1.1 Language, Grammar and Linguistic Theory

1.2.4 Distribution

Let us turn now to the observations made in (2) and (3). There we observed that there are certain positions in a sentence that some words can occupy and other words cannot. Clearly, this is determined by category. This is perhaps the most basic point of word categories as far as syntax is concerned. The grammar of a language determines how we construct the expressions of the language. The grammar, however, does not refer to the individual words of the lexicon, telling us, for example, that the word cat goes in position X in expression Y. Such a system would not be able to produce an indefinite number of sentences as there would have to be such a rule for every expression of the language. Instead, the grammar defines the set of possible positions for word categories, hence allowing the construction of numerous expressions from a small number of grammatical principles. The question of how these positions are defined is mostly what this book is about, but for now, for illustrative purposes only, let us pretend that English has a rule that says that a sentence can be formed by putting a noun in front of a verb. This rule then tells us that the expressions in (15) are grammatical and those in (16) are not:

1.2.4 Distribution

This is not meant to be a demonstration of how English grammar works, but how a rule which makes reference to word categories can produce a whole class of grammatical expressions.

1.2.4 Distribution

We call the set of positions that the grammar determines to be possible for a given category the distribution of that category. If the grammar determines the distribution of categories, it follows that we can determine what categories the grammar works with by observing distributional patterns: words that distribute in the same way will belong to the same categories and words that distribute differently will belong to different categories.

2.1.1 The building blocks of sentences

Indeed, there would be no point in adding limitations to the grammar to make it fit with these other limitations. For example, suppose we determined that sentences with more than 9 other sentences embedded in them go beyond the human mental capacity to process (it is clear that it would be virtually impossible to come up with a definite number which was applicable to all humans on all occasions – when I get up in the morning, for example, my capacity to process sentences seems to be limited to one! – but for the sake of the argument let us assume this number). Let us pretend, nonetheless, that the grammar is limited to producing only 9 or less embedded sentences. This would be an extra complication to the grammatical system as it adds a limitation to it. Yet the situation would be exactly the same if we did not add the limitation: humans would still be able to process sentences with 9 or fewer embedded sentences, because of their mental restrictions, no matter what the grammar was capable of defining as grammatical. So the extra complication to the grammar would achieve nothing and we would be better off not adding it and keeping things simpler. Moreover, why would we want to make the grammar explain facts that had nothing to do with it: it would be like trying to get the laws of gravity to explain why red balls fall to the ground at the same speed as blue ones do.

2.1.1 The building blocks of sentences

Let us therefore assume the grammar to contain a rule which informally might be stated as follows:

2.1.1 The building blocks of sentences

This rule introduces a number of symbols to replace words used in (5). The point of this is to make properties of the rules more obvious. Recall that generative linguists insist on making their grammars explicit so that we are able to test and question the assumptions being made and it is easier to see properties of rules when stated as a formula than it is if they are given as a set of linguistic instructions, especially as the rules become more complex.

2.1.7 Rules

This fact does not invalidate this kind of rule for linguistic descriptive purposes. As long as there is only a finite number of rules, a legitimate grammar could be formulated even with a very large number of them. However, if human grammars are constructed of a large number of rules the question is raised of how children could ever learn their grammatical systems. This consideration has lead some linguists to assume that what is needed is a far more restricted set of rules. We will introduce the theory of phrase structure that follows this line of thought in the next chapter.

2.2.2 The object

Overall, we see that the object receives a special treatment in the grammar, though it is treated very differently to subjects.

3.1.3 Heads and Complements

But if the structural rules of the grammar are themselves so general as to not make reference to categories how do categorial features come to be in structures? One would have thought that if all the grammar is constructed from are rules that tell us how phrases are shaped in general, then there should only be one kind of phrase: an XP.

3.1.3 Heads and Complements

In this way we can see that categorial features are actually projected into structures from the lexicon. This makes a lot of sense given that categorial properties are to a large extent idiosyncratic to the words involved in an expression and are not easily predicted without knowing what words a sentence is constructed from. Things which are predictable, such as that all phrases have heads which may be flanked by a specifier to its left and a complement to its right, are what are expressed by the X-bar rules. Thus we have a major split between idiosyncratic properties, which rightly belong in the lexicon, and general and predictable properties which rightly belong in the grammar.

3.1.4 Specifiers

In general we will find that specifiers are occupied by certain arguments of a predicate or by elements with a certain specified property which relates to the head. This second class of specifiers can only be discussed after a good deal more of the grammar has been established, so we will put these to one side for the moment.

3.2 Theoretical Aspects of Movement

In (49a), the pronoun him is interpreted as the object as it is sitting in the complement position. Harry on the other hand is the subject and is sitting in a specifier position. In (49b) it is the other way round: He is the subject, sitting in the specifier position, and Harry is the object, sitting in the complement position. If who in (46) is interpreted as object, we should expect it to occupy the object position. The grammar that we will be adopting in this book assumes that this is exactly the case: the interrogative pronoun does indeed sit in the object position at some level of description of this sentence. However, at another level of description, the interrogative pronoun is in another position, one at the beginning of the clause. The assumption then is that this element undergoes a movement which takes it from the object position into the sentence initial position.

3.2 Theoretical Aspects of Movement

Movement processes turn out to be a central aspect of grammar in many languages and we will see many instances of it in this book. In this section we will introduce the main theoretical considerations relating to movement processes and which play a role in the description of virtually all English sentences.

3.2.1 Move α

This might not seem a very wise kind of rule to allow in a grammar as it would seem to sanction complete chaos and English does not appear to be anything near chaotic in its grammatical organisation.

3.2.2.1 D-structure and Theta Theory

We have now reviewed three simple and basic principles which regulate the assignment of Θ-roles within a structure: the Locality Condition on Theta-role Assignment, the UTAH and the Theta Criterion. All of these apply to D-structures, restricting the distribution of arguments at this level of representation. Collectively, the principles which govern Θ-role assignment are often referred to as Theta Theory and this can be considered as a part of the grammar, similar to the principles of X-bar theory which regulate the general formation of structures. A final important contributor to the well-formedness conditions of D-structure is the lexicon which provides structures with categorial information and Theta theory with the Θ-roles to be assigned. We might represent this in the following way:

5.2.4 Transitive verbs

It is time we turned our attention to those verbs that traditional grammars seem to consider more central: transitive and intransitive verbs. What we have said so far has far reaching repercussions for the analysis of these verbal subcategories. We will start discussing these with respect to the transitives.

5.2.8 Verbs with clausal complements

An obvious question to ask is where the clausal complement sits with respect to the verb. There are a number of possibilities. In some ways the clausal complement is rather like an object, which is what leads traditional grammars to conclude that these verbs are transitives. For instance, many of these verbs can appear with an object, sometimes with a similar meaning to the clausal complement:

6.1 The structure of IP

In the previous chapter, we analysed the morphemes in (5b) and (c) as light verbs heading a vP and so the status of the embedded ‘clauses’ in these examples is unclear at the moment: they may be clauses (i.e. IPs) or they may be simple vPs. We will not attempt to deal with this issue here, returning to it in a later chapter. But there are some similarities between these clauses and the infinitival clause in (5a) which are useful to consider. Traditionally, those clauses containing a finite inflection are called finite clauses and those containing a non-finite inflection are non-finite clauses. Thus the relationship between the inflection and the clauses has been long acknowledged. I suspect that the relative semantic unimportance of inflections and the lack of recognition of their syntactic importance have contributed to the fact that traditional grammars have failed to recognise them as heads.