ทฤษฎีไวยากรณ์

284 9
3. -

4.
5.

10

(Extended Standard Theory)

10.1 1970:

1970

()

Standard Theory) (Extended Standard Theory (EST))
1965 (Revised Extended

(assumption)

286 10

(Principles and Parameters Theory)
. . 1965

1) :
2)
(Lexicalist Hypothesis)
10.2
X-Bar Theory (surface
structure interpretation)
:

Support)) 287
( do (Do

1960

(cross-linguistics generalization)
1970 (constraints)

1964 (Chomsky 1964)

The gravest defect of the theory of transformational grammar
is its enormous latitude and descriptive power. Virtually
anything can be expressed as a phrase marker, i.e., a properly

288 10
parenthesized expression with parenthesized segments
assigned to categories. Virtually any imaginable rule can be
described in transformational terms. Therefore a critical
problem in making transformational grammar a substantive
theory with explanatory force is to restrict the category of
admissible phrase marker, admissible transformations
and admissible derivations.

()

(Chomsky 1972: 124ff Webelhuth 1995:22)

(John Robert Ross)
1967 "Constraints on Variables in Syntax"

289
1970

10.2.1

(cyclic application)
(clause)

9
1970
(Movement Rules)

10.2.1.1 (Islands Constraints)
(Ross 1967)

290 10

" "" " (Islands
Constraints) Ross ""

""
""

(

Newmeyer 1980 Van

Riemsdijk 1986) "
"

(1) (Complex NP
Constraint)

(head)

291

(noun complement clause)
(relative clause)

* [ NPwho] do you believe [NP[NPthe claim[S that Bill saw [NP e ]]]]
___________________________________________|

who the claim
saw ( [NP e ])

(head)

do you believe [NP the claim [ S that Bill saw [ NP Mary] ]]

*[NPwhich problem]did Bill found[NP[NPa principle[Swhich[NPe] solves
[NP e ]]]]

__________________________________________ |

292 10

solves ( which problem
) [NP e ])

( (head)
a principle

Did Bill find [NP[NPa principle[Swhich [NPe] solves[NPthe problem ]]]]

(2) (Sentential
Subject Constraint)

293

* [NP what] [NP [S that John will eat [NP e ]]] is likely?
___________________________|

what

That john will eat....( [NP e ])

That John will eat …

[NP [S that John will eat [NP horse meat ] ]] is likely.

(3) (Coordinate Structure
Constraint)

294 10

* [NP what] was John eating [NP [beans] and [NP e ]]

_________________________________|

what

( [NP e ]) (beans)

was John eating [NP [beans] and [NP vegetables] ]
(4) (Left Branch Constraint)

NP
NP

*[NP whose] did you like [NP ___ [N book]]
____________________|

whose

295

did you like [NP [NP Stephen King’s ] [N book]]

10.2.1.2 (Chomsky Conditions)

1973 "Condition on Transformations"

(1) 1 (Tensed S Condition, TSC)
X... [ ....Y....].... [. .....Y.......]...X.....

XY

1 (Tensed Sentence/Clause)

296 10
(:

)

* [NP John] is likely [S' that [NP e ] will leave early ]
X....................[ ................Y..............................]
_______________________

S' Y [NP e ])
John S' ( X S')

S' (

()

(2) (Specified Subject
Condition, SSC)

.......X.....[ .........Z...........W Y V........]
[ .............Z..............W Y V...............]...........X..........

Z (= )

297

WYV (cyclic node)2
NP
X S
Y
(:

)

* [NP Harry is expected [S' Bill to beat [NP e ] ]
X...................... [ . Z ....W......Y.......V.....
____________________________

S' Bill Y
Harry (cyclic node)
Bill (
Bill ( )
/)
X ()

2 (cyclic node)

(bounding node) (NP) (S)

298 10

(3) / (Subjacency
Condition)3

X...[. ...[ .Y...]] [ ....[ ....Y .....]]...X...
(bounding node)
XY

(:
1)

*[NP Who] do you believe [NP the claim [S' that Bill saw [NP e ] ] ]
X................... ..[. ................. [ .........................Y
_________________________________________________

[NP Who] Y
S' ()

NP [NP Who]
X
2

( NP S')

3 Chomsky (1977) Chomsky (1973)
(cyclic
:
node) 2

299
1 NP S'

10.2.2

10.2.2.1 (Structure Preserving
Constraint) 1960

(Passive)

(Joseph Emonds)

MIT (Emonds 1970) “Root
and Structure Preserving Transformations”

()

300 10

(
(empty node))

Germany was defeated by Russia
( NP

PP)
Russia

Russia NP
German

301

1) (
)
()

2)

10.2.2.2 “ ” (Trace)

(extraction site)
(gap) (trace)

302 10

1973) (Wasow 1972) (Chomsky
(Wh Trace) Wh
(NP Trace)
(variable) Wh Wh

(bound) (quantifier)
Wh

te

(index)

(Empty Category)

303

COMP S' S
NP
VP

V NP

[ NP who ] i you saw ei

COMP Wh (Who)
saw NP
NP
e i

10.2.2.3

" " (ad hoc)
(Structural Description)

304 10

(
wh- who, which)

Wh (Wh Movement)

(Relative Clause) "
(Topicalization) Wh-
Wh-" (Move Wh)

COMP4 Wh-
(Clause)

(NP

Movement)
(Passivization)

(Raising) John seems to have left.
John to have left

4 S’ COMP S COMP
(Complementizer)

Bresnan (1970)
“Conditions on Transformations” (Chomsky 1973)

305

Wh
“”

Wh- 2
2 (

“

)” (Move , Move Alpha)

306 10 )

10.3 Lexicalist Hypothesis (

10.3.1

“Remarks on Nominalization” . . 1970
. .1967

“ ”

“ (semantic representation)
” (universal semantic primes)
(derive)
/

(grammatical category) enjoy
( ) enjoyable ( )

307

I enjoy movies.
Movies are enjoyable to me.

(grammatical

category)

2

1) (derived nominals)

-ion, -ism

308 10 (gerundive nominals)
-ing
2)

destroy Derived Nominals Gerundive Nominals
marry Destruction Destroying
try Marriage Marrying
revolve Trial Trying
Revolution Revolving

. . 1957 1965
(derived nominals)
(Robert Lees)
“The Grammar of English Nominalization”
1960

(Nominalization)

1. a. The enemy destroyed the city
b. The city was destroyed by the enemy.

2. a. The enemy’s destruction of the city.
b. The city’s destruction by the enemy.

309

1 2.
(Nominalization) ( ab

(Passivization))

() S ( ) NP
destroyed destruction

2
1

310 10

the author of this book The enemy’s destruction of the city

a symphony by Beethoven The city’s destruction by the enemy.

/

(Phrase Structure Rule)

(redundant) to roam, to speak
2 -al,

-ment, -ion

311
( van Riemsdijk and Williams 1986 : 37)

prove Proof * proval * provement * provation
refuse * refuse Refusal * refusement * refusion
amuse * amuse * amusal amusement * amusation
destroy * destruct * destroyal * destroyment Destruction

*

productive 2
(
-ing)
( -ing)

revolution revolve
()

312 10 (
)

(idiosyncratic properties)

(lexical property)
(Lexicon)

(Base Component)

10.3.2

(lexical entry)

(selectional restriction and
subcategorization)

313

criticize
criticism

Rule)5 (Lexical Redundancy
(base generated)

(Lexicalist Hypothesis)6

()

5 (Jackendoff 1975)

(Lexical Redundancy Rules) (

Jackendoff 1977)

6

(Transformationalist)

314 10 )

(
(selectional restriction)

(Base Component)

(Lexicon)

(Lexical-Funcional Grammar),
HPSG (Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar)

10.3.3

10.3.3.1 :

X-Bar Theory

315

(
2a. The enemy’s destruction of the city )

1a. The
enemy destroyed the city.

2

1) destruction
(grammatical relation) [

2a. [ NP the enemy] [ NP the
destroy 1a.
NP the enemy] destroy 1a.

city] destruction 2a.

2)

(subcategorization/cooccurrence restriction)

destroy destruction

316 10

1a. 2a.

2

(head)

1a. destroy ( )

2a. destruction ( )

work afraid of Bill (of Bill
afraid), pleased with this work. (this
generalization)
X pleased)
7(cross category-
X(
X (lexical category)
X' )

(head)

X' X Complement

(Complement ( )
X
X)

7

317

V' V Complement
N' N Complement
A' A Complement
P' P Complement

X ()
X
1
X'' ) =
( Spec)
X(
X'' Specifier

SpecX 8 X'

V'' SpecV V'
N'' SpecN N'
A'' SpecA A'
P'' SpecP P'

8 Chomsky 1970 Spec X' [Spec, X']

318 10 SpecN Determiner

SpecV
SpecA Degree

S N'' V''

(

) SpecX X'
X Complement
X''
X'

X''

Spec X'

X Complement

X X

( X' X
(Projection) X X'')

319

X Theory ( X X Convention
(X-Bar))

3a. 3b. ( Chomsky 1970:
211 52 51)

3a. John proved the theorem ( 52 Chomsky)

S

N'' V''

[Spec, V'] V'

V N''

John past prove the theorem

3b. Several of John's proofs of the theorem ( 51
Chomsky)

[Spec, N'] N'' N''
[+def, N''] N' the theorem

several John N
[ prove, pl ]

320 10

(endocentric) (
(head)

(head))

" "(Rewriting Rule) (context
free)

AZ

VP A PP (
) PP NP AP VP V

321
VV

X-bar

( )
(category)

(head)

3a

3b 'prove'
(N'')

3a 3b

322 10

2 [prove the
theorem] "prove"
/
selectional feature
John) (

"prove"
(feature)

(syntactic feature)
(syntactic categories)
" " (lexical category)
" " (phrasal category)

(Chomsky 1972: 8-61)

(major categories) 4 (Noun), (Verb),

(Adjective) (Preposition)

2 VN

+N -N
+ V Adjective Verb
- V Noun Preposition

323

+V (Surface Structure

(Jackendoff 1977)
10.3.3.2

Interpretation)

(anaphora) (quantification)
Interpretivism

Syntactic Structures

324 10

sentence) (quantificational
(active) ""

(passive)

(Chomsky 1957: 100-101)

a) Everyone in the classroom knows at least two
languages.
b) At least two languages are known by everyone in the
room.

2
a)
2 b)

2

(scope) a) b)
at least two) (Quantifier) 2
b)
( every
a)

a) [for every x, x a person [ there are at
least two languages y [ x knows y]]]

325

b) [there are two languages y [for every
x, x a person [ x knows y ]]]

a) b)

a) b)
a) b)

( )
a) b)

(anaphora) (coreference)
(antecedent) (anaphora)

(antecedent) ()
(Pronominalization)

that he will win. 'he' John thinks
John (John think that John will win.)

(coreference)

326 10

a) A picture of John upset him.
b) He was upset by a picture of John.

John a) him
him
John upset John) John ( : A picture of
Pronominalization John

b)

(active) a)

he John

'he'

(Pronominalization) (Passive)

A picture of John upset John

him a)
he John
b)
(John)

a) Sue hit Bill, the Fred kicked the poor guy.

The poor guy 327
Bill.

(antecedent)
(epithets)

( Bill) (the poor guy)

Interpretivist
(Interpretive Rules)

Interpretivist

328 10

(Binding Theory)
1980.

10.4

(Extended Standard Theory)
( Van Riemsdijk and Williams

1986: 172)

329
1) 2

X-Bar Theory
(Lexicon)

(subcategorization)

- (D-Structure)
(Thematic

Structure) -
2)
-
3) - (S-Structure)
(traces)
-
1970

330 10 (anaphora
Move- (
-
-(
(Thematic Structure)
interpretation) )

)

1980 (Syntax)
3

1)

- (D-

Structure)

- -
2) - (S-Structure)

- ""

331

""
Logical Form

(LF)
3)

Phonetic Form (PF)

_________________________

332 10

( 10)

1.

2. “ ”

3. :

(Islands Constraints),

(Complex NP Constraint),

(Sentential Subject Constraint),

(Coordinate Structure Constraint),

(Left Branch Constraint), (Tensed

S Condition, TSC), (Specified

Subject Condition, SSC), /

(Subjacency Condition), (Structure

Preserving Constraint)

4. (trace) “”

5.
6. (Lexicalist)
7.

8.
9. (Lexicalist)

(Transformationalist)

( )

10. (X-Bar Theory) 333
“
”
11. “

12. ”
“”“ ”
1980
13.