TRANSFORMATIONAL -

GENERATIVE GRAMMAR
Lecturer: Prof. Dr. Trần Hữu Mạnh
Students: Nguyễn Thị Vân Anh
Nguyễn Thị Hoàn
Lê Thị Nhung
Nguyễn Diệu Linh
Nguyễn Phương Yến (K17)
Class: K18
 T-G GRAMMAR
1. X-bar theory
2. Government-binding theory
2.1. Theta theory
2.2. Projection principle
2.3. Bounding theory
2.4. Government
2.5. Binding theory
2.6. Case theory
2.7. Control theory
Nguyễn Diệu Linh
 1. X-bar theory
a. The first generalisation
 The head of each phrase  its name
e.g. nouns head noun phrases
verbs head verb phrases
prepositions head prepositional phrases

Variable X generates phrase structures

 XP contains a head X endocentricity constrain
•
Linear order is different from hierarchical order in each
language
E.g.

Difference in linear
order
The order of heads & objects in languages are fairly
consistent
b. The second generalisation
 All major class lexical items (Ns, Vs, As and Ps)
project phrasal categories which are at least three
levels deep
X”

. . . X’. . .

. . .X. . .
 X”:NP, VP, PP and AP

 X’(X- bar) :phrasal category, less inclusive than X”

 X : lexical (word) level.

Phrases are similar to each other in terms of:

 three- level organization

 consistent constituents of each level across phrases.

X” = an optional specifier (modifier) + X’:

X” (Spec), X’

 In Prepositional phrase -P”, the specifier is an

adverbial phrase
e.g. Right up his alley
 In Noun phrase - N”, the specifier is a NP modifier,
such as a genitive:
e.g. Bill’s book
 In Verb phrase - V”, the specifier is an adverbial
phrase:
e.g. Inadvertently tripped
 In S, the specifier is the subject.
2 expansions of X’:
(1) X’= X + complements:
X’  X, (XP*)

(2) X’= X’ + adjuncts (modifying phrases):

X’  X’, (NP*)
The complements of:
 V & P: N”s
e.g. win the game
 N & A : P”s
e.g. students of linguistics
 Adjuncts : P”s
e.g. studied at MIT
 V”
 
Adv’ V’
Adv’ V’ P”
Adv Adv’ P’
V N” Adv P N”
Det N’ Adv Det N’
N N

Quickly tosses the ball right across the room

Nguyễn Thị Hoàn
THETA THEORY
Main points:
Presenter:
Nguyễn Thị Definition of Theta
Hoàn
Theory
Theta Roles
Theta Criterion
The Projection
Principle
1. Definition
Theta Theory, or Thematic Theory (θ-theor
y) is the module that deals with the valency requ
irements of verbs. It incorporates a set of partici
pant roles, called Theta Roles. Their distributio
n in sentence structure is mediated chiefly by th
e Projection Principle and the Theta-Criterio
n.
(A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics)
 Types of Theta Roles
A Theta Role represents the se
mantic relationship of argumen
ts with the predicate .
 Type Definition Example
Agent It is the initiator or the doer of the action. “Sarah finished the
Also it should be alive and able to take work”
conscious decisions; it is mostly subject of
a clause
Experiencer It is the argument that feels or perceives “John was happy”
events; it might also be experiencing some
psychological state.
Theme/Pati It is an entity that undergoes actions, is “John killed the
ent moved, experienced, or perceived; it is also bird”
called “patient”
Goal The entity towards which something “She goes to the lib
moves. rary”
Recipient It occurs only with verbs denoting change -“Peter got a book
of possession. from her”.
Source It is the unit from which the action takes “He returned from
place Taza”.
 Type Definition Example
Location It is the place in which the action “In the seminar,
occurs or in which a theme is we discussed the
located. topics”.
Instrument It is a means by which something “John killed
comes about. Mary with a
gun”.
Benificative It is the one who is given some help “He bought
or to whose best something happens some flowers for
his wife”.
Possessor It is the one who has or owns “John has a big
something. car”.
Percept It is someone or something that is “John smelled fu
perceived. nny”.
 The Theta-Criterion &
The Projection Principle
Theta Theory operates at D-structure
through the assignment of θ-roles to a
rguments. This theory is based on tw
o fundamental principles, namely the
Theta-Criterion and the Projection Pr
inciple.
 The Theta-Criterion
Definition:
Each argument bears one and only
one θ- role, and each θ-role
is assigned to one and only one
argument.
( Chomsky (1981)
 Examples
Example 1: look back the table
(a) John killed the bird.
- [John] is assigned the Theta- role
“agent”
- [the bird] is assigned the θ-role
“patient”.
 Examples
Example 2:
(b) The navy sank the enemy ship by
a torpedo.
Both [the navy] and [by a torpedo]
bear the same theta role ‘agent’
The sentence is considered
to be ungrammatical

Replace "by" with "with"

The Projection Principle
Definition
Representations at each syntactic level mus
t be projected from the lexicon, in th
at they observe the Subcategorization
properties of lexical items. Chomsky
(1981)

Help us to judge the grammaticality of s

ome syntactic structures
 Definition
According to the generalized Project
ion Principle, a verb that takes an age
nt subject cannot take a theme or a go
al subject, while verbs that have a no
n-thematic subject cannot be inserted
in a structure where its subject has re
ceived a θ-role.
 Examples
(2a) John murdered Mary.
(2b) It seems to be a day of troubles
- In (2a), “John” is assigned the θ-role
‘agent’ and “to murder” cannot take a
theme subject
- In (2b), the verb “seem” has a non-
thematic subject and therefore cannot
take a thematic subject.
 Valency
(linguistics) the number of grammatic
al elements that a word, especially a
verb, combines with in a sentence
 Lexicon
All the words and phrases used in a
particular language or subject; all the
words and phrases used and known b
y a particular person or group of peop
le.
Lê Thị Nhung
2.3. Bounding theory
2.3.1. Limits the range of the movement

2.3.2. A generalization of the subjacency condition

2.3.1 Limits the range of the movement

 Syntactic rules apply locally

 Move α cannot move a pharse very far from its source

position

→ Island constraints/Ross’s constraints

2.3.1 Limits the range of the movement

a. Move a phrase out of an object:

E.g.: He took [a photograph of Oscar]
possible
Whoi did he take [a photograph of ti]
Move a phrase out of a subject:
[A photograph of Oscar] was in the album
impossible
Whoi was [a photograph of ti] in the album
2.3.1 Limits the range of the movement
b. Move a phrase out of a compliment/modifier clause
of a noun (complex NP)
He knew [the fact that Oscar had a good look].
impossible
What did he consider [the fact that Oscar had].
c. Move a phrase out of a clause whose Comp already
contains a wh-phrase
I wonder [whether he bought a book].
impossible

Whati do [you wonder [s whether[s he bought]]]

2.3.2 A generalization of the subjacency
condition
i g
2.3.2.1 Subjacency Condition: no single application
H h of a
movement rule may cross more than one bounding e
s
node t

Cross 2 S- C
bounda

Lo
*Whati do [s you wonder ry [whether[s he bought ti]]]

w
e
s
t
C
o
m
2.3.2.2 Bounding theory:
 replaces Subjacency Condition
 states that a phrase cannot cross more than one barrier
in a single movement
But not all language strictly follow this
E.g.: English allows extraction of NPs from PPs
Whoi did you give the book to ti?
 S

Comp S1

What i NP1 Infl VP

Det N PP V

the student P NP will laugh

of ti
2.4. Government
 Is the structural relationship which lexical items bear to
their complements and to a small set of other phrases
 Affect distribution of anaphors and pronouns (binding)

 Affects assignment of case

 VP VP
Govern No
tg gove
ov V NP1rn PP No
V NP1 PP er tg
n ov
er
n
P NP2 P NP2
 VP

V Not S’
gov
ern

No
Comp S
tgov
er n
NP InflVP
General structure of phrases:

X”
(Spec) X’
X’ (Adjuncts)
X (Complement)
Nguyễn
Phương
Yến (K17)
2.5. Binding theory
 controls coreference relationships between

(1) Reflexive and reciprocal expressions (anaphors) and

their antecedents

(2) Pronouns and their antecedents

(3) Referring expressions, i.e., nonpronominal,

nonanaphoric NPs
(1) Reflexive and reciprocal expressions (anaphors) and their
antecedents

 the reflexives and reciprocals must have antecedents

that agree with them in person and number.
The antecedents must:
- Occur in an argument position such as object or
object
- Not too far away from the anaphor
e.g:
John shaved himself.
(2)Pronouns and their antecedents

è the antecedent of a pronoun must agree with its number

and person. The patterns of distribution of pronouns and
anaphors are comlementary

e.g: John believes him to be magnificent.

--believes governs the pronoun so that the entire S is the
governing category, and this contains the antecedent
(3)Referring expressions, i.e., nonpronominal,
nonanaphoric NPs
 Referring expressions are referential NPs which are
neither pronouns nor anaphors
2.6. Case theory
 It is a theory of the Government and Binding framework
and its successors.
 Case theory determines where NPs with overt lexical
content can occur.
 Every NP with phonological content must be assigned a
case but cannot be assigned more than one case.
 A sentence is ungrammatical if it contains an NP which
has phonetic content but no case.
 There are two Cases that are generally recognized in
English--the nominative Case and the accusative Case--
the latter is also called the objective Case.
Nguyễn Thị Vân Anh
2.7. Control theory
 Control Theory is about the understood subject of infinitival
clauses.
E.g.:
Ø Mary wants [John to go home].
The subject of the infinitival clause is an overt NP.
Ø Mary decided [to celebrate your success].
There is no overt NP operating as the subject of the infinitival
clause although Mary is understood to be its implied subject.
The subject of the infinitival clause is a PRO.
 PRO is an empty pronoun. It is an abstraction that contains
inherent person, number and gender features.
2.7. Control theory
 Control theory determines the interpretation of PRO, the
subject of English infinitival clauses.
 PRO cannot be governed.
 PRO does occur in subject position and therefore may
receive a theta role from the VP of its clause. However,
its reference is determined from outside that clause. It
may be coreferential with a phrase in a higher clause of
its sentence. This coreferential phrase is referred to as
the controller of PRO.
2.7. Control theory
 Sometimes the controller is the subject of the higher
clause, as in (126a), which means approximately (126b):
(126a) Oscar promised PRO to leave.
(126b) Oscari promised that hei would leave.
 Sometimes the controller is an object in the higher
clause, as in (127a), which means approximately (127b):
(127a) Oscar told Sylvia PRO to leave.
(127b) Oscar told Sylviai that shei should leave.
Three major classes of verbs that take infinitival
complements whose subjects are controlled:
üClass 1 contains verbs like promise and includes
agree, vow, try and intend. These verbs denote a
commitment, and the NP representing the entity
making the commitment (i.e., the Agent) is the
controller:
(128) Ii promised/ tried/ agreed/ intended PROi to
leave.
Three major classes of verbs that take infinitival
complements whose subjects are controlled:
üClass 2 contains verbs like want, such as wish, expect and
hope. These denote a mental state, and the NP representing
the Experiencer of the state is the controller:
(129) Ii wanted/ wished/ expected/ hoped PROi to leave.
üClass 3 verbs include verbs like tell, such as force, persuade,
order and command. These denote situations in which one
entity influences another. The NP representing the
influenced entity (i.e., the Patient) is the controller:
(130) Ii told/ forced/ persuaded/ ordered Oscari PROi to
leave.
2.7. Control theory
PRO is subject to obligatory control and arbitrary
control.
üObligatory control: PRO has the main sentence
subject as an antecedent as in (131a) or the object as
antecedent as in (131b).
(131a) John asked PRO to go.
(131b) John asked Peter PRO to go.
üArbitrary control: PRO refers indefinitely to people in
general as in (132):
(132) It is time PRO to go.
Reference
Cook, V. J. (1988). Chomsky's universal grammar: An
introduction. Oxford; New York: Blackwell.
Delahunty, G. P., & Garvey, J. J. (1994). Language, grammar
and communication: a course for teachers of English.
New York; London: McGraw-Hill.
Ouhalla, J. (1999). Introducing transformational grammar:
From principles and parameters to minimalism
(Second ed.). Great Britain: Arnold.
Radford, A. (1988). Tranformational grammar: A first
course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.