685
edits
Syntax: Difference between revisions
m
→Movement
No edit summary |
m (→Movement) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Generativist syntacticians say that sentences have a "deep structure" that adheres to universal grammar, but various language-specific constraints transform this into the "surface structure" when the sentence gets actually realized. One important such transformation is '''syntactic movement'''. | Generativist syntacticians say that sentences have a "deep structure" that adheres to universal grammar, but various language-specific constraints transform this into the "surface structure" when the sentence gets actually realized. One important such transformation is '''syntactic movement'''. | ||
For example, English has something called ''wh-movement'': when we turn a sentence like "Mary wants Bill to dance" into a wh-question, we say "'''Who''' | For example, English has something called ''wh-movement'': when we turn a sentence like "Mary wants Bill to dance" into a wh-question, we say "'''Who does''' Mary want () to dance?". | ||
The generative explanation for this is that the question has a deep structure like "Mary wants '''who''' to dance?", and then for pragmatic reasons, the question word moves to the front of the sentence and gets supported by "does". There is a '''trace''' marked by () in the spot where "who" moved from. | The generative explanation for this is that the question has a deep structure like "Mary wants '''who''' to dance?", and then for pragmatic reasons, the question word moves to the front of the sentence and gets supported by "does". There is a '''trace''' marked by () in the spot where "who" moved from. | ||
There is good evidence for wh- | There is good evidence for wh-traces. English speakers tend to agree that we can't contract the question to "Who does Mary wanna dance?" — we can imagine the wh-trace between "want to" is there, unpronounced, but blocking the contraction. | ||
Note that the claim is ''not'' that the deep-structure sentence first forms in the speaker's mind, and is then rearranged into surface-structure. The temporal "before and after" perspective on movement is only a useful metaphor for a language's grammar rules. | Note that the claim is ''not'' that the deep-structure sentence first forms in the speaker's mind, and is then rearranged into surface-structure. The temporal "before and after" perspective on movement is only a useful metaphor for a language's grammar rules. | ||
=== Movement in Toaq === | === Movement in Toaq === | ||
The [https://i.imgur.com/iHH8gud.png tree] for a sentence like {{t|Nỏaq jí kúe nha}} indicates an SVO deep structure: <code>jí nỏaq kúe</code>. What's going on? | The [https://i.imgur.com/iHH8gud.png tree] for a sentence like {{t|Nỏaq jí kúe nha}} indicates an SVO deep structure: <code>jí <s>nỏaq</s> kúe</code>. What's going on? | ||
The generativist "verb phrase" has the verb and the object generated side-by-side. Even in VSO natural languages like Irish, there is evidence for verb-and-object VP structures. Meanwhile, there is also some evidence for verb-and-object structures in Toaq: for example, [[prepositional phrase]]s like {{t|tì kúa}}, or genitival [[serial verb]]s like {{t|nỏaq kủe}}. | The generativist "verb phrase" has the verb and the object generated side-by-side. Even in VSO natural languages like Irish, there is evidence for verb-and-object VP structures. Meanwhile, there is also some evidence for verb-and-object structures in Toaq: for example, [[prepositional phrase]]s like {{t|tì kúa}}, or genitival [[serial verb]]s like {{t|nỏaq kủe}}. | ||