The document discusses different theories of linguistics that attempt to explain grammar, including transformational grammar, minimalism, and construction grammar. Transformational grammar proposes that words move between deep and surface structures to explain grammaticality, but critics argue that word movements are not plausible and that meaning should not be ignored. Minimalism aims to reduce unnecessary movements, but if all movement is unnecessary, then generative grammar has no means of explanation. Construction grammar and other theories argue that meaning is an inherent part of words and that language is embodied and connected to other cognitive and social factors beyond a specialized language faculty.

1. Complicated Problems

2. All the categories …

3. … same basic structure

4. Great

5. We want uniform rules

6. For Universal Grammar

7. Everything branches the same way

8. • IP  DetP I’
• Det P  (det) D’
• D’  D NP
• NP  (AdjP) N’
• N’  N
• I’ –> Infl (VP)
• VP  V’
• V’ V (DetP)

9. I like simple problems
• N: I, problems
• A/AdjP: simple
• V: like
• What’s this?

10. I like simple problems
• N: I, problems
• A/AdjP: simple
• V: like
• Information about words?

11. Information about words?
• N: I, problems
• A/AdjP: simple
• V: like
• In our theory of Universal Grammar?

12. Who cares?!
• N: I, problems
• A/AdjP: simple
• V: like
• These are not universal
• Who cares?

13. The lexicon
• Information about words
• And the information words carry
• All theories need some information about
words
• All theories need lexical information
• In Chomskyan linguistics, they tried to keep
this as small as possible

14. Transformations

15. Movement between different levels

16. Deep (D-)structure  Surface (S-
)structure

17. Movement operations explain
grammaticality

18. No problem: it’s grammatical

19. Which books do you know where Taro
bought?

20. Maybe the wh-words are blocking
each other

21. Maybe that’s why it’s ungrammatical

22. Is it ungrammatical?

23. Chomskyans: Yes, of course it is!

24. Really?

25. Anyway – transformations explain
grammar

26. Transformations explain our brains!

27. Very powerful – very deep

28. Chomsky is the winner!

29. Hooray!

30. Finished! Bye bye!!!!!!

31. Not quite
• Not everyone agreed
• Were they crazy?
• Transformational Grammar is neat
• Transformational Grammar is tidy
• Transformational Grammar is easy to
understand
• Why didn’t they agree?

32. Some people didn’t believe it!

33. These are really Universal Rules?

34. Does it really work?!

35. And why are words moving around?

36. Moving around?!?!

37. It’s NOT believable

38. Not plausible

39. OK, movement seems strange
• Also, Transformational Grammar tries to
ignore lexical information
• Tries to ignore information carried by words
• That includes meaning
• Semantics
• Can a theory of grammar ignore meaning?

40. Linguistics Wars back in the 1960s
• Ignore semantics
• Versus
• Don’t ignore semantics
• Ignore semantics won
• But the losers didn’t go away

41. Transformational Grammar has won

42. We proved Universal Grammar

43. We proved the Language Faculty is real

44. A new program!!

45. The design of language is perfect!

46. Let’s go!!

47. Minimalism

48. Not everyone agreed!

49. You haven’t proved anything

50. Transformational Grammar hasn’t won

51. You haven’t proved Universal
Grammar

52. You haven’t proved the Language
Faculty is real

53. So how can you start a new program?

54. The design of language is perfect?!

55. Why would anyone believe that?!

56. What does it mean?!

57. In the beginning was syntax …

58. … and its design was PERFECT!

59. Is that science or religion?!

60. What happens to movement?

61. We want the PERFECT number of
movements!

62. Reduce movement as MUCH
AS POSSIBLE

63. Only as much as you need

64. And no more

65. The problem for Minimalism

66. Minimalism wants to cut down
unnecessary movements

67. What if ALL movement is
unnecessary?

68. Great – no movement

69. Except Generative Grammar NEEDS
movement

70. That’s how they explain everything

71. No movement, no explanations

72. Remember the Linguistics Wars?

73. Linguistics Wars back in the 1960s
• Ignore semantics
• Versus
• Don’t ignore semantics
• Ignore semantics won
• But the losers didn’t go away

74. For example, Construction Grammar

75. Words (consructions) = Form and
Meaning

76. Head-Driven Phrase Structure
Grammar

77. Meaning is built into words

78. Meaning is IN the LEXICON

79. Embodied Construction Grammar

80. Language is NOT in one special part of
the brain

81. Connects to the whole brain

82. And beyond, to the rest of the body

83. Language is about mental simulations

84. Kind of like imagination

85. When you use a word like “kick” …

86. When you read or hear “kick” …

87. You use certain parts of your brain ….

88. … the same as when you ACTUALLY
kick

89. Mental simulations similar to actions

90. So language is EMBODIED

91. Not separate

92. Connected

93. Connected to emotions?

94. Not just biological

95. Also social and cultural

96. Meaning is in words

97. No special language faculty

98. Mental simulations

99. And NO MOVEMENT

100. Just unification

101. Unification Grammar
• Look at detailed lexical information
• Look at the semantics
• There are better solutions
• No movement
• Pattern matching

102. For example
1. Taro seems to like Hanako.
2. Taro tried to talk to Hanako.
• In 2 Taro is trying to do something. He is a
tryer.
• In 1 Taro isn’t trying to do anything.
• He isn’t a seemer.
• Why is that?

103. Taro seems to like Hanako.

104. “Taro” starts off in the lower IP.

105. It moves. Finished! We won.

106. Wait a minute!

107. *Taro thinks to like Hanako.

108. Definitely bad

109. Lexical information.

110. Think doesn’t take a [-tense]
complement

111. Lexical information.

112. SUBCATEGORIZATION
• Think
• SUBJECT<NP>
• COMPS<S[fin]>
• All theories of grammar need this

113. Taro wants to date Hanako

114. Taro is a wanter here

115. Taro isn’t a seemer

116. But he isn’t a wanter

117. Taro wants Hanako to like him

118. How do we explain these things?

119. Movement?

120. Lexical information:
SUBCATEGORIZATION

121. We can explain by using lexical
information

122. Should we just ignore it?

123. And keep looking for a
transformational explanation

124. We might wait forever

125. Should we just wait forever?

126. Questions
• What are the transformations in
transformational grammar?
• Movements

127. Movements

128. • Do you think words really move around in
these transformations?
• Up to you
• I find it very very very very difficult to believe.

129. • What was the attitude of Chomskyan
linguistics to the lexicon: the information
inside words?
• Try to ignore it as much as possible

130. • What kind of information must there be in a
word like “kick”?
• It takes a subject
• It takes an object
• Meaning?

131. • What is a mental simulation?
• Imagination

132. • What does the meaning of the word “love”
look like?
• Impossible to answer
• LOVE
• [Love]

133. Love?

134. Is it connected to your emotions?

135. All in your brain?

136. • What did the Minimalist Program try to do?
• Cut down on movement

137. I love hamburgers

138. Information about “I”
• It’s a noun (or noun phrase)
• It means “the self”

139. Information about “love”
• It attracts a noun subject
• It attracts a noun object
• It means “like a lot”

140. Information about “hamburgers”
• It’s a noun (or noun phrase)
• It means “a funny sandwich thing with a
meaty bit in the middle”
• It’s plural