CONTENT

Syntax is autonomous!

Many people disagreed

No real evidence!

Nobody believes it, anyway!

Unification Grammars

Don’t need this structure

Agreement and tense

Agreement is just Unification

Matching is basic to thinking, maybe

Tense is part of CONTENT (Meaning)

Content is important

Meaning and grammar work together

CONTENT is unified through the head

V onto VP and so on

Notice the structure-sharing

[sees us] – what about the SEER?

The squared numbers …

… a shortcut to show structure-sharing

[he sees us]

Notice the CONT shared up the head

V to VP to VP(S)

Look at CONT

Structure-sharing is dynamic

It looks like it’s MOVING up the tree

The ILLUSION of movement

Shut up! It’s REALLY movement!!

No, maybe it’s just an ILLUSION

Maybe we don’t need this structure

Illusion of movement

Remember movement is important

Important to TRANSFORMATIONAL grammar

No movement, no transformations

Simple sentence

Now move [Taro]

• Taro, I like

• What does that mean?• I hate Ichiro, but I like Taro• Or I love Hanako, but I only like Taro

Unification Grammars don’t move

[I like]

[I like] – no Complement

[I like]

[I like] – the subject is there, but no object

[I like] but the NP stays in COMPS

[I like] – what about COMPS NP?

Deletion rule

Maybe you delete and store it somewhere else

DELETED – this is usually called NONLOCAL

The deleted information is carried up the tree

Structure-sharing

The APPEARANCE of movement

And it can be cancelled in these kinds of structures

I don’t like this kind of explanation

Why do you need the deletion rule?

Why not keep the NP in COMPS

It seems easier

But, anyway, we don’t need movement

Anyway …

Movement

No movement