The Explanatory Range of Movement Presentation at Workshop on Comparative and Theoretical Syntax...

The Explanatory Range of Movement

Presentation atWorkshop on Comparative and Theoretical Syntax

When and Why do Constituents Move?University of Aarhus, December 14-16, 2004

Torben Thrane[Århus School of Business]

The Janus-Effect of Move

When you see a cheetah move you can ask for an explanation of this fact in one of two ways:

• What properties of the cheetah will account for its having moved? (‘Systemic’ explanation – muscles, sinews, etc.)

• What properties of the cheetah will its having moved account for? (‘Functional’ explanation – hunger, fear, etc.)

Each explanation is causal in its own right, but they are not causally connected

[H. Putnam, Reductionism and the Nature of Psychology (1973)]

Movement in language

The most casual inspection of output conditions reveals that items commonly appear “displaced” from the position in which the interpretation they receive is otherwise represented at the LF interface.91

[Chomsky 1995:316]

You only have to look to see that something has moved

The axiom of Chomsky’s version of GG:

Movement is not a thesis that needs support; it is one of the facts of language that can be invoked to support other theses.

Rather there are just extremely general principles like “move anything anywhere” [Chomsky 2000: 1]

There is no meaningful controversy over the basic facts.

Functional vs. systemic explanation of movement in language

• What properties of language will some linguistic item having moved account for ? (‘Functional’)

(1a) John called up his sister vs. (b) John called his sister up

• What properties of language will account for some linguistic item having moved? (‘Systemic’)

Movement in language

The most casual inspection of output conditions reveals that items commonly appear “displaced” from the position in which the interpretation they receive is otherwise represented at the LF interface.91

[Chomsky 1995:316]91 Technically, this is not quite correct; see note 1.

1 The PF level itself is too primitive and unstructured to serve thispurpose, but elements formed in the course of the mapping of syn-tactic objects to a PF representation might qualify.

Notice that I am sweeping under the rug questions of considerablesignificance, notably, questions about what in the earlier Extended Standard Theory (EST) framework were called “surface effects” oninterpretation. These are manifold, involving topic-focus and theme-rheme structures, figure-ground properties, effects of adjacency andlinearity, and many others. Prima facie, they seem to involve someadditional level or levels internal to the phonological component,postmorphology but prephonetic, accessed at the interface along with PF (Phonetic Form) and LF (Logical Form).

[Chomsky 1995:220 – my italics]

t[NP

i ] [V ]

Functional vs. systemic explanation of movement in language

• What properties of language will some linguistic item having moved account for ? (‘Functional’)

(1) John called up his sister vs. John called his sister up

• What properties of language will account for some linguistic item having moved? (‘Systemic’)

][VP (2) John cried[IP [NP

i ] ]

NPs

D N´

IP

stedplace

atto

stilleput

sin cykelone’s bike

N´

VP

V´

DPV

I

NP

A N

eta

godtgood

PRO

Advice about parking your bike

(3) Nede/*ned i kælderen er et godt sted at stille sin cykel Down in cellar-the is a good place to put one’s bike

eris

VPAdvP

Nede/*ned i kælderenDown in cellar-the

S

This sits fairly well with the ideaof Danish as a V2 language

NPs

D N´

IP

stedplace

atto

stilleput


N´

VP

V´

DPV

I

NP

A N

EtA

godtgood

PRO

Mirror-image advice about parking your bike

(4) Et godt sted at stille sin cykel er nede/ned i kælderen A good place to put one’s bike is down in cellar-the

eris

VP AdvP

nede/ned i kælderendown in cellar-the

S

... and so does this

NPs

D N´

IP

stedplace

atto

stilleput


N´

VP

V´

DPV

I

NP

A N

eta

godtgood

PRO

Revised structure for (3)

eris

VPAdvP

Nede/*ned i kælderenDown in cellar-the

S(5)

CP

SpecLOC IP

VP

tLOC

stilleput


I

V´

V´

DPV

Spec

NPLOC

atto

et godt steda good place

PRO

(6) *Nede i kælderen er en god idé at stille sin cykel

(7) Det er en god idé at stille sin cykel ned(e) i kælderen

“Under any approach that takes Attract/Move to be driven by morphological features ...there should be no interaction between theta-theory and the theory of movement.” [Chomsky 1995: 312]

Revised structure of (4) + further matters

eris

VP AdvP


S

CP

SpecLOC IP

VP

tLOC

stilleput


I

V´

V´

DPV

Spec

NPLOC

atto


PRO

(9) Han parkerede sin cykelnede/*ned i kælderen

(8)

(10) Han stillede sin cykelnede/ned i kælderen


V

V´


eris

AdvP

VP

CP

SpecLOC IP

VP

tLOC

stilleput


I

V´

V´

DPV

Spec

NPLOC

atto

Et godt stedA good place

PRO

(11)


V

V´


eris

tv

AdvP

VP

NP

ts

IPC

CP

C´

NP

ts

CP

SpecLOC IP

VP

tLOC

stilleput


I

V´

V´

DPV

Spec

NPLOC

atto

Et godt stedA good place

PRO

(12)

IP

V

V´

C

CP

C´AdvP

Nede/*ned i kælderenDown in cellar-thea

eris

tv

AdvP

ta

VP

NP

ts

(3) Nede/*ned i kælderen er et godt sted at stille sin cykel Down in cellar-the is a good place to put one’s bike

CP

SpecLOC IP

VP

tLOC

stilleput


I

V´

V´

DPV

Spec

NPLOC

atto


PRO

(13)

Ned vs. nede

DerThere

eris

et godt a good

at stille sin cykelto put one’s bike

(14a)

derthere

eris



*NedDown

i kælderenin cellar-the (Acc.)

(16b)

stedplace

i kælderenin cellar-the (Dat.)

derthere

eris

et godta good


NedeDown

i kælderenin cellar-the (Dative)

(16a) stedplace

*DerThere

eris


at stille to put

ned i kælderendown in cellar-the (Acc.)

(15b) sin cykelone’s bike

nededown

DerThere

eris

et godt a good


(14b) stedplace

i kælderenin cellar-the (Dat.)

nededown

DerThere

eris


at stille to put

i kælderenin cellar-the (Acc.)

(15a) sin cykelone’s bike

neddown

(3) Nede i kælderen er et godt sted at stille sin cykel

Subject

Intermezzo

Fact: Spoken language is linear, by genetic necessity produced and perceived through one channel

Fact: Grammatical structure is hierarchical, with a clearly discernible level of phrase structure between the levels of lexical structure and sentence structure

Need: An empirically falsifiable theory of the mapping between linear structure and hierachical structure

Claim: Theories of movement may be systemic or functional in explanatory range; only the latter are empirically falsifiable.

Conclusion:

If the Need is to be satisfied by a theory of movement, its explanatory range must be functional.

The Representational Thesis

• All linguistic facts are mental facts

• All mental facts are representational facts

• All representational facts are facts about informational functions

The Extended

[Thrane 2004a,b][Dretske 1995:xiii]

The language faculty as a 2o Representational System

A Model of Language Perception

1o- Represetational systems (Perceptual and Conceptual)

Conceptual input 1o-RepresentationsDigitalizationSensory input

2o- Representational System (The Language Faculty)

Complete Digitalization

Linguisticdata

2o-Representations

The Generative View of Representational Domains

CP

IP

VP

Information Structure

Modalization Structure

Argument Structure

Sentence

Movement

Movement

The Representational View of Representational Domains

ASSI

MS

1o-R

ep

INP

UT

Principles of Linear

Organization

Optional-Necessary

Obligatory

John his shoes in the bathroomput on

onConstitutive

+NecessaryJohn

Constituents

+Argumental

-Argumental

John

his shoes

on

in the bathroom

+argumental -argumental

+necessary Complement Parasite

-necessary Argument Satellite

Typology of sentence constituents

Constituents are Necessary iff they help define situation type

Constituents are Argumental iff they are referential

V selects Complements and Parasites to form V´

V´combine with Arguments and Satellites to for VP

VP

•

V´

•

V

S

A

C

P

put on

his shoes

John

in the bathroom∑

∏

∑ = situation type

Argument structure

∏ = proposition

Localist basis?

Case Relations abs erg loc abl

CASE COMPONENTS place place

source source

abs(olutive); erg(ative); loc(ative); abl(ative)

The axioms of John Anderson’s Localist Case Theory

Constituent types C A P S

Selectional Components

C = Complement; A = Argument; P = Parasite; S = Satellite

VP

•

V´

•

V

S

A

C

P

stilleput

ned i kælderendown in cellar-the


John

hver aftenevery night

19. Hver aften ˌstiller John sin cykel ˈned i kælderen

18. John ˌstiller sin cykel ˈned i kælderen hver aften

17. Sin cykel ˌstiller John ˈned i kælderen hver aften

20. * ˈNed i kælderen ˌstiller John sin cykel hver aften

23. Hver aften ˈstiller John sin cykel ˈnede i kælderen

22. John ˈstiller sin cykel ˈnede i kælderen hver aften

21. Sin cykel ˈstiller John ˈnede i kælderen hver aften

24. ˈNede i kælderen ˈstiller John sin cykel hver aften

●

•

V´

•

V

S

A

C

P

stilleput

nede i kælderendown in cellar-the


John

hver aftenevery night

Ø

VP

S

25. John ˈstiller sin cykel et nyt sted hver aften

VP

C

nede i kælderendown in cellar-the

Ø

værebe

•

V PVP

•

V´ A

et godt sted a good place

V´

•

V

S

C

P

ˈstilleput


Ø

Ø

A

Ø

● SNP

To conclude -

Systemic movement is not empirically falsifiable

Functional movement is empirically falsifiable, if an initial order is assumed

If an initial order is not assumed, movement reduces to linear organization of hierarchically related constituents according to language-specific principles of information structure

The Explanatory Range of Movement Presentation at Workshop on Comparative and Theoretical Syntax...

Documents

Transcript of The Explanatory Range of Movement Presentation at Workshop on Comparative and Theoretical Syntax...