TUGAS TEORI LINGUISTIK

7/28/2019 TUGAS TEORI LINGUISTIK

1/7

TUGAS TEORI LINGUISTIK

The work of Kayne (1981, 1983) , Longobardi (1983) and Pesetsky (1982) also make

important use of the notion of path through the tree, linking binder, and bound position.

There are at least two important differences between these proposals and the GPSG

proposal. First, in the GB version of path theory, the nodes which in sequence constitute a path

are not formally marked in any way, and the formalities of feature distribution can play no role in

determining whether or not a path is well formed.

Second, in the GB version one inspect the geometry of the entire path between an empty

position and its binder, to determine whether or not a give structure is well formed.

In Kaynes conception, the kind of path we have been considering is known as g-

projection (government projection). A g projection links not an empty position and its binder,

but rather the governor of an empty position and a node which immediately dominates an

antecedent for the empty position. We can say that the connectedness condition demands that an

empty position have an antecedent in its g-projection.

1. (I wonder) what he said he wanted ________


2/7

S1

Comp 1 S1

NP VP1

What 1

V S2

he

said Comp S2

NP VP2


3/7

he V NP1

wanted

In the tree NP1 has a projection which originates with its governor, the verb wanted ,

goes up by way of VP2, S2, and S2 to VP1, S1 and S1. We recognize it as local analysis of wh-

phenomena that is the condition which determine what count or does not count as well formed g-

projection inspect only nodes linked by the relation of immediate dominance.

The preliminary condition is that the empty position must have lexical governor (i.e

governor of the category). The familiar COMP-trace effect illustrated below:

1. Who do you think [that [S___[VP would come]]]In number 1 the empty subject position has no lexical governor and therefore has no

g-projection which contains its antecedent.

Starting from the lexical governor, there are two ways in which one can proceed with

the construction of a g-projection.

X

Y Z

PARASITIC GAP

In grammar, a parasitic gap is a construction wherein the dropping of an argument is

dependent on a co-varying argument having been fronted in a local context.

An English example is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_%28linguistics%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wh-frontinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wh-frontinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_%28linguistics%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar


4/7

Which book did she review __ without reading __?

The key feature here is that both review and readinghave a "gap" where their objects should be(indicated above with underscores), and both gaps appear to function as variables bound by

which book; i.e. "Which book x did she review x without reading x?". The second gap is

considered to be "parasitic" on the first, since it (unlike the first gap) cannot easily stand on itsown, shown by the following example.

*Which book did she review War and Peace without reading __.

This has the same structure as the first sentence but with a non-WH matrix object, which doesn'tfront.

Parasitic gaps are typically found in structures that would otherwise be islands to extraction, such

as adjuncts as in the above example, or subjects, as in the following example (where the subjecteven supporters of __ hosts the parasitic gap licensed by the true gap following dislike). This

example further shows that parasitic gaps need not follow their licensing gap.

Which candidate do even supporters of __ tend to dislike __?

Parasitic gaps are an important topic of study in syntax, especially in the framework of

generative grammar. It has been argued by some linguists working in generative frameworks that

speakers' intuitive knowledge of the construction can only be explained by an innate universalgrammar.

We have been discussing a contrast between two types of local theories of wh-

phenomena: path theories and COMP theories. The basic strategy in path theories is o have the

well formedness of a given wh-construction depend on there being a path through the three ofsuccessive mother daughter pairs, each pair of which must meet certain conditions. The strategy

in COMP theories is to make the link between binder an empty position by postulating a chain of

intermediate antecedents, and each of which is bound by the wh-phrases. The pattern is:

[XP] [+WH]j . XPj .XPj .XPj.]

The most comprehensive recent treatment of wh-phenomena within GB is Chomskys

Barriers (1986). The essential insight to be found in all these works (in one form or another) is

that phrases which are complements to lexical categories are transparent in a way that other

phrases are not.

In the Barriers framework, the crucial nodes (known as Barrier) are not listed, but

defined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_clausehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wh-movement#Extraction_islandshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntaxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_grammarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_grammarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntaxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wh-movement#Extraction_islandshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_clause


5/7

The major research topic opened up byBarriers, include:

1. The question of whether or not government phenomena in general, and subjacencyphenomena will actually correlate in the way in which that frame work suggest that they

should.

2. The nature of the ECP itself is a core topic.

The topic of the wh-construction can be concluded as follow:

First, it is almost universally agreed that the apparently unbounded character of wh-movement is illusory. All the theories we have considered construct the long wh-

movement link from a sequence of local connection. Secondly, all the theories share the intuition that the lexical categories play a crucial role

in the licensing of wh-construction-either by making an empty category legal in the

source position of wh-movement or by making larger categories transparent for the

binding of that empty position by an antecedent.

Finally, it is important to say that all the theories we have considered here achieveconsiderable success in the general aim of explaining a complex array of apparently

unrelated facts by appealing to a view very general principles and their manner of

interaction.

NP movements

NP movements in the late 60s were those which dealt with such relationships as are exemplified in the

passive construction, dative movement, raising to object an raising to subject.

Passive involved the movement of an NP from post verbal to preverbal position within a single clause.

Dative movement involved the movement of a prepositional object to the object position of a clause

and the subsequent deletion of the preposition. These movement operated within the bound sof a

single clause.

The raising case were biclausal, in that they involved the movement of an NP across exactly one clause

boundary.

- Raising to object involved the movement of an NP from the subject position of a nonfinitecomplement clause to the object position in the immediately higher clause.


6/7

- Raising to subject involved movement of an NP from the subject position of a nonfinitecomplement clause to the subject position of the immediately of a higher clause.

The controversy surrounding such structure in the mid 70s centered on two questions:

a. Are these relations properly seen as transformational?b. Do they involve direct reference to grammatical relations such as subject, direct object, indirect

object, and so on.

Classical transformational grammar answer YES to a and NO to b.

The development of relational grammar from 1974 in grew from tne conviction of Perlmutter, Postal

and others that the correct answer is b. there are two sources for thic conviction.

1. These operations could be thought of in relational terms. Passive is the promotion of the objectin a clause to be the clauses subject; dative movement is the promotion of an indirect object to

the status of a direct object in the same clause.

2. The realization that if one thought of NP-movement phenomena in these terms, cross linguisticformulations of the relevant rules were easily to hand.

Perlmutter and Postal argued that the way to factor out the common core of all these processes in

different languages was to state the rules in term of grammatical relations, and then to have language-

particular rules to determined how various grammatical relations were realized in given languages.

A line of thought developed in the mid and late 70s which saw allt he operations we have discussing, as

well as related ones, as being lexical operations on the argument-structure of particular predicates.

Passive could be seen as a rule relating the lexical entries for two forms of the same verb.

Raising verbs could be seen as a verbs which take subjectless, nonfinite complements, whose lexical

entries were annotated in one way or another to show that the subject of the verb also functioned as

subject of its complement.

Dative movement could also be analyzed as a rule linking related lexical entries.

Since all these operations were in the lexicon, it was natural and easy to restrict their application to

particular predicates.

Such proposals were developed in various different ways by a number of authors in the mid and late 70s

(Brame 1976, 1978; Bresnan 1978; Dowty 1978, 1979, Gadzar 1982). This developments were frequently

associated with a desire to climinate completely any appeal to transformational operations and to

eliminate also the consequent appeal to multiple levels of syntactic representation.

GPSG and LFG are the two which directly continue this tradition of lexical analysis of NP movement

dependencies. GPSG follows classical transformational grammar in not recognizing grammatical


7/7

relations as primitive concept of theory. LFG has relational analyses at its core and furthermore, follows

RG in taking grammatical relations to be primitives of syntactic theory.

In summary, GB has moved away from classical position and towards theories such as GPSG an LFG in

recognizing that lexical properties, some intrinsic some morphological derived are seen to be at the

heart of NP movement relationships

The role of movement transformations has been correspondingly reduced and marginalized, in the

sense that movement is now simply a consequence of other properties of the relevant constructions.

TUGAS TEORI LINGUISTIK

Documents

Transcript of TUGAS TEORI LINGUISTIK