Subjacency: Difference between revisions
Leskapaulina (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Leskapaulina (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{AFC submission|t||ts=20130418073101|u=Leskapaulina|ns=5}} <!--- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. ---> |
{{AFC submission|t||ts=20130418073101|u=Leskapaulina|ns=5}} <!--- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. ---> |
||
'''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 [[Bounding Theory]]. The revised definition from Chomsky (1977) is as follows: |
'''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 [[Bounding Theory]]. The revised definition from Chomsky (1977) is as follows: |
||
| Line 21: | Line 22: | ||
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: |
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) |
|||
[[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 yelding the sentence ungrammatical. |
|||
(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== |
==Notes== |
||
Revision as of 11:45, 20 April 2013
 | This article, Subjacency, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. Please check to see if the reviewer has accidentally left this template after accepting the draft and take appropriate action as necessary.
Reviewer tools: Inform author |
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 Bounding Theory. The revised definition 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" (Chomsky 1977: 73).
(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. These evidence were further interpreted in terms of the Bounding Theory and Subjacency condition in the following way:
(1) whoi did [AGRP Mary think [CP ti [AGRP John saw ti ]]]
(2) *whoi did [AGRP John ask [CP whenj [AGRP ti fixed the car tj ]]]
(3) *whoi did [AGRP John believe [DP the statement [CP ti that [AGRP Bill hit ti ]]]][1]
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 yelding the sentence ungrammatical.
(2)
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)
Notes
- ^ 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.
- 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.