Linguistic Theory

1. Linguistic Theory Lecture 10 Grammaticality

2. How do grammars determine what is grammatical? • 1st idea (traditional – 1970): • Anything which conforms to rules is grammatical, anything which violates rules is ungrammatical • This may be the obvious way to do things, but - • Requires construct specific rules (for any grammaticality) • Problems for • generalisation • learnability

3. How do grammars determine what is grammatical? • 2nd idea (1970 – 1990) • Anything is grammatical except those things that the grammar rules out • Requires • General principles (Move , X-bar principles) • To define the limits of ‘linguistic phenomena’ • A set of constraints/filters • Does better for generalisation and learnability • Assumes grammaticality is absolute • Anything that violates the grammar is ungrammatical

4. Is grammaticality absolute? • Gradient grammaticality • Some things are worse than others • a man who I remember I met on Monday • ? a man who I can’t remember when I met him • * a man who I can’t remember when I met • Might be handled by assuming that some grammatical principles are worse to violate than others

5. Is grammaticality absolute? • Relative Grammaticality • Something is ungrammatical because there is a better alternative • The first sentence is out because it violates the Case Filter • The second is grammatical because it doesn’t

6. Is grammaticality absolute? • Relative Grammaticality • Something is ungrammatical because there is a better alternative • The first sentence is out because it violates the Case Filter • The second is grammatical because it doesn’t • The first sentence is grammatical because it satisfies the Case Filter • Why is the second ungrammatical?

7. Is grammaticality absolute? • Original explanation: • It violates the Binding theory • But • This misses an obvious generalisation • Binding theory isn’t so straightforward • A better explanation • It is ungrammatical because the alternative is better (it is grammatical and it does not involve movement)

8. One view of relative grammaticality • Some principles are absolute • Some are ‘soft’ (can be violated if needed) • E.g. • Case Filter (rigid) • Don’t move (soft) • So movement can happen if this will satisfy the Case filter, but not otherwise

9. Another view • All constraints are soft • They are ranked in order of importance • Lower ranked constraints can be violated in order to satisfy higher ranked constraints • Optimality Theory

10. What OT can do that the other can’t • Suppose we have three ranked constraints: • C1 > C2 > C3 • C3 will be violated if this means C2 can be satisfied • C2 will be violated if this means C1 can be satisfied • But if what is violated depends on if it is rigid or soft, then C2 must be both rigid and soft!

11. Grimshaw 1997: inversion • Data • English: • Wh-elements moved to the front of clauses • Who left he left • Who did you see I saw Sam • Inversion with non-subject wh-elements • Who did you see * who you saw • No inversion with subject wh-elements • Who saw you * who did see you

12. Grimshaw 1997: inversion • Data • Chinese: • Wh-elements not moved to the front of clauses • Sheizuo le tazuo lewho leave perf he leave perf • Ta shisheitashi Zhanghe is who he is Zhang

13. Grimshaw 1997: inversion • Wh-elements move to specifier of CP • Auxiliaries invert to head of CP: • CPwho1 C’ C IP did2 DP I’ you I VP t2 see t1

14. Grimshaw 1997: inversion • Clauses are CPs only when necessary • Wh-subjects are in specifier of IP • IP DP I’ who I VP could see you

15. Grimshaw 1997: inversion • Constraints: • OpSpec = operators in specifier positions • ObHead = head positions are filled • Stay = don’t move • English: • OpSpec > ObHead > Stay

16. Grimshaw 1997: inversion • Competing structures (subject wh-) • [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]]

17. Grimshaw 1997: inversion • Competition (wh-subject) 

18. Grimshaw 1997: inversion • Competing structures (object wh-) • [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]]

19. Grimshaw 1997: inversion • Competition (wh-subject) 

20. Grimshaw 1997: inversion • Re-ranking - Chinese 

21. Grimshaw 1997: inversion • Re-ranking – wh-movement without inversion 

22. Grimshaw 1997: inversion • Re-ranking – no inversion without wh-movement 

23. Problems for relative grammaticality • Absolute grammaticality • Who saw what • * what did who see • How did you fix what • * what did you fix how • * who fixed the car how • * how did who fix the car • Who fixed the car and how

24. Problems for relative grammaticality • The ba-problem • If grammaticality is all relative, the whole languages should reduce to the best sentence containing the best phrase containing the best word made up of the best syllable, perhaps “ba”

25. Problems for relative grammaticality • The ba-problem • But OT assumes that competitions are limited by a given input: • Input  GEN  competitors  evaluation  optimal expression • So not everything competes and different winners will be determined for each input

26. Problems for relative grammaticality • Optionality • A film about hobbits was made • A film was made about hobbits • How can two different structures violate the same constraints to the same degree?

27. Problems for relative grammaticality • Solutions • Tied ranking • Two constraints which differentiate the two expressions are given the same rank and so both expressions violate one constraint each at that rank • But this may be problematic for learning

28. Problems for relative grammaticality • Solutions • There is no such thing as optionality • Apparent options are associated with different inputs and so are not really optional winners of the same competition, but winners of different competitions. • E.g. Postposing may be related to focus: a post posed PP is focussed an in situ one is not.