Constraints on movement transformations

Abstract

1. The development of transformational theory has been marked by a considerable shifting about of powers allotted to the various constructs. As a theory of lexicon arose, for example, some of the function of the context-sensitivity of the phrase-structure rules was rendered unnecessary; correspondingly, when the rewrite system was tightly confined to a context-free nature, the transformational component took up part of the burden of providing for certain dependencies and concord phenomena. A fair estimate of the history of that component would have to concede that its powers – in spite of the cycle, and some scattered efforts (Emonds, 1969; Postal, 1971; Ross, 1969; Sanders, 1970)–have grown significantly. For example, Emonds's work aside, no general principles of derived constituent structure have developed (as originally anticipated, say, in Lees, 1957b: 400–401); quite the contrary, the particular elementary operations at the root of transformational relationships have been extended, so that at the moment, in addition to sister-adjunction and daughter-adjunction, we have at our disposal Chomsky-adjunction – a range of moves allowing just about any sort of bracketing relation to be developed. Similarly, the recent suggestion that a transformation be considered, most generally, a relation holding between P-markers (not necessarily ‘adjacent’ and not necessarily paired) engenders an enormous increase in power – all the more so since the so-called local and global constraints that are intended to offset the magnification of power are only promissory (Lakoff, 1970).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.