Linguistic Theory Lecture 10 Grammaticality. How do grammars determine what is grammatical? 1 st...

Linguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

Lecture 10Lecture 10

GrammaticalityGrammaticality

How do grammars How do grammars determine what is determine what is grammatical?grammatical?• 11stst idea (traditional – 1970): idea (traditional – 1970):

– Anything which conforms to rules is Anything which conforms to rules is grammatical, anything which violates rules grammatical, anything which violates rules is ungrammaticalis ungrammatical•This may be the obvious way to do things, but -This may be the obvious way to do things, but -

•Requires construct specific rules (for any Requires construct specific rules (for any grammaticality)grammaticality)

•Problems forProblems for– generalisationgeneralisation– learnabilitylearnability

How do grammars How do grammars determine what is determine what is grammatical?grammatical?• 22ndnd idea (1970 – 1990) idea (1970 – 1990)

– Anything is grammatical except those Anything is grammatical except those things that the grammar rules outthings that the grammar rules out•Requires Requires

– General principles (Move General principles (Move , X-bar principles), X-bar principles) To define the limits of ‘linguistic phenomena’ To define the limits of ‘linguistic phenomena’

– A set of constraints/filtersA set of constraints/filters

•Does better for generalisation and learnabilityDoes better for generalisation and learnability

•Assumes grammaticality is absoluteAssumes grammaticality is absolute– Anything that violates the grammar is ungrammaticalAnything that violates the grammar is ungrammatical

Is grammaticality absolute?Is grammaticality absolute?

• Gradient grammaticalityGradient grammaticality– Some things are worse than othersSome things are worse than others

•a man who I remember I met on Mondaya man who I remember I met on Monday

•? a man who I can’t remember when I met ? a man who I can’t remember when I met himhim

•* a man who I can’t remember when I met* a man who I can’t remember when I met

– Might be handled by assuming that Might be handled by assuming that some grammatical principles are worse some grammatical principles are worse to violate than othersto violate than others


– The first sentence is The first sentence is out because it violates out because it violates the Case Filterthe Case Filter

– The second is The second is grammatical because grammatical because it doesn’tit doesn’t

• Relative GrammaticalityRelative Grammaticality• Something is ungrammatical because there is Something is ungrammatical because there is

a better alternativea better alternative

* it seems [John to like Mary]

it seems [John likes Mary]

John seems [ t to like Mary]

* John seems [ t likes Mary]


– The first sentence is The first sentence is out because it violates out because it violates the Case Filterthe Case Filter

– The second is The second is grammatical because grammatical because it doesn’tit doesn’t

• Relative GrammaticalityRelative Grammaticality• Something is ungrammatical because there is Something is ungrammatical because there is

a better alternativea better alternative

* it seems [John to like Mary]

it seems [John likes Mary]

John seems [ t to like Mary]

* John seems [ t likes Mary]

– The first sentence is The first sentence is grammatical grammatical because it satisfies because it satisfies the Case Filterthe Case Filter

– Why is the second Why is the second ungrammatical?ungrammatical?


• Original explanation:Original explanation:– It violates the Binding theoryIt violates the Binding theory

• ButBut– This misses an obvious generalisationThis misses an obvious generalisation– Binding theory isn’t so straightforwardBinding theory isn’t so straightforward

• A better explanationA better explanation– It is ungrammatical because the alternative It is ungrammatical because the alternative

is better (it is grammatical and it does not is better (it is grammatical and it does not involve movement)involve movement)

One view of relative One view of relative grammaticalitygrammaticality• Some principles are absoluteSome principles are absolute

• Some are ‘soft’ (can be violated if Some are ‘soft’ (can be violated if needed)needed)

• E.g.E.g.– Case Filter (rigid)Case Filter (rigid)– Don’t move (soft)Don’t move (soft)

• So movement can happen if this will So movement can happen if this will satisfy the Case filter, but not otherwisesatisfy the Case filter, but not otherwise

Another viewAnother view

• All constraints are softAll constraints are soft

• They are ranked in order of They are ranked in order of importanceimportance

• Lower ranked constraints can be Lower ranked constraints can be violated in order to satisfy higher violated in order to satisfy higher ranked constraintsranked constraints

• Optimality TheoryOptimality Theory

What OT can do that the What OT can do that the other can’tother can’t• Suppose we have three ranked constraints:Suppose we have three ranked constraints:

• C1 > C2 > C3C1 > C2 > C3

• C3 will be violated if this means C2 can be C3 will be violated if this means C2 can be satisfiedsatisfied

• C2 will be violated if this means C1 can be C2 will be violated if this means C1 can be satisfiedsatisfied

• But if what is violated depends on if it is But if what is violated depends on if it is rigid or soft, then C2 must be both rigid and rigid or soft, then C2 must be both rigid and soft!soft!

Grimshaw 1997: inversionGrimshaw 1997: inversion

• DataData– English:English:

•Wh-elements moved to the front of clausesWh-elements moved to the front of clauses– Who leftWho left he lefthe left– Who did you seeWho did you see I saw SamI saw Sam

• Inversion with non-subject wh-elementsInversion with non-subject wh-elements– Who did you seeWho did you see * who you saw* who you saw

•No inversion with subject wh-elementsNo inversion with subject wh-elements– Who saw youWho saw you * who did see you* who did see you


• DataData– Chinese:Chinese:

•Wh-elements not moved to the front of Wh-elements not moved to the front of clausesclauses

– Shei zuo leShei zuo le ta zuo leta zuo lewho leave perfwho leave perf he leave perfhe leave perf

– Ta shi sheiTa shi shei ta shi Zhangta shi Zhanghe is whohe is who he is Zhanghe is Zhang


• Wh-elements move to specifier of CPWh-elements move to specifier of CP• Auxiliaries invert to head of CP:Auxiliaries invert to head of CP:• CPCP

whowho11 C’ C’

C IP C IP

did did22 DP I’ DP I’

you I VP you I VP

t t22 see t see t11


• Clauses are CPs only when necessaryClauses are CPs only when necessary• Wh-subjects are in specifier of IPWh-subjects are in specifier of IP• IPIP

DP I’ DP I’

who I VP who I VP

could see you could see you


• Constraints:Constraints:– OpSpec = operators in specifier OpSpec = operators in specifier

positionspositions– ObHead = head positions are filledObHead = head positions are filled– Stay = don’t moveStay = don’t move

• English:English:– OpSpec > ObHead > StayOpSpec > ObHead > Stay


• Competing structures (subject wh-)Competing structures (subject wh-)– [[IPIP who saw you] who saw you]

– [[CPCP e [ e [IPIP who saw you]] who saw you]]

– [[CPCP did did11 [ [IPIP who t who t11 see you]] see you]]

– [[CPCP who who11 e [ e [IPIP t t11 saw you]] saw you]]

– [[CPCP who who22 did did11 [ [IPIP t t22 t t11 see you]] see you]]


• Competition (wh-subject)Competition (wh-subject)

OpSpec ObHd

Stay

[IP who saw you]

[CP e [IP who saw you]] *!

[CP did1 [IP who t1 see you]] *!

[CP who1 e [IP t1 saw you]] *! *

[CP who2 did1 [IP t2 t1 see you]] **!


• Competing structures (object wh-)Competing structures (object wh-)– [[IPIP you saw who] you saw who]

– [[CPCP e [ e [IPIP you saw who]] you saw who]]

– [[CPCP did did11 [ [IPIP you t you t11 see who]] see who]]

– [[CPCP who e [ who e [IPIP you saw t you saw t11]]]]

– [[CPCP who who22 did did11 [ [IPIP you t you t11 see t see t22]]]]


• Competition (wh-subject)Competition (wh-subject)

OpSpec ObHd

Stay

[IP you saw who] *!

[CP e [IP you saw who]] *! *!

[CP did1 [IP you t1 see who]] *! *!

[CP who e [IP you saw t1]] *! *

[CP who2 did1 [IP you t1 see t2]] **!


• Re-ranking - ChineseRe-ranking - Chinese

Stay OpSpec ObHd

[IP you saw who] *

[CP e [IP you saw who]] * *!

[CP did1 [IP you t1 see who]] *! *


[CP who2 did1 [IP you t1 see t2]]

**!


• Re-ranking – wh-movement without Re-ranking – wh-movement without inversioninversion

OpSpec Stay ObHd

[IP you saw who] *!

[CP e [IP you saw who]] *! *


[CP who e [IP you saw t1]] * *


**!


• Re-ranking – no inversion without wh-Re-ranking – no inversion without wh-movementmovement

ObHd Stay OpSpec

[IP you saw who] *

[CP e [IP you saw who]] *! *




**!

Problems for relative Problems for relative grammaticalitygrammaticality• Absolute grammaticalityAbsolute grammaticality

– Who saw whatWho saw what– * what did who see* what did who see

– How did you fix whatHow did you fix what– * what did you fix how* what did you fix how

– * who fixed the car how* who fixed the car how– * how did who fix the car* how did who fix the car

– Who fixed the car and howWho fixed the car and how

Problems for relative Problems for relative grammaticalitygrammaticality

• The ba-problemThe ba-problem– If grammaticality is all relative, the If grammaticality is all relative, the

whole languages should reduce to the whole languages should reduce to the best sentence containing the best best sentence containing the best phrase containing the best word made phrase containing the best word made up of the best syllable, perhaps “ba”up of the best syllable, perhaps “ba”


• The ba-problemThe ba-problem– But OT assumes that competitions are But OT assumes that competitions are

limited by a given input:limited by a given input:– Input Input GEN GEN competitors competitors

evaluation evaluation optimal expression optimal expression– So not everything competes and So not everything competes and

different winners will be determined for different winners will be determined for each inputeach input


• OptionalityOptionality– A film about hobbits was madeA film about hobbits was made– A film was made about hobbitsA film was made about hobbits

• How can two different structures How can two different structures violate the same constraints to the violate the same constraints to the same degree?same degree?


• SolutionsSolutions– Tied rankingTied ranking

•Two constraints which differentiate the two Two constraints which differentiate the two expressions are given the same rank and so expressions are given the same rank and so both expressions violate one constraint each both expressions violate one constraint each at that rankat that rank

•But this may be problematic for learning But this may be problematic for learning


• SolutionsSolutions– There is no such thing as optionalityThere is no such thing as optionality

•Apparent options are associated with Apparent options are associated with different inputs and so are not really different inputs and so are not really optional winners of the same competition, optional winners of the same competition, but winners of different competitions.but winners of different competitions.

•E.g. Postposing may be related to focus: a E.g. Postposing may be related to focus: a post posed PP is focussed an in situ one is post posed PP is focussed an in situ one is not.not.

Linguistic Theory Lecture 10 Grammaticality. How do grammars determine what is grammatical? 1 st...

Documents

Transcript of Linguistic Theory Lecture 10 Grammaticality. How do grammars determine what is grammatical? 1 st...