so1seg on Be “There are three things in life you must never run after: a bus, a woman and a theory of transformational grammat. There will be another one along in a moment’, commented one wellknown, linguist: Chomsky's 1980s grammar ~ his so~alled Government and Binding (GB) approach ~ was radically different from the Standard Theory, and his 1990s proposals — his Minimalist rogram ~ are further away stil. In his latest version, he has even abandoned transformations! This chapter presents a bird'seye view of his recent ideas. It explains what the grammar is trying to do in general, and glosses over the intricate technical details. More information on these are presented in the works suggested for further reading at the end of the book. Universal Grammar (UG) Chomsky has become particularly concerned with the learnability problem. How do children. manage to leara language 0 efficiently? They mist, he. assumes, be born quipped with Universal Grammar’ (UG), «basic outline Ienowedge of key language properts. But if UG is inbui in the brain, why are languages so diferent from one another? UG, he argues only potally wed op. Children are born with an inbuil knowledge of basic linguistic ciples, but these need supplementing. The inherited FRamework must be backed up with parameters hat have to be fixed by experience’. A parameter is an essential property with inbuilevanation. Tor example, temperature is a'paramcter of the atmosphere: temperature must always exist, But is set each day t diferent level. Fechaps youngsters are faced with am array of linguistic suites, he stggests, which have to be switched one way oF another. They would instinctively know the basic options, but Would need to find out which had been selected by the language they were learning. Once they had discovered this, multiple repercussions would follow ~ just as if, sa, animals had ro opt for air or water a¢ their basic eaviconment, which would in turn bring about @ ‘numberof inevitable consequences. A simple decision to choose one option athe thn nether a a arta pit would ave ‘repercussions throughout the grammar. Relatively few decsions ‘nay ned oe made, but they would have farseaching efets nk labled this ame Pini ond Parmeter 1 ed ares natn ecet ork Ge ie PRINCIPLES: sige 184 «pombe opon points az till ezlatie thoghsome Te rob ot Fae, win pra om sans ae ahi th head ruin Word) por ch mh ee gi FP ap there ra the end (as in Turkish, which says, as it were, the tree «p). Tae th ed Ti tn oof women Pot we es gio tes eck = Tes who fol dona br ie voc engage each ae Tak, eurn oot ave a te Rhee dain ol on broke a sree mg tant rug opin. Thre might ean Ceca Bawa angge c slow t = rae Fees spear dep ee ple ala + proto i eaeee ce Bee inion soreaci trata” a tla ely the sxond oto, the one withthe pronoun, sa ie ld hive epee OAC por, The rah at pestle exam, oo bagah ene staple thongs her Hebi oe sei (221 ea 041208oman o_ This has a corresponding question: Who did Angela think was stupid? For some strange reason, the word that has to be omitted in the {uestion. You cannot say "Who did Angela think that was stupid This odd fact seems to be characteristic of nompro-drop languages, Pro-drop languages suchas Italian seem able leave In che long run, linguists hope to specify al ofthe crucial option points, and their repercussions. These then would have to. be built into the overall framework. IF this is ever achieved. then linguists will have gone a long way towards achieving’ these ultimate goal of specifying UC: From deep structure to D-structure Supecfcilly, the most ubvious difference between the 1980s TG and the 1960s Standard one was the renaming of ste of the essential ingredients, so as not to confuse them with the old cones. Deep structure im its altered form was telabelled D- structure, and the revised suiface structure was relabeled structure, The old semantic representation was superseded by LE ‘logical form’, and the phonetic representation mas labelled DF ‘phonetic form’ (Figure 18.2). Destcture S-stueturs eo Pe fa ‘gue 182 ‘These. levels were linked by processes which ad certain supecticial resemblances to the older style TG: PS rules specified the Destructure. Deseructure and Structure were linked by transformational operations, though {as discussed. in the Brevious chapter) the transformational component was a mere ‘shadow ofits former sel. PF rules converted the Structure imo. PE and LF rules converted the S-seructure into LE (Hgure 18.3), Sinue 18.3 Howeves, not one of these levels was teuly similar ro the Comparable level in an old style TG, mor ere the rules which pete on them the same For example, the LE rubs and LE Couns 2 considerable amount of material which belonged Strictly tothe syntax in a Standard TG “ar » Government and binding papel el bone pa ‘ually referred to as goverumenc-bigding theory, or GB, This sergio ae een Suess ce eee foe 4 Tong time, in that it has long been socogaized that some cee te eae ref le as sr ough et teen corecaroe ffcomaareee have a lar ending. In the be ior rare fore s ss word gon ats tomes aed) an, x NP NS ‘overs ot e NP. Posey. figue 184 bere) However, quite often there is an trond lat fen there isan important relationship been watt are on different branches and on diferent eels Drusilla bad a dream about berslf (P igure 18.5), Prusilé and herself are on diferent branches, rnceds to be carefully specified, since one could alter the sentence around, It is impossible to sy, [Herself bad a dream about Drusilla. Drusilla bad a dream: about Peter Kissing herself ‘not random) for example Pe W ge Drusila had tiga 185 team ‘about herself aR ae es ie Furthermore, itis important co understand the relationship in wonder to interpeet sentences properly. Consider the sentences: Henry read the report about Toby stabbing himself. Henry read the report about Toby stabbing him. cis essential to realize that Toby was stabbed in the frst sentence but Henry (or someone else) in the second. A major part of Chomsky’ GB theory was to try and specify ‘xacly which pars of tees fflance one anode, and which ‘an be linked in thie interpretation. He and his followers tried to draw up a wider notion of government, known as command. A paneiple known as command (from ‘consttwent command?) specified which constituents have power over others in a total tee structure, There was some dispuce about exactly how co phrase command, but in general (and somewhat simplified), ie said that when a node branched, items on the fist branch had Some influence over those onthe second branch, irespective of how high or low on the tree they came. So, in Figure 18.5 (p. 224), the first NP Drusilla e-commands the VP, and every niode under it. The main ver had ccommands the NP following, and every node under it, and so on. The notion of e-command enabled one to specify relationships and restictions becween different pars of the sentence. For example, one could say that the word herself in the sentence about Drusilla must be é-commanded by the person referred '0. “This would preclade impossible sentences sich as “Herself had a dream about Drvsilla, Furthermore, the notion could be used with other constructions, such as The politicians argued with one another ‘One could specify that a phrase such as ome another must be «e-commanded by the phrase it refers back to, so precluding: “Each other argued with the politicians More generally, one could say that words which rcfer back to Shere eetonally Ease a onaphors have" to be © commanded by the words they refer back to, their antecedents ‘Therefore, a gonerlseractarl relationship, shat of -command, could enable one to specify quite simply’ 2 large number of apparently separate restitions, which wowld have had to be Stated one by ove in an ol style transformational grammar.omaen Binding is srongly interinked with the gly ine the notion of e-comman Brea Bing pence med that wien to Ni are cod indeed sf he seme thing o eon, a ih Maga in erat largo cat eth ~ thon he antec (int) maa can the saz her eh Hy ‘ropely bound: in odbc words, thee was s proper lnk berween the two NPs In contrast a eequence sich ats “Herself ct Marigold woul be inpoestle, beau bre wat Binding iated aon aoe ttccaton of pete dee ‘ome he ence ene sh say en storw br Bex Sic sci, ple examplen and i ook a fine ight anf one cold fat teokae al ths by saving accents cas belo saanboed ieee lag etal cnn ten pepaon as oesesees ge tos four Who did Marigold cai cut heel? “he surface eructere ofthis enter woud be something ik Who did Marigold cao herelh. We nced fairly detailed mechanisms to spec feel nd anand ho Siowitpoes © cea and Boel together rater than Margold and heel foe ‘trace’ was explained on p. 213}. : nee To summarizes a he government an pei conmensd odie clabeans vanes aie Ke'ipedfed which constituents had. power over ers, the coveral purpose being to expres simply and clearly which odes gna ee vse mented Oy ran ink wore pssh and Shao and doerbing etic hee Broadening the range pata atat = ee ger me lle metine, te hs GO version, Senirainare nr rte GB model was the first within the Principles and Parameters (ip) framework (p. 221). Itcontained a mamber of feo Components, or modules, each Tit aaa species the pronunciation. The end-point is mesrio cu which Fond, and pronunciation on the other (gure 18.5, p.228) ‘The linguistic principles which guide the system are still only see LP ar they are esentlly principles of ‘economy’ oF Sanlig. The mos straightforward is Shortest Move, Consider the sentence: ‘Angela bas asked Henry to fit ind ber hat ————— ee eaieeq on cea 8btom ciem Bl = MEANING PRONUNCIATION figue 186 Seppose you wanted to query soho Angela had asked and what she wanted found. Angela bas asked wha to find what? Normally any word beginning with wh is brought to the front a sentence. But in this ease, only the wh-word which orice ‘the shortest distance can come forward: iti possible to sup Who has Angela asked to find what? But is impossible ro sayz *What has Angela asked who to find? This i the type oF broad-ranging linguistic principle which Chomsky is hoping to identify, though, as he himself anion ‘much remains to be done. ‘Current formulation of such ides? still eaves substantial gaps’, he comments, Future prospects Chomsky’s model of language is not the only model being Horked on, as was pointed out in Chapter 3, However, ical fas more adherents than any other model, whichis why it hos been given prominence in this book. Par (Pon Py? 11 What is meant by Principles and Parameters (Por 2 What do the terms D-structure, S-structure, LF and PF mean? ‘3 What do the terms government and ¢=command mean? 4 What isthe Minimalist Program?