCloskey, James 2006. Resumption, in Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell, 94–117.

Nunes, Joao. 2001. Sideward movement, Linguistic Inquiry 32, 303-344.

Pesetsky, David. 1998. Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation, in Pilar Barbosa, Danny Fox, Paul Hagstrom, Martha McGinnis and David Pesetsky (eds.), Is the Best Good Enough? Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 337–383.

Posner, Rebecca. 1978. Review of Radford (1977), Journal of Linguistics 14, 356–366.

Postal, Paul M. 2003. (Virtually) conceptually necessary, Journal of Linguisics 39, 599-620.

Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2009. Model-theoretic syntax and the implausibility of movement. Paper Presented at the University of Essex, December 2009.

Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Barbara C. Scholz. 2002. Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments, The Linguistic Review 19, 9-50.

Radford, Andrew. 1977. Italian Syntax: Transformational and Relational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Radford, Andrew. 1981. Transformational Syntax: A Student'ʹs Guide to Chomsky'ʹs

Extended Standard Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Radford, Andrew. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English: A

Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Radford, Andrew. 2009. Analysing English Sentences: A Minimalist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions, Journal of Linguistics 33, 431-484.

Sag, Ivan A. 2010. English filler-gap constructions, Language 86, 486-545. Sag, Ivan A., Thomas Wasow & Emily M. Bender. 2003. Syntactic Theory, Second

Edition. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Steedman, Mark 2000. The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Warner, Anthony R. 2000. English auxiliaries without lexical rules, in Robert D. Borsley (ed.), The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories. New York: Academic Press, 167-220.

Webelhuth, Gert 2008. A lexical-constructional approach to “movement mismatches”, Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Construction Grammar, The University of Texas at Austin, September 26- 28, 2008.

Willis, David W. E. 2000. On the distribution of resumptive pronouns and wh- trace in Welsh, Journal of Linguistics 36, 531-573.

Willis, David W. E. 2011. The limits of resumption in Welsh wh-dependencies, in A. Rouveret (ed.), Resumptive pronouns at the Interfaces. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 189–222.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Licencia de Creative Commons

IBERIA An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics
e-ISSN:  1989-8525