Movement as Double Headedness

1
Movement as Double Headedness
Virginia Savova Johns Hopkins University

• Background on Dependency Grammars
• Dependency grammar represents syntactic
  dependencies directly as primitive binary
  relations between words.
• Formally, a dependency grammar consists of a
  lexicon of terminal symbols (words), and an
  inventory of dependency relations specifying
  inter-lexical requirements.
• Usually, set of primitive binary relations set
  of grammatical roles (e.g. subject, object,
  modifier).Hudson
• Alternatively, there is only one primitive
  relation licensed by and grammatical roles are
  configurationally defined Kreps.
• The original definition states that a string is
  generated by a dependency grammar iff
• Every word but one (ROOT word) is dependent on
  another word (no dangling).
• No word is dependent on more than one word (no
  multiple heads).

Word order of wh-questions To derive the correct
word order for the English question, we need to
assume that FIN type heads always pushes both of
its dependents to the right, and that the double
headed element appears only in one position
next to its mutual licenser. To derive the word
order of a wh-in-situ language, we assume that
the double headed element appears only in one
position next to its forced licenser --
analogous to the Move Copy Delete idea
(Chomsky).
Grammatical relations as derivative of the
primitive licensing relation According to one
view, grammatical roles like subject'',
object'', and modifier'' are simply
configurational derivatives of the fundamental
licensing relation. The licensing relation
between a pair words can be of two
types Mutual The head requires the presence of
the dependent and the dependent is sanctioned
solely by the head. Passive The head allows the
presence of the dependent and the dependent is
sanctioned solely by the head. Mutual
contingency relations hold between a head and
what X-bar theory terms its specifier'' and
complement'', while the passive contingency
relation ties the head and an optional adjunct.
Object the mutual dependent of the verb.
Subject the closest mutual dependent M of a
head H such that H
Echo questions, subject wh-questions and
licensing by the auxiliary Assuming WH cannot
license neither FIN, nor a non-wh noun, the
subject of an interrogative clause with a WH head
cannot be licensed unless the auxiliary is
present. In echo questions, WH is not present. As
a result the subject is licensed by FIN and the
wh-word surfaces in its original position. (Fig.
7) The subject-wh question is the only direct
question where the presence of an auxiliary is
not required. We propose that such questions also
lack a WH head altogether, and are rooted in a
FIN head. The FIN head licenses the subject in
the same way as it licenses a declarative subjec.
(Fig. 8)
dominates the verb and M does not.
Valency How to determine whether a given
relation is mutual or passive? We rely on the
notion of valency associated with each lexical
entry. Valency refers to the minimal number and
type of dependents a word actively seeks to
license in a derivation. If the valency of a
transitive verb is two, that of an intransitive
is one. Valency allows us to model mutual from
passive licensing on a word to word basis. It is
an impoverished version of subcategorization.
Conceivably, a licensing relation could also
be Forced The head requires the presence of the
dependent even though the dependent is sanctioned
by another head.
The dependency structure as a graph Relax
requirement II of the original definition of
dependency grammar derivation. Thus, we no longer
require the dependency structure to be a tree ?
in the general case, it is a graph. Consequently,
the structure of (2) does not have to be either
that in Fig 2 or that in Fig.3. Instead, what
depends on both buy and did (Fig 5).
Wh-movement problems with linearization (2)
What did George buy? If we attempt to analyze the
wh-question (2) derived from (1) with a parallel
dependency structure, we will run into problems
with word order. The procedure for
deriving the word order yields a
wh-in-situ did did buy did George buy what
Possible (bad) solutions Formulate principles
of linearization specific to questions
(restatement of the problem). Reanalyze the
dependency structure in Fig. 2 as Fig. 3 (violate
valency of buy).
OUR SOLUTION
The graph structure and the configurational
approach (Fig. 6) Assume that the auxiliary
takes over the role of FIN, licensing the subject
and the verb. What decides the presence of
auxiliary versus FIN? Some functional head
WH. Logically, both the wh-word and did depend
on the WH.
Chomsky, N (1995), Minimalist Program, MIT
Press. Heycock, C and A. Kroch (1993) Verb
movement and coordination in a dynamic theory of
licensing. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen
Linguistik 3675-102. Hudson, R. A. (1984). Word
Grammar. B. Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Kreps, C.
(1996). Dependency, licensing, and the nature of
grammatical relations. In UCL Working Papers in
Linguistics.