Subjacency: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 05:04, 7 November 2023

Subjacency is a general syntactic locality constraint on movement. It specifies restrictions placed on movement and regards it as a strictly local process. This term was first defined by Noam Chomsky in 1973 and constitutes the main concept of the Government and Binding Theory. The revised definition of subjacency from Chomsky (1977) is as follows: "A cyclic rule cannot move a phrase from position Y to position X (or conversely) in … X … [α… [β… Y … ] … ] … X …, where α and β are cyclic nodes. Cyclic nodes are S and NP",^[1] (where S=Sentence and NP=Noun Phrase).

This principle states that no movement can move an element over more than one bounding node at a time. In more recent frameworks, bounding nodes which are hurdles to movement are AgrP (Agreement phrase) and DP (Determiner phrase) (S and NP in Chomsky’s definition respectively). Therefore, Subjacency condition limits movement by defining bounding nodes. It also accounts for the fact that all movements are local.

The subjacency condition in examples

The notion of bounding was first observed in the early generative grammar by, for instance, John R. Ross (1967). He noticed that movement is impossible out of certain phrases called Extraction islands. This evidence was further interpreted in terms of the Government and Binding Theory and Subjacency condition in the following way:

(1) who_i did [_AGRP Bill think [_CP t_i [_AGRP John saw t_i ]]]

(2) *who_i did [_AGRP John ask [_CP when_j [_AGRP t_i fixed the car t_j ]]]

(3) *who_i did [_AGRP John believe [_DP the statement [_CP t_i that [_AGRP Bill hit t_i ]]]]^[2]

In (1) the wh-element moves out of the object position of the embedded clause via cyclic movement, crossing only one AgrP at a time. Thereby, it respects the Subjacency condition and the sentence is grammatical. The details of this movement are presented in the diagram below:

(1)

As the specifier of CP position is empty in (1), the wh-element may use it as an escape hatch before moving further. In the example (2), on the other hand, the specifier of CP position is already taken and the wh-element moves over two AgrP at a time, violating the Subjacency condition and yielding the ungrammatical sentence.

Notes

^ (Chomsky 1977: 73)
^ For more examples see Cook and Newson (2007).

References

Chomsky, Noam. 1973. "Conditions on Transformations". In: S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.). A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 232-286.
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. Essays on form and interpretation. New York: North-Holland.
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Cook, Vivian J. and Mark Newson. 2007. Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. [Published doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].
Ross, John R. 1986. Infinite syntax!. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX.

[1] (Chomsky 1977: 73)

[2] For more examples see Cook and Newson (2007).

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{multiple issues|
-{{Orphan|date=May 2013}}
 {{More footnotes|date=April 2013}}
-}}
-'''Subjacency''' is a general syntactic [[locality (linguistics)|locality]] constraint on [[syntactic movement|movement]]. It specifies restrictions placed on movement and regards it as a strictly local process. This term was first defined by [[Noam Chomsky]] in 1973 and constitutes the main concept of the [[Bounding Theory]]. The revised definition of subjacency from Chomsky (1977) is as follows: "A cyclic rule cannot move a phrase from position Y to position X (or conversely) in … X … [α… [β… Y … ] … ] … X …, where α and β are cyclic nodes. Cyclic nodes are S and NP",<ref>(Chomsky 1977: 73)</ref> (where S=[[Sentence (linguistics)|Sentence]] and NP=[[Noun Phrase]]).
+'''Subjacency''' is a general syntactic [[locality (linguistics)|locality]] constraint on [[syntactic movement|movement]]. It specifies restrictions placed on movement and regards it as a strictly local process. This term was first defined by [[Noam Chomsky]] in 1973 and constitutes the main concept of the [[Government and Binding Theory]]. The revised definition of subjacency from Chomsky (1977) is as follows: "A cyclic rule cannot move a phrase from position Y to position X (or conversely) in … X … [α… [β… Y … ] … ] … X …, where α and β are cyclic nodes. Cyclic nodes are S and NP",<ref>(Chomsky 1977: 73)</ref> (where S=[[Sentence (linguistics)|Sentence]] and NP=[[Noun Phrase]]).
-This principle states that no movement can move an element over more than one [[bounding node]] at a time. In more recent frameworks, [[bounding nodes]] which are hurdles to movement are AgrP ([[Agreement Phrase]]) and DP ([[Determiner Phrase]]) (S and NP in Chomsky’s definition respectively). Therefore, Subjacency condition limits movement by defining [[bounding nodes]]. It also accounts for the fact that all movements are local.
+This principle states that no movement can move an element over more than one [[bounding node]] at a time. In more recent frameworks, [[bounding nodes]] which are hurdles to movement are AgrP ([[Agreement phrase]]) and DP ([[Determiner phrase]]) (S and NP in Chomsky’s definition respectively). Therefore, Subjacency condition limits movement by defining [[bounding nodes]]. It also accounts for the fact that all movements are local.
 == The subjacency condition in examples ==
-The notion of bounding was first observed in the early [[generative grammar]] by, for instance, [[John R. Ross]] (1967). He noticed that movement is impossible out of certain phrases called [[Extraction island]]s. These evidence were further interpreted in terms of the [[Bounding Theory]] and Subjacency condition in the following way:
+The notion of bounding was first observed in the early [[generative grammar]] by, for instance, [[John R. Ross]] (1967). He noticed that movement is impossible out of certain phrases called [[Extraction island]]s. This evidence was further interpreted in terms of the [[Government and Binding Theory]] and Subjacency condition in the following way:
-(1) who<sub>i</sub> did [<sub>AGRP</sub> Mary think [<sub>CP</sub> t<sub>i</sub> [<sub>AGRP</sub> John saw t<sub>i</sub> ]]]
+(1) who<sub>i</sub> did [<sub>AGRP</sub> Bill think [<sub>CP</sub> t<sub>i</sub> [<sub>AGRP</sub> John saw t<sub>i</sub> ]]]
 (2) *who<sub>i</sub> did [<sub>AGRP</sub> John ask [<sub>CP</sub> when<sub>j</sub> [<sub>AGRP</sub> t<sub>i</sub> fixed the car t<sub>j</sub> ]]]
 (3) *who<sub>i</sub> did [<sub>AGRP</sub> John believe [<sub>DP</sub> the statement [<sub>CP</sub> t<sub>i</sub> that [<sub>AGRP</sub> Bill hit t<sub>i</sub> ]]]]<ref>For more examples see Cook and Newson (2007).</ref>
 In (1) the ''[[Wh-word|wh]]''-element moves out of the object position of the [[embedded clause]] via [[cyclic movement]], crossing only one AgrP at a time. Thereby, it respects the Subjacency condition and the sentence is grammatical. The details of this movement are presented in the diagram below:
 (1)
 [[File:Rys1.jpg]]
-As the [[specifier]] of CP position is empty in (1), the ''wh''-element may use it as an escape hatch before moving further. In the example (2), on the other hand, the [[specifier]] of CP position is already taken and the ''wh''-element moves over two AgrP at a time, violating the Subjacency condition and yielding the ungrammatical sentence.
+As the [[Specifier (linguistics)|specifier]] of CP position is empty in (1), the ''wh''-element may use it as an escape hatch before moving further. In the example (2), on the other hand, the [[Specifier (linguistics)|specifier]] of CP position is already taken and the ''wh''-element moves over two AgrP at a time, violating the Subjacency condition and yielding the ungrammatical sentence.
-(2)
-[[File:Rys22.jpg]]
-In (3), though the [[specifier]] of CP position may be used as a stopping-off point for the ''wh''-element in the first step, the next movement crosses over both DP and AgrP at a time, resulting in ungrammaticality.
-(3)
-[[File:Rys33.jpg]]
 == Notes ==
@@ Line 42: / Line 31: @@
 *Chomsky, Noam. 1977. Essays on form and interpretation. New York: North-Holland.
 *Chomsky, Noam. 1981. [[Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures]]. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
-*Cook, Vivian J. and Mark Newson. 2007. Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
+*Cook, Vivian J. and Mark Newson. 2007. ''[[Chomsky's Universal Grammar: An Introduction]]''. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 *Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. [Published doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].
 *Ross, John R. 1986. Infinite syntax!. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX.
-[[Category:Syntax]]
+[[Category:Generative syntax]]
 [[Category:Syntactic transformation]]