Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T18:00:20.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constraints on movement transformations1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Arthur Schwartz
Arthur Schwartz
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The development of transformational theory has been marked by a considerable shifting about of powers allotted to the various constructs. As a theory of lexicon arose, for example, some of the function of the context-sensitivity of the phrase-structure rules was rendered unnecessary; correspondingly, when the rewrite system was tightly confined to a context-free nature, the transformational component took up part of the burden of providing for certain dependencies and concord phenomena. A fair estimate of the history of that component would have to concede that its powers – in spite of the cycle, and some scattered efforts (Emonds, 1969; Postal, 1971; Ross, 1969; Sanders, 1970)–have grown significantly. For example, Emonds's work aside, no general principles of derived constituent structure have developed (as originally anticipated, say, in Lees, 1957b: 400–401); quite the contrary, the particular elementary operations at the root of transformational relationships have been extended, so that at the moment, in addition to sister-adjunction and daughter-adjunction, we have at our disposal Chomsky-adjunction – a range of moves allowing just about any sort of bracketing relation to be developed. Similarly, the recent suggestion that a transformation be considered, most generally, a relation holding between P-markers (not necessarily ‘adjacent’ and not necessarily paired) engenders an enormous increase in power – all the more so since the so-called local and global constraints that are intended to offset the magnification of power are only promissory (Lakoff, 1970).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , April 1972 , pp. 35 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bach, E. (1962). The order of elements in a transformational grammar of German. Lg 38. 263–269.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1963). Grammatik des deutschen Verbs. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Bird, C. (1966). Aspects of Bombara syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, UCLA.Google Scholar
Browne, W. (1967). On the problem of enclitic placement in Serbo-Croatian. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1960). On the notion ‘rule of grammar’. Structure of language and its mathematical aspects, 6–24. Providence, R.I.: American Mathematical Soc.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Emends, J. (1969). Root and structure-preserving transformations. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, MIT.Google Scholar
Emonda, J. (1970). Evidence that indirect object movement is a structure-preserving rule. Unpublished paper, Centre expérimental de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Freeman, M., Hetzron, R. & Schwartz, A. (in press). A note on modal structure. To appear in Glossa.Google Scholar
Grinder, J. (1969). Conjunct splitting in Samoan. Linguistic notes from La Jolla, 2. 46–79.Google Scholar
Hays, D. G. (1964). Dependency theory: a formalism and some observations. Lg 40. 511–525.Google Scholar
Jones, C. S. (1970). Hungarian verbs and objects and the A-over-A convention. Papers in linguistics 2. 399–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keyser, S. J. (1968). Review of Jacobson, S. Adverbial positions in English. Lg 44. 357–374.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. In Bierwisch, M. & Heidolph, K. E. (eds.), Progress in linguistics. 143–173. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, A. (1968). The A-over-A convention. Linguistics, 46. 11–20.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. P. (1970a). Global rules. Lg 46. 627–639.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. P. (1970b). Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. P. & Peters, S. (1966). Phrasal conjunction and symmetrical predicates. Mathematical linguistics and automatic translation, Report NSF #17. Computation Laboratory of Harvard University.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. (1957a). Structural grammars. MT 4. 5–10.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. (1957b). Review of Chomsky, 1957. Lg 33. 375–408.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. (1970). Surface structure constraints in syntax. Linguistic inquiry 1. 187–355.Google Scholar
Peters, S. (1970). Why there are many ‘universal’ bases. Papers in linguistics 2. 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pittman, R. S. (1948). Nuclear structures in linguistics. Lg 24. 287–292.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1971). Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Rardin, R. (1968). Sentence-raising and sentence-shift. Unpublished paper, Department of Linguistics, MIT.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jane (1970). Dependency structures and transformational rules. Lg 46. 259–285.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Gapping and the order of constituents. Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Linguists. Bucharest.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1969). Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Linguistics, MIT.Google Scholar
Sanders, G. (1970). Constraints on constituent ordering. Papers in linguistics 2. 460–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teng, S-H. (1970). Comitative versus phrasal conjunction. Papers in linguistics 2. 315–358.Google Scholar
Wellander, E. (1959). Riktig Svenska. Stockholm.Google Scholar