Introduction to Transformational Grammar Kyle Johnson ( Review)
Introduction
Kyle Johnson's book, "Introduction to Transformational Grammar," takes readers on an enlightening tour into the subtle workings of syntactic theory. This book, published in the fall of 2004, is a detailed guide to understanding the fundamental ideas and mechanisms underlying transformational grammar. Johnson dives into a variety of topics, including phrase construction, argument positioning, verb movement, and more.
Johnson breaks down complex ideas like expletives, case theory, control infinitives, and the role of verb movement in word order with rigorous analysis and concise explanations. Johnson uses evidence from linguistic phenomena such as quantifier float and complement structure to negotiate the complex terrain of transformational grammar with accuracy and insight.
Johnson breaks down complex ideas like expletives, case theory, control infinitives, and the role of verb movement in word order with rigorous analysis and concise explanations. Johnson uses evidence from linguistic phenomena such as quantifier float and complement structure to negotiate the complex terrain of transformational grammar with accuracy and insight.
Kyle Johnson's "Introduction to Transformational Grammar" delves deeply into syntactic theory, covering a wide range of topics related to language structure and movement. The book opens by analyzing linguistics' role as a learning theory, as well as the evidence for syntactic theory. It then digs into the principles of phrase construction, covering substitution classes, different sorts of phrases, and the idea of X phrases. The next sections discuss placement arguments, including expletives, case theory, tiny clauses, control infinitives, and quantifier float. The book also looks into verb movement, including traditional accounts, the importance of head movement in verb-second word order, Pollock's revolution with exploded IPs, and hidden movement features. Additional chapters go into determiner phrases and noun movement, complement structure, subjects, complicated predicates, and syntactic theory's unresolved issues. The conclusion reflects on the book's important ideas, which include a review of concepts, the possibility of deriving X theory, Kayne's "Antisymmetry" hypothesis, proposals for bare phrase structure, and embedding the theory in a framework without X skeletons. Overall, Johnson's study presents a thorough and insightful examination of transformational grammar, making significant contributions to the discipline.
The Subject Matter
1 1.1 Linguistics as learning theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 1.2 The evidential basis of syntactic theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 2 Phrase Structure
2.1 Substitution Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 X phrases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Arguments and Modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 Positioning Arguments
3.1 Expletives and the Extended Projection Principle . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2 Case Theory and ordering complements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Small Clauses and the Derived Subjects Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 PRO and Control Infinitives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 Evidence for Argument Movement from Quantifier Float . . . . . . .
3.6 Towards a typology of infinitive types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7 Constraints on Argument Movement and the typology of verbs . . .
4 Verb Movement
4.1 The “Classic” Verb Movement account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Head Movement’s role in “Verb Second” word order . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 The Pollockian revolution: exploded IPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 Features and covert movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 Determiner Phrases and Noun Movement
5.1 The DP Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Noun Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 Complement Structure
6.1 Nouns and the θ-roles they assign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2 Double Object constructions and Larsonian shells . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3 Complement structure and Object Shift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 Subjects and Complex Predicates
7.1 Getting into the right position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2 Subject Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.1 Argument Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.2 The syntactic benefits of ν . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3 The relative positions of µP and νP: Evidence from ‘again’ . . . . . .
7.4 The Minimal Link Condition and Romance causatives . . . . . . . .
7.5 Remaining Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5.1 The main verb in English is too high . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5.2 Incompatible with Quantifier Float . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.5.3 PRO, Case Theory and the typology of Infinitives . . . . . . .
8 Rethinking Things 289 8.1 Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2 Towards Deriving X Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2.1 Kayne’s “Antisymmetry” hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2.2 The “Bare Phrase Structure” proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.3 Embedding the theory in a framework without X Skeleta . . .
The following works together give a solid foundation for learning syntactic theory and transformational grammar. Chomsky's major work, "Aspects of the Theory of Syntax," introduced key concepts and principles that molded the subject since it was published in 1965. Stowell's dissertation investigates the origins of phrase structure, providing insight into the essential building blocks of syntactic analysis. Sportiche's theory of floating quantifiers and Pollock's study of verb movement provide important insights into constituent structure and the underlying mechanisms of sentence production. Vikner's research on verb movement in Germanic languages, as well as Chomsky's subsequent contributions to the economy of derivation and representation, build on these ideas and deepen our grasp of universal grammar. Furthermore, Kayne's work on unambiguous paths and syntax antisymmetry, as well as Abney's and Bernstein's dissertations on English and Romance nominal structure, respectively, help to provide a comprehensive understanding of syntactic phenomena across languages. Larson's study of the double object construction and Johnson's research of object placements provide important empirical evidence and theoretical frameworks for comprehending syntactic patterns. Finally, Kratzer's work on the external argument and von Stechow's structural explanation of "again" provide depth and refinement to our understanding of syntax. Kayne and Chomsky's subsequent contributions to bare phrase structure and minimalist program provide important insights into the growth of syntactic theory and its theoretical foundations. Overall, these sources offer a rich tapestry of research that continues to educate and shape the field of syntax.
Chomsky, Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1965. Chapter 1.
• Stowell, T. “Origins of Phrase Structure.” Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1981. Chapters 1 & 2.
• Sportiche, D. “A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and Its Corollaries for Constituent Structure.” Linguistic Inquiry 19 (1988): 425-49.
• Pollock, J.-Y. “Verb Movement, UG and the Structure of IP.” Linguistic Inquiry 20 (1989): 365-424.
• Vikner, S. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Chapter 3.
• Chomsky, N. “Some Notes on Economy of Derivation and Representation.” In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, ed. Freidin, R. 417- 54. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1991. pp. 417-454.
• Kayne, R. “Unambiguous Paths.” In Connectedness and Binary Branching, 129-64. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 1984. pp. 129-164.
• Abney, S. “The English Noun Phrase in Its Sentential Aspect.” Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1987. Chapters 1 & 2.
• Bernstein, J. B. “Topics in the Syntax of Nominal Structure Across Romance.” Doctoral Dissertation, City University of New York, 1993. Chapter 3.
• Larson, R. “On the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19 (1988): 335-92.
• Johnson, K. “Object Positions.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9 (1991): 577-636.
• Kratzer, A. “Severing the external argument from its verb,” In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, eds. Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie. 109-137. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996.
• von Stechow, A. “The Different Readings of wieder “again”: A Structural Account.” Journal of Semantics 13 (1996): 87-138.
• Kayne, R. S. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1994. Chapters 1-5.
• Chomsky, N. “Bare Phrase Structure.” In Government binding theory and the minimalist program, ed. Webelhuth, G. 383-439. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
1 The Subject Matter
Linguistic Theory and Learnability
Introduction
Chomsky's influence on linguistic theory, emphasizing learnability.
Challenges in acquiring linguistic knowledge due to complexity and limited data.
Chomsky's Proposal
Linguistic theory contributes to understanding language acquisition.
I-Language (GL) generates structural descriptions (E-language).
Learning involves selecting GL from a vast universe, addressing the learnability problem.
Universal Grammar and Learnability
Chomsky posits inherent structure in Gs, forming Universal Grammar.
Biological basis for properties of Gs, termed "The Poverty of the Stimulus."
Universal Grammar sets boundaries on learnable grammars, influencing acquisition.
Explanatory Theory
Syntactic theory aims to structure the universe of Gs.
Evaluation metric ranks Gs, distinguishing learnable from unlearnable.
Explanatory theories contribute to solving the learnability problem.
Evaluation Metric and Learning Process
Learning process parallels linguist's rule construction.
Simplicity metric guides grammar search, inviolable constraints determine learnable Gs.
Examples of Constraints
X Theory imposes limits on phrase structure, simplifying grammar.
Transformational rules are structure-dependent, aiding in learnability.
Humboldt's Argument
Universal Grammar constrains language variability.
Typological similarities suggest a common foundation for all languages.
Critique: Monogenesis theory proposes historical rather than psychological explanations.
Language Variation and Historical Change
Language change results from language acquisition errors.
Diachronic argument supports language universals driven by Universal Grammar.
Humboldt's argument complements the poverty of the stimulus argument.
Factoring Out Universal Constraints
Language comparison distinguishes inviolable constraints from evaluation metric.
Explanatory theories account for both universal constraints and language variation.
Emerging Perspectives in Syntactic Theory
Comparative analysis leads to a nuanced understanding of linguistic universals and variations.
1. Evidence Gathering Methods
Syntax aims to understand how speakers arrange words in sentences.
Since speakers are unaware of these principles, indirect methods are necessary.
Primary task: Determine effective means of gathering evidence reflecting speakers' syntactic knowledge.
2. Source of Evidence: Observation
Observing how speakers use their syntactic knowledge.
Challenges in collecting individual utterances due to rarity and impracticality.
Common approach: Analyzing linguistic utterances from groups of speakers, using parsed corpora.
3. Limitations of Group Corpora
Ignores individual differences among speakers.
Linguistic behavior doesn't always reflect linguistic competence accurately.
Cannot reliably differentiate between impossible and possible linguistic forms.
4. Use of Grammaticality Judgments
Despite limitations, grammaticality judgments are a standard tool in syntactic analysis.
Determine adherence to grammar rules, but can be influenced by factors like sentence complexity and context.
Techniques to mitigate biases: Relying on judgments from naïve informants, randomizing survey item presentation.
5. Collaboration with Semantics
Principle of compositionality: Deriving sentence meaning from constituent parts.
Collaboration with semantics provides insights into syntax-semantics relationships.
Enhances understanding of syntactic principles and their application.
6. Conclusion
Syntax relies on indirect methods like grammaticality judgments and collaboration with semantics.
Effective evidence gathering is crucial for uncovering underlying syntactic knowledge accurately.
Despite challenges, these methods contribute to a deeper understanding of language structure.
2 Phrase Structure
1. Introduction to Syntactic Processes
Goal: Understand processes behind recognizing grammatical sentences.
Variation in these processes across language speakers reveals universality and variation.
Initial focus: Grammaticality judgments of English speakers.
2. Utilizing Morpho-Syntactic Categories
Morpho-syntactic category determines grammatical arrangements, transcending specific word information.
The "Novel Form" argument underscores the significance of category membership.
Key insight: Processes of sentence arrangement rely heavily on category distinctions.
3. Understanding Substitution Classes
Morpho-syntactic categories defined by substitution classes.
Words classified into subsets based on their ability to substitute in specific sentence positions.
Example: Nouns, verbs, adjectives form distinct substitution classes.
4. Examining Distinguishing Environments
Distinguishing environments define categories based on adjacent words.
Hypothesis: Morpho-syntactic categories defined by adjacency relationships.
Example: Environments for verbs, adverbs, determiners, etc.
5. Semantic Considerations
Semantic differences influence category distinctions (e.g., count vs. mass nouns).
Efforts to segregate semantic and syntactic factors in defining categories.
Constant debate over semantic vs. syntactic contributions to category distinctions.
6. Defining Morpho-Syntactic Categories
Categories defined syntactically as subsets of vocabulary interchangeable in specific positions.
Positions determined by adjacent morpho-syntactic categories.
Recognizing category partitions crucial for understanding grammaticality judgments.
7. Conclusion
Morpho-syntactic categories serve as foundational elements in syntactic analysis.
Understanding category distinctions essential for modeling grammatical processes.
Semantic and syntactic factors intersect in defining category boundaries, prompting ongoing inquiry.
2.2 Phrases
Phrase Structure Rules
IntroductionOur goal:
Model the recognition of grammatical sentences.
Focus:
Processes vary among language speakers to understand universals and variations.
Starting Point:
Morpho-syntactic CategoriesUniversal PrinciplesVocabulary partitioned into morpho-syntactic categories.
These categories interchangeable in specific sentence positions.
Substitution Classes
Words grouped into categories based on positional interchangeability.
Example:
Nouns, verbs, adverbs, etc.
Phrase Structure Rules
Describe allowable combinations of morpho-syntactic categories.
Recursive nature accommodates infinite sentence variations.
Phrase Construction
NP (Noun Phrase)Structure: (Determiner) (Adjective) Noun (Prepositional Phrase) (Complementizer Phrase)
PP (Prepositional Phrase)Structure: Preposition (NP) (PP)
VP (Verb Phrase)Structure: (Adverb Phrase) Verb (NP) (PP) (CP)
AP (Adjective Phrase)Structure: (Degree Phrase) (Adverb Phrase) Adjective (Prepositional Phrase) (Complementizer Phrase)
CP (Complementizer Phrase)Structure: Complementizer (IP)
AdvP (Adverb Phrase)Structure: (Degree Phrase) Adverb
DegP (Degree Phrase)Structure: Degree
DP (Determiner Phrase)Structure: Determiner
Coordinated Phrases
Conjunction of phrases using "and," "or," etc.
Structure: α Conj α
Conclusion
Phrase Structure Rules capture sentence formation principles.
Recursive structure accommodates varied sentence constructions.
Detailed rules enable modeling of grammaticality judgments.
2.3 X phrases
This section delves into the hierarchical structure of phrases in generative syntax, particularly focusing on NP (Noun Phrase), VP (Verb Phrase), AP (Adjective Phrase), AdvP (Adverb Phrase), and IP (Inflectional Phrase). It describes how these phrases can be broken down into recursive and non-recursive components, with recursive components allowing for nested structures.
Main points:
Recursive Structures:
The text explores how certain phrases, such as NP, VP, AP, AdvP, and IP, can be broken down into recursive and non-recursive components. Recursive components allow for nested structures, while non-recursive components are more limited.
Example Phrases:
Examples are provided to illustrate how phrases can be recursive, such as "the woman unhappy with the lecture" (recursive) compared to "the woman left" (non-recursive).
Syntactic Rules:
The text outlines syntactic rules for building these phrases, such as NP → (DetP) N, where NP is a noun phrase consisting of a determiner phrase followed by a noun.
Phrase Coordination:
The text also discusses how coordination of phrases reveals their family structures. For example, "The woman and happy man left" demonstrates coordination within the NP family.
Anaphora and Ellipsis:
Anaphora (reference to previous phrases) and ellipsis (omission of elements) are discussed as processes that support the syntactic analysis presented.
Challenges and Refinements:
The text acknowledges challenges in accurately representing certain phrases, such as PP and DP, and suggests refinements to the syntactic rules to accommodate these complexities.
Hierarchy of Phrases:
Finally, the text presents a hierarchical structure of phrases, indicating how they can be broken down into Specifiers, Complements, and Adjuncts.
Overall, the section gives a detailed examination of the syntactic structure of phrases in generative grammar, highlighting both the recursive nature of language and the challenges in accurately representing complex syntactic phenomena.
2.4 Arguments and Modifiers
This section delves into syntactic theory, particularly focusing on the relationship between words and their grammatical roles within sentences. Here's a breakdown of some key points and concepts discussed:
Theta Criterion:
This principle states that for every semantic role (theta-role) assigned by a verb, there is a specific position in the syntax to which that role is assigned, and vice versa. It ensures that each argument has a designated syntactic position.
Projection Principle:
This principle dictates how the argument structure of a verb (or any head) is mapped into a syntactic representation. It ensures that arguments are positioned within the smallest X (phrase) containing the verb. Additionally, it has the effect of forcing non-arguments out of this position.
Selection:
Verbs "select" or "subcategorize" their arguments based on their categorial types. This means that verbs specify the category (e.g., NP, CP) of their complements.
C-selection vs. S-selection:
C-selection (categorial selection) concerns the categorial types of complements that a verb can take, while S-selection (theta-role assignment) involves assigning semantic roles to these complements.
Language Variation:
The text suggests that the hierarchical structure of constituents defined by the X Skeleton, together with principles like the Projection Principle and Theta Criterion, might be universal across languages, with variation occurring only in linear order.
Modifier Types:
The categorial type of modifiers (e.g., adjectives, adverbs, prepositional phrases) is determined by language-specific principles. These principles dictate which categories can modify nouns versus verbs, for example.
Overall, these principles help to establish a framework for understanding how words combine syntactically to form well-formed sentences. They provide insights into the relationships between lexical items, their syntactic positions, and their semantic roles within a sentence structure.
Linearization Parameters:
Languages organize their phrasal constituents by setting the linear order of immediate constituents of XP and X, defined as "Specifier: [first, last]" and "Projection of X: [first, last]."
Effects of Parameter Settings:
Different settings of these parameters lead to varying sentence structures; for instance, setting Specifier to "first" and Projection-of-X to "last" results in the specifier preceding the head.
Limitations of Proposed Scheme:
The linearization model is considered overly restrictive and needs refinement to accommodate the diversity of language structures.
Linearization Principles:
Phrases are composed of adjacent terms, and their linear order is determined relative to other phrases, as outlined in (148).
Language-Specific Information:
Modifier categories, headedness parameter settings, and lexical selection of complements complement universal principles to determine phrase structures in individual languages.
Transition in Grammatical Framework:
There's a shift from specific phrase structure rules to a more explanatory framework involving universal principles and language-specific settings, highlighting the need for additional components to account for language-specific phenomena like complement order.
3 Positioning Arguments
Revision of Phrase Structure Rules:
The system undergoes a comprehensive revision, shifting much of the information formerly encoded in phrase structure rules to lexical information and general statements about structural relationships between arguments and nonarguments.
X Skeleton and Theta Criterion:
The X Skeleton dictates a specific arrangement of word classes, while the Theta Criterion ensures each θ-role is assigned to a unique position and occupied by an appropriate semantic value.
Projection Principle and Linear Ordering:
The Projection Principle, combined with linear ordering parameters, determines the positioning of terms within phrases based on adjacency and hierarchical relationships.
Expletives and Extended Projection Principle:
Expletives, devoid of semantic content, occupy specifier positions in certain contexts, necessitating an extension of the Projection Principle to ensure their presence.
Case Theory and Ordering Complements:
The Case Filter requires argument NPs to be assigned Case, influencing their linear order through government and adjacency, as well as NP Shift operations and syntactic positions like Specifier of IP.
Problem Statement:
Subjects in sentences sometimes don't appear to be sisters to the verbs they get their θ-role from, which poses a challenge to the Projection Principle.
Introduction of Small Clauses:
Small clauses are proposed as a solution to this problem, with a hypothesis called Argument Movement suggesting that certain subjects undergo transformational movement into specifier positions to satisfy the Case filter.
Comparison and Analysis:
Comparisons between sentences with and without Argument Movement illustrate its necessity in satisfying the Case filter and ensuring grammaticality.
Extension to the Projection Principle:
The Extension to the Projection Principle is proposed to account for cases where subjects appear in specifier positions of lower clauses, with further discussion on its implications and supporting evidence.
These points encapsulate the main ideas and arguments presented in the excerpt regarding small clauses and the Derived Subjects Hypothesis.
Problem with Control Infinitives:
The text begins by highlighting a difference between sentences like "She tried to be angry" and sentences like "She tried." While the former matches the count of θ-roles and arguments, the latter does not, violating the Theta Criterion.
Extension to Projection Principle:
Sentences like "She tried to be angry" seem to counterexemplify the Extension to the Projection Principle, and attempts to satisfy this principle lead to ungrammaticality.
Control Clauses and Specifiers:
Control clauses, exemplified by sentences like "Sally prefers to eat chocolate," show an optionality in expressing the subject argument. The presence of the complementizer "for" can change the grammaticality of the sentence.
Case Marking and Specifiers:
The grammaticality of sentences like "Sally prefers him to eat chocolate" suggests that Case marking in the Specifier of IP allows the expression of the subject argument.
Argument Movement and PRO:
The text proposes Argument Movement as a solution to the problem of missing subjects in control infinitives. It introduces the notion of PRO as an unpronounced element in non-Case marked Specifiers of IPs.
Quantifier Float Phenomenon:
Sportiche's argument relies on the phenomenon of Quantifier Float, which relates to Argument Movement. The text explores how Q-float and argument spread share similarities and constraints.
Sportiche's Account and Derivation Examples:
Sportiche's account of Q-float provides insights into the positioning of arguments in sentences with quantifiers. Examples demonstrate how quantifiers indicate the positions of arguments in derivations.
This section dives deep into the syntactic analysis of infinitive constructions and the constraints on argument movement within them. Here's a summary of the key points:
Argument Movement and Infinitive Types:
Argument Movement is constrained in certain ways, such as not being able to move an argument out of a CP (Clause Phrase).
Infinitive complements to verbs like "seem" and "believe" are parsed as simple IPs (Inflectional Phrases), not CPs, based on their behavior with Argument Movement.
Verbs like "believe" allow Argument Movement out of their complements, while verbs like "try" do not.
The contrast between verbs like "prefer" (which selects a CP complement) and "believe" (which selects an IP complement) highlights differences in Case assignment and Argument Movement possibilities.
Constraints on PRO (Null Pronoun):
PRO cannot appear in the specifier position of a transparent infinitive (one with no CP).
PRO is limited to non-Case-marked Specifiers of IPs, preventing it from being in complement position or the subject of a finite clause.
Constraints on PRO's distribution help delineate the boundaries between different types of infinitive clauses.
Constraints on Argument Movement:
Argument Movement is governed by locality constraints and the need to satisfy the Case Filter.
A-Movement involves moving a term from one position to another, typically from α to β, if certain conditions are met.
The presence of an expletive can sometimes obviate the need for A-Movement, but it's subject to similar constraints.
Various constraints on Argument Movement prevent the formation of ungrammatical sentences in English.
Typology of Verbs:
Verbs can be categorized based on their theta-role and Case assignment properties, leading to distinctions like unergative, ergative, and transitive verbs.
Burzio's Generalizations highlight relationships between theta-role assignment and Case assignment by verbs, revealing gaps in the typology of verb types.
Overall, it provides a detailed examination of the syntactic principles governing infinitive constructions and the behavior of verbs within them.
4 Verb Movement
Introduction to Verb Movement:
Verb movement in English syntax involves the relocation of verbs within sentences based on factors like tense, agreement, and sentence structure.
Correlation between Verb Position and Inflectional Class:
There is a correlation between a verb's syntactic position and its inflectional class, which affects its placement within a sentence.
Verb Movement Rules:
Two main rules govern verb movement: Verb Movement and Affix Hopping.
Verb Movement relocates auxiliary verbs to the inflectional position (I0), while Affix Hopping lowers inflectional affixes onto main verbs.
These rules are influenced by constraints such as the Stray Affix Filter.
Types of Questions and Verb Movement:
Different types of questions involve distinct patterns of verb movement, including Yes/No questions and Wh-questions.
Verb movement in questions targets the inflectional position (I0) and is constrained by the presence of complementizers.
Constraints on Verb Movement:
The Head Movement Constraint restricts the movement of verbs across certain syntactic boundaries, ensuring that verb movement follows specific patterns.
Universal Grammar and Verb Movement:
The rules governing verb movement in English syntax reflect universal principles of grammar, including constraints on movement operations.
These headings should help provide a clear and concise overview of the key points discussed in the excerpt.
4.2 Head Movement’s role in “Verb Second” word order
Germanic Verb Movement Patterns:
In German, finite verb position varies based on clause embedding.
Embedded clauses exhibit verb-final order, contrasting with English-like verb-subject-object order in root clauses.
VP Structure in German:
Verb Projection (VP) in German is proposed to be head-final.
Finite verbs move overtly to the inflectional position (I0), indicating head-finality.
Verb Movement in Root Clauses:
In root clauses, the finite verb precedes objects, indicating a movement rule.
Movement to post-subject position in root clauses suggests a different mechanism from embedded clauses.
Verb Movement into C0:Finite verbs move through I0 into C0 in root clauses, resembling English root clause structure.
Universal Grammar and Verb Movement:
German and English exhibit similarities in verb movement rules, including constraints on verb position.
Both languages adhere to the "Upwards Constraint," where a moved term must land in a c-commanding position.
Comparison with Danish and Scandinavian Languages:
Danish follows a "Verb Second" word order in root clauses but differs in constraints on verb movement in embedded clauses.
Finite verb movement past negation into C0 occurs in independent clauses, similar to German.
Principles and Parameters Model:
Language acquisition process involves selecting from preset possibilities rather than building up a grammar from scratch.
The Principles and Parameters model explains the language acquisition process by setting universal principles with open parameters to determine specific grammars.
The section delves into the syntactic analysis of verb movement in French and English, with comparisons to other languages like German and Danish. It discusses how verbs position themselves relative to elements like negation and auxiliary verbs, shedding light on the structural differences between various clause types.
A summary of the main points:
Verb Movement in French and English:
Both languages exhibit verb movement phenomena, where verbs position themselves relative to elements like negation and auxiliary verbs. In French, finite verbs typically appear before negation, while in English, they move to a position preceding negation.
Clause Types and Verb Positions:
The analysis suggests that the position of main verbs correlates with clause types rather than across languages. For instance, French finite clauses have different verb positions compared to French non-finite clauses.
Pollock's Proposal:
Pollock proposes a syntactic structure for clauses involving multiple inflectional positions, suggesting that main verbs occupy different positions in finite and non-finite clauses.
Mirror Principle:
Baker's Mirror Principle suggests that the order of inflectional affixes reflects the order of syntactic operations. This principle is applied to explain the distribution of affixes relative to verb movement.
Weak and Strong Inflectional Heads: The text introduces the concept of weak and strong inflectional heads, which determine the movement of verbs. Weak heads do not allow main verbs to surface, while strong heads do.
Auxiliary vs. Main Verbs:
The analysis distinguishes between auxiliary and main verbs based on their ability to assign theta-roles. Main verbs are restricted from certain inflectional positions if they have moved to a weak head.
Overall, the section explores the intricate syntactic phenomena related to verb movement and inflectional morphology in French, English, and other languages, offering insights into the underlying structural principles governing these phenomena.
4.4 Features and Covert Movement
Introduction
In this section, we delve into Affix Hopping and its relationship with Move X0 and morpheme strength, particularly in the context of verb movement. We explore how Affix Hopping behaves in comparison to Verb Movement and the implications for syntactic structures.
Bounding Constraint of Affix Hopping
Affix Hopping exhibits a unique bounding constraint opposite to that of Verb Movement. While Verb Movement moves elements upwards, Affix Hopping moves the inflectional morpheme downwards, never past an X0. This constraint is evident in examples like (85) and (86), where improper movement results in ungrammatical sentences.
Interplay with Verb Movement
Affix Hopping and Verb Movement share an intricate relationship. While Verb Movement rescues affixes in some cases, it blocks Affix Hopping in others. Notably, Affix Hopping occurs only in finite clauses lacking auxiliary verbs, suggesting a dependency on Verb Movement.
Chomsky's Proposal: Covert Movement
Chomsky proposes that Affix Hopping is a form of covert Verb Movement, driven by the need to satisfy inflectional features. He suggests a framework where morphemes are always present on verbs, and syntactic positions attract verbs based on feature matching.
Derivation and S-structure
Chomsky introduces a structured approach to derivations, where s-structures are determined by satisfying well-formedness conditions. This structured approach allows for covert movement, ensuring that verbs are pronounced in their pre-moved positions.
Control of Verb Movement
Chomsky's system controls overt and covert Verb Movement based on morpheme strength. Strong features force overt movement, while weak features permit covert movement. Earliness principle prioritizes covert movement, ensuring minimal derivations.
Application in Different Languages
Chomsky's framework explains verb movement patterns across languages, such as in English, French, and Scandinavian languages, highlighting the role of auxiliary and main verbs in finite and infinitival clauses.
Conclusion
Chomsky's proposal assimilates Affix Hopping into the framework of verb inflection, providing insights into the interplay between movement operations and morpheme strength. This approach elucidates the syntax of verb movement and its implications for sentence structure.
The section discusses the issues surrounding verb movement in French and English infinitival clauses, particularly focusing on the optional nature of overt movement and the consequences of Earliness. Here's a summary of the main points and proposed solutions:
Optional Movement:
The author discusses cases where overt movement of verbs in infinitival clauses seems optional, contrary to the expectation that movement is obligatory. This poses a problem for existing theories of grammar.
Agr0 Analysis:
The author suggests that if Agr0 in French infinitives is empty and lacks features, then it wouldn't force verbs to overtly move to Agr0. This leads to covert movement, which is problematic.
English Infinitives:
Similar issues arise in English infinitives, where the marker "to" can appear either before or after negation. The features on Agr0 that allow optional overt movement of "to" are unclear.
Earliness Constraint:
The author notes that Earliness makes overt movement impossible unless forced, which contradicts the idea of "optional" overt movement.
Proposed Solutions:
For English, the author proposes that "to" can be generated in either T0 or Agr0, effectively having two instances of "to" in English. This eliminates the need for overt movement.
For French, the author suggests giving weak features to Agr0 and providing infinitival morphology on auxiliary verbs with a feature, similar to English auxiliary verbs.
Difficulties and Further Work:
The part acknowledges that these proposed solutions may not be entirely satisfactory and highlights the need for more general solutions. It also mentions difficulties with other phenomena like Heavy NP Shift.
Adopting a Framework:
Despite the challenges, the author suggests adopting a method to express controls on verb movement, assimilating Affix Hopping into Pollock's framework. This successfully accounts for certain phenomena but lacks explanations for others.
Overall, the section highlights the complexities and challenges in explaining verb movement in infinitival clauses, particularly in French and English, and proposes some solutions while acknowledging the need for further research.
5 Determiner Phrases and Noun Movement
The introduction of phrase structure rules initially raised questions about the internal composition of determiner phrases (DPs), which appeared to consist primarily of their heads.
Examples like "all but three determiners" and "more than six children" suggested a lack of complexity in DPs, but further analysis revealed potential issues with their proposed parses.
Observations such as "two dozen eggs" suggested that "dozen" might function as an adjective rather than part of a DP, given its ability to follow other adjectives.
Comparative constructions and coordinations in examples like "all but three" and "more than six" hinted at larger syntactic structures beyond simple DPs.
Anomalies like "Mary's lamp" versus "the lamp" highlighted constraints on the distribution of genitive NPs and DPs, posing challenges for phrase structure rules.
The transition from category-free phrase structure rules to general principles governing modifier positioning left unresolved issues regarding the distribution of possessives and determiners.
Consideration of expressions like "Mary's loudly singing the song" suggested a potential restructuring of NPs as DPs with NPs inside them.
Abney's argument for reanalyzing NPs as DPs proposed a solution to anomalies in adjective phrase distribution and hinted at noun movement within DPs.
The concept of DP hypothesized parallels between DPs and NPs, with implications for syntactic structures and movement phenomena.
Evidence for noun movement within DPs indicated parallels with verb movement within CPs, suggesting broader syntactic patterns to explore.
Noun movement in Romance languages, such as Italian, Catalan, and French, results in the "subject" argument appearing between the noun and its complements.
The Derived Subjects Hypothesis posits overt N0 movement in Romance but not English, with subjects of DPs remaining in their underlying position.
Cinque's argument based on the position of "ethnic" adjectives supports the idea of Noun Movement, suggesting a postnominal placement of subjects in Romance.
Giorgi and Longobardi propose an alternative account suggesting a difference in branching direction between Romance and Germanic languages, but this directionality has been largely abandoned.
Evidence from Romance languages, like the inability of ethnic adjectives to follow complements, supports the notion of leftward Noun Movement.
Prima facie evidence suggests that number morphology heads a syntactic phrase, potentially explaining the positioning of number morphemes above nouns.
Cross-linguistic evidence supports the idea of Num0 appearing above Noun, with examples from various languages demonstrating a consistent order.
In French, nouns move overtly into Num0 due to the presence of number morphology, resulting in N+Adj word order.
In Walloon, number morphology is expressed as a clitic on the following noun, leading to adjectives preceding the noun.
The correlation between noun position and number morphology supports the idea that Num0 is associated with number features.
The analysis proposes an optional projection (Y) above NumP to explain differences in adjective placement.
Adjectives may appear on either side of NumP depending on the presence of Y, with implications for meaning interpretation.
There are complexities regarding the nature of the projection above NumP and the role of adjectives in relation to Num0.
Further research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms of noun movement and their implications for linguistic theory.
6 Complement Structure
Nominals resemble clauses in their syntax, with embedded inflectional phrases and θ-role assigners.
In clauses, inflectional phrases are Agreement and Tense, with the verb and its projection assigning θ-roles.
In DPs, inflectional phrases hold number morphology and potentially a "word marker," with the noun and its projection assigning θ-roles.
"Subjects" of DPs, like genitive marked DPs, display consistent relations, such as "possession."
The argument structure of nouns sheds light on verb argument structure, suggesting changes to existing theories.
Nouns assign external θ-roles, similar to verbs, with their complements determining the role.
Genitive DPs can exhibit possession relations or external θ-roles, depending on context and meaning.
The Theta Criterion applies differently to nouns and verbs due to ambiguity in their meanings.
Nouns can refer to events or individuals, influencing whether they assign θ-roles.
The proposal suggests that the apparent external θ-role in genitive DPs is due to the vague nature of possession relations.
Modifiers like "intermittent" and rationale clauses induce eventive readings in nouns and require the presence of object arguments for grammaticality.
Deverbal nouns resist having a possession reading for their "subjects" and also require object arguments for grammaticality.
The Theta Criterion appears to be violated when objects are missing in phrases like (8), but these apparent violations can be explained by considering the eventive nature of the nouns.
Infinitival clauses employ PRO as a silent subject argument, but this explanation doesn't transfer to DPs due to differences in syntactic requirements.
Reflexive pronouns like "oneself" require antecedents, suggesting the presence of PRO in subject positions of DPs.
DPs with nouns that assign θ-roles but lack overt subject arguments may obligatorily contain PRO as their subject.
Another explanation suggests that subject and object θ-roles are assigned differently in nominals, allowing them to come apart.
Deverbal nouns generally inherit their argument structure from the verbs they derive from, implying similar argument expression patterns between verbs and eventive nouns.
Arguments of verbs and nouns can undergo Argument Movement, as evidenced by the Passive operation.
Nominals bear a structural similarity to passive constructions, suggesting movement of object arguments.
Nominals do not permit permeable infinitives, unlike verbs, indicating a difference in complement structure.
Movement out of clausal complements to nouns is blocked, as shown by the island effects.
Small clauses and double object constructions are not found as complements to nouns, suggesting constraints on complement structures.
Double object constructions in nominals exhibit island effects and lack argument movement, unlike their verbal counterparts.
Other two-complement constructions are permitted as complements to nouns, indicating a difference in the acceptability of complement structures.
The absence of permeable infinitives and double object constructions in nominals can be attributed to the islandhood of clausal complements.
Larson proposes that double object constructions (DP+DP) are derived from DP+PP constructions based on the Uniformity of Theta Role Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH).
He distinguishes between inherent and structural Case assignment by V0s, which helps explain the behavior of Case in passive constructions.
Larson's VP shell model, where the higher VP is a shell headed by an empty V0, accounts for scope facts and Heavy NP Shift phenomena.
However, challenges arise in reconciling Larson's VP shell model with other syntactic phenomena, such as Gapping and the behavior of adjuncts relative to complements.
Larson's proposal about the relationship between complements and adjuncts raises questions about constituency, particularly in light of evidence from various syntactic phenomena.
The distinction between different verb types in allowing one frame over the other (e.g., "give" vs. "donate") suggests additional factors beyond theta-role assignment may be at play.
Difference Between Double Object Frame and DP+PP Frame:
In the double object frame, the first object is seen as having possession of the second object, while in the DP+PP frame, this possession implication is absent.
This difference suggests that the two structures have distinct theta-role assignments and do not share a common d-structure.
Scope Facts and Argument Structure:
The external theta-role for double object verbs seems to be "cause," while for verbs in the DP+PP frame, it might be narrower, possibly "agent."
The scope relations between complements suggest a common underlying structure for both the double object frame and the DP+PP frame.
Object Shift and Structural Case:
Structural Case, associated with the first object in double object constructions, is proposed to be assigned by a functional head called Object Agreement (µ).
Object Shift, observed in North Germanic languages, involves leftward movement of the accusative Case-marked DPs out of the VP.
The absence of certain constructions (e.g., nominalizations) is attributed to the movement restrictions imposed by the clausal complements to nouns.
Ordering of Complements:
The order of complements is determined by the categorial status of the complements rather than their theta-roles.
DPs tend to precede other complements, and this order is preserved by a proposed movement of the DP into Specifier of VP, governed by the head µ.
Analysis of Particle Verbs:
Particle constructions suggest that main verbs in English can move.
Verbs precede objects due to their movement past the position where object DPs are located.
The analysis of particle verbs raises challenges in combining with previous proposals regarding complement ordering.
Proposed Solutions and Further Considerations:
Revising Larson's VP Shell model or reconsidering the assignment of lexical verbs within the structure may help address issues arising from the analysis of particle verbs.
The analysis may need adjustments to accommodate Kayne's nominalization facts and other linguistic phenomena.
These points outline the main discussions and proposals regarding complement structure, object shift, and verb movement presented in the text.
7 Subjects and Complex Predicates
The arrangement and movement of complements within verb phrases (VPs), particularly focusing on the movement of object DPs (noun phrases) and the implications for structural Case assignment
The key points and address the challenges and proposed solutions:
Movement of Object DPs: The analysis suggests that object DPs move overtly within the structure, particularly to bring them into initial position, give them wider scope, and allow them to precede particles. However, this raises questions about the mechanism responsible for this movement, especially in relation to accusative Case assignment.
Accusative Case Assignment: The text discusses the assignment of accusative Case by µ (a functional head) rather than by verbs. This challenges previous assumptions about how accusative Case is assigned, especially in distinguishing between transitive and unaccusative verbs.
Placement of Subjects: There's a concern about where subjects are placed if object DPs move into Specifier of VP to be Case marked by µ. The traditional view is that external θ-roles are assigned to subjects in this position.
Proposed Solution: To address these challenges, the text suggests simplifying the scenarios by assuming that object DPs always move into Specifier of µP. This allows for a more straightforward explanation of why subjects don't receive accusative Case by virtue of their underlying position.
Uniform Treatment of Structural Case Assignment: The proposed solution aims to unify the conditions under which structural Case is assigned, particularly focusing on Nominative, Genitive, and Accusative Case.
Position of Pronouns: The analysis considers treating pronouns as clitics, which may attach to the verb and move accordingly, potentially explaining their position relative to particles in particle verbs.
Revised Model: The text concludes by suggesting a revision of the model to ensure that subject arguments move into Specifier of AgrP and object DPs move into Specifier of µP, rather than the other way around.
Overall, the section is grappling with the complexities of complement structure, movement, and Case assignment within verb phrases, aiming to reconcile different theoretical frameworks and address challenges in the analysis.
Subject-Verb Relationship: The proposal suggests that subjects and verbs are connected through a hidden predicate (ν), which assigns the subject's θ-role.
Semantic Interpretation: Depending on the interpretation, the relationship between ν and the main verb varies, affecting the overall meaning of the sentence.
Argument Structure Semantics: Verbs are viewed as functions that combine with their arguments to produce the sentence's meaning.
Verb Modifiers: The proposal considers how modifiers interact with predicate conjunction, contributing to the overall meaning of the sentence.
Events and Predicates: Verbs and their VPs may describe properties of events, offering insights into the semantics of complex predicates.
Syntactic Advantage of ν: Assigning subject θ-roles via ν provides a means to capture part of Burzio's Generalization that isn't explained by syntactic constraints.
Burzio's Generalization: It links external θ-roles with structural Accusative Case assignment, indicating their interdependence.
Dependency of θ-role Assignment: Accusative Case and external θ-role assignment are shown not to be independent, suggesting that ν, rather than verbs, assigns external θ-roles.
Solution to Case Problem: Placing ν above the main VP enables subjects to be positioned higher than where Accusative Case is assigned, avoiding subjects surfacing in Accusative Case.
Split VP Hypothesis: Arranging νP and µP as proposed by Koizumi's Split VP Hypothesis aligns with Burzio's Generalization, allowing quantifiers to float beneath auxiliary verbs but not below main verbs or their objects.
Evidence from Adverbs: German adverbs like "again" suggest that νP is embedded within µP rather than the other way around, based on structural ambiguity observed in sentences.
Solution Revision: The solution previously based on placing νP higher than µP is abandoned, advocating for νP within µP and seeking alternative solutions to the Case problem.
Specified Subject Constraint: Certain movement operations are restricted by a constraint that prevents them from occurring past a c-commanding subject.
Causative Constructions in Romance Languages: In Romance languages like Italian and French, causative constructions involve the subject of the causativized verb appearing post-verbally, which contrasts with the usual subject order.
Theory of Movement Operations: The author proposes a theory of movement operations involving adjunction and the formation of chains, which are discontinuous versions of elements in a sentence.
Locality Condition: A locality condition is formulated based on the concept of minimal domains within chains, constraining movement operations.
Application to Causative Constructions: The proposed theory accounts for the placement of subject and object arguments in causative constructions by blocking movement operations that would violate the Minimal Link Condition.
Control of Case Marking: The theory proposes a mechanism to control the assignment of nominative and accusative case marking in different types of languages, including ergative languages.
Main verbs in English appear to move overtly, which contrasts with Pollock's conclusion that they never move overtly.
The decision to let objects surface higher than the underlying subject position clashes with Sportiche's account of quantifier float, leading to ungrammatical sentences like "They read my book all."
The theory of Case assignment must be adjusted to account for the accusative Case assigned to subjects in infinitives like "I prefer [for her to give the lecture]."
PRO, Case Theory, and the typology of infinitives pose challenges in determining how structural Case is assigned and the distribution of PRO within infinitival clauses.
The Case filter, PRO restriction, and Earliness interact in complex ways, affecting the movement of overt DPs and PRO within sentences.
Permeable and impermeable infinitives, differentiated by their Case assignment properties, pose challenges in understanding their selection by different predicates.
Three types of infinitival AgrPs exist in English, distinguished by the Case assigning properties of their heads, and they are selected by different types of predicates.
8 Rethinking Things
The grammar now relies on well-formedness conditions rather than phrase structure rules.
Central elements of the grammar include:X Skeleton: Specifies phrase structure.
Linearization Parameters: Determine word order.
Projection Principle: Phrases must project correctly.
The Theta Criterion: Each argument has one position.
The Modification Rule: Defines phrase modification.
Derivation involves creating a series of phrase markers to satisfy various conditions.
Transformations involve rules like Movement and Head Movement, subject to constraints like the Likes Attracts Likes Constraint.
Case assignment is now expressed in terms of features, simplifying the definition of s-structure.
The Extended Projection Principle and the EPP feature are integrated into the framework.
The Word Criterion is part of the mapping between positions and their content.
Constraints like the SSC and the Head Movement Constraint are relativized into Almost Relativized Minimality.
In summary, the updated grammar framework emphasizes feature-based Case assignment, integrates principles like the EPP feature, and relativizes constraints to accommodate various linguistic phenomena.
X Theory" and its subsections:
Movement operations in syntax generally relocate items leftwards, except for NP Shift, which is a counterexample.
Linearization values prioritize Specifiers and projections of X0, with traces being positioned based on binding constraints, resulting in upward movement.
Scope, representing c-command, aligns with linear order in English, with leftward movement dominating.
Kayne (1994) proposes a linearization algorithm, strengthening parameters to fix positions of Specifiers, Complements, and Adjuncts.
Linearization parameters impose language-specific ordering, with English showing leftward dominance in phrases.
The Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) ensures total, transitive, and antisymmetric linearization, reflecting asymmetric c-command relations.
Kayne's approach makes phrase and head movement predominantly leftward, supported by empirical evidence across languages.
The LCA predicts left-to-right scope relations, but some languages (e.g., German) exhibit apparent counterexamples, which Kayne addresses through movement mechanisms.
Kayne's proposal challenges traditional views on phrase structure and movement, requiring significant revisions but offering potential explanatory power for cross-linguistic phenomena.
Controversy remains regarding the effectiveness and consequences of Kayne's proposed changes, with ongoing research exploring alternative formulations and empirical predictions.
The section delves into the intricate details of theoretical syntax, particularly focusing on the relationship between phrase structure and movement operations within the framework of "Bare Phrase Structure" proposed by Chomsky. Here's a breakdown of the main points discussed:
Reduction of X Theory: Chomsky's "Bare Phrase Structure" aims to simplify the X Theory proposed by Kayne by redefining the distinction between heads and phrases. This involves equating X0 with the terminal it dominates and considering phrases as sets of terminals formed through a set-forming operation called Merge.
Projection Principle and Labeling: Chomsky introduces the Projection Principle, where phrases are labeled according to the sets formed by Merge. He proposes different labeling conventions to distinguish between projections of terminals and phrases.
Movement Operations: Movement operations are defined as adjunctions, where a constituent is merged with another and then a trace of the moved constituent is inserted. Chomsky discusses how movement affects labeling and projection in derived structures.
Likes-Attract-Likes Constraint: Chomsky suggests that the Likes-Attract-Likes Constraint, which prevents movement from creating structures not derivable by phrase structure rules, can be viewed as a form of "Structure Preservation" constraint.
Interaction with the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA): Chomsky reconciles his proposals with Kayne's LCA, discussing how to ensure endocentricity and avoid problematic structures like mutual c-command violations.
Specifiers and Adjuncts: Chomsky proposes a distinction between specifiers and adjuncts based on labeling, suggesting that adjuncts receive a special label to distinguish them from specifiers. However, he notes that this distinction may not always be necessary.
Derivation Process: Chomsky outlines a derivation process based on transformations involving numerations of terminals, with each step incorporating merge and movement operations.
Overall, the section presents a detailed exploration of how Chomsky's "Bare Phrase Structure" framework redefines traditional notions of phrase structure and movement within generative syntax theory.
The framework integrates syntax within a transformational grammar framework.
It incorporates features, movement operations, and constraints on derivations.
Relies heavily on Chomskyan principles like feature checking and movement operations.
Introduces novel concepts such as the "Likes-Attracts-Likes Constraint" and the "Word Criterion."
Aims to derive syntactic phenomena like movement of heads and linearization of phrase markers.
Requires further development and empirical testing for effectiveness and applicability.
Emphasizes formalization and comprehensive coverage of linguistic phenomena.
Critique
"Introduction to Transformational Grammar" by Kyle Johnson offers a comprehensive exploration of syntactic theory, but it also presents some areas for critique.
One thing to consider is the book's level of accessibility. While Johnson's explanations are generally straightforward and brief, some portions may be difficult for readers unfamiliar to the topic of linguistics. Concepts such as expletives, case theory, and control infinitives are fully presented, but their complexities may offer challenges for novices. Furthermore, the book's organization may be modified to properly assist readers through the flow of concepts, particularly for more complex themes such as verb movement and complement structure.
Furthermore, while Johnson establishes a solid foundation in transformational grammar, the text could use more explicit references to real-world linguistic data or situations. While theoretical talks are necessary, anchoring the principles in actual facts or examples from different languages would make the book more applicable and relevant.
Another potential criticism is that the book relies heavily on past works by other scholars, such as Chomsky, Stowell, and Pollock, without often offering adequate background or analysis of their ideas. While citing foundational works is necessary for academic discourse, a more critical approach to these sources could expand the discussion and provide a broader perspective on the evolution of transformational grammar.
Finally, the book's conclusion feels abrupt and might be expanded to provide a more comprehensive assessment of Johnson's important observations and ramifications. Providing recommendations for future studies or areas where transformational grammar theory should be improved will strengthen the book's contribution to the discipline.
The suggested syntax framework within a transformational grammar framework attempts to integrate numerous syntactic phenomena, such as features, movement operations, and derivation constraints. While mainly depending on Chomskyan principles like as feature checking and movement operations, it proposes new notions such as the "Likes-Attracts-Likes Constraint" and the "Word Criterion" to explain language events. However, the framework's complexity and reliance on a large number of assumptions and arbitrary limits call into doubt its simplicity and empirical validity. While it seeks to infer syntactic phenomena such as head movement and phrase marker linearization, further development, and empirical testing may be required to determine its usefulness and application. Despite its ambition and emphasis on formalization, the framework's complexity and reliance on theoretical assumptions may restrict its practical utility and applicability across languages and linguistic situations.
Overall, "Introduction to Transformational Grammar" is a useful introduction to syntactic theory, although it may be improved in terms of accessibility, organization, empirical grounding, critical engagement with existing literature, and development of the conclusion.
Conclusion
Kyle Johnson's "Introduction to Transformational Grammar" provides a deep and insightful discussion of syntactic theory. Johnson's rigorous investigation of language phenomena and theoretical frameworks provides a complete knowledge of the essential concepts and mechanisms of transformational grammars. Johnson weaves together insights from major works by researchers such as Chomsky, Stowell, Sportiche, and Pollock to provide a unified narrative that sheds light on the complexity of language structure and representation.
As readers progress through the pages of this book, they get significant insights into the nature of syntactic structures, argument movement mechanisms, and the complexities of verb location. With its thorough analysis and approachable tone, "Introduction to Transformational Grammar" is a vital resource for students and academics looking to enhance their understanding of the underlying concepts of linguistic theory.
Source: Introduction to Transformational Grammar Kyle Johnson University of Massachusetts at Amherst Fall 2004
