Andrew Radford - Linguistics An Introduction [Second Edition]

‘is’ to move into C and likewise attracts a pronoun or phrase of some

kind to move into spec-CP – in (3a), attracting the pronoun er ‘he’ to move into spec-CP in the manner shown below:

Syntactic variation

329

(i) CP

D

C'

Er

C

TP

ist

D T'

er

VP T

ist

PP

V

nach Berlin

gefahren

Movement of the auxiliary ist ‘is’ from T to C is a particular instance

of head movement, and obeys the Head Movement Constraint (which

only allows a head to move into the head position in the next highest

phrase in the structure). Movement of er ‘he’ from spec-TP to spec-CP

is similar to topicalisation in English, and more generally is an

instance of A-bar movement.

23

Sentence meanings and Logical Form

To date, we have had nothing systematic to say about how sentences are interpreted, but, as pointed out in the main introduction, an adequate grammar of a language should contain a component which specifies how the Logical Form

(LF) of a sentence is derived. In this section, we shall not seek to present a comprehensive description of such a component, as such descriptions do not

exist and there is a great deal of uncertainty in the primary research literature.

Our aim will be the more modest one of introducing some of the considerations that arise once the task of describing sentence meanings is taken seriously.

Specifically, following some preliminary remarks, we shall say a little about the way in which nominals express a range of roles filled by individuals or sets of individuals in events that are described by sentences and then rather more about the interpretive properties of sentences including quantified DPs such as all the men, most boys. This latter will enable us to introduce a further variety of movement.

Preliminaries

Consider the simple sentences in (398):

(398) a.

The king smokes

b.

The queen snores

It is obvious that (398a, b) differ in interpretation, and to some extent, this is determined by the words they contain. To see this, we simply note that if we substitute the noun queen for the noun king in (398a), the interpretation of the sentence we thereby produce (399) differs from that of (398a):

(399)

The queen smokes

On this basis, we can formulate a first version of The Principle of

Compositionality as in (400):

(400)

The interpretation of a sentence is determined by the interpretations of the words the sentence contains.

Now, it is easy to see that (400) is not adequate. Consider, for example, the sentences in (401):

330

Sentence meanings and Logical Form

331

(401) a.

The dog chased a rabbit

b.

The rabbit chased a dog

These two sentences are differently interpreted, yet each of them contains exactly the same words. In this case, we can readily see what this difference in meaning rests on: the words in the two sentences occur in different orders, with different sequences fulfilling different grammatical functions (see section 18). For instance, the sequence the dog constitutes a subject in (401a), whereas this function is fulfilled by the sequence the rabbit in (401b). In drawing attention to these differences, we focus on the syntax of the two sentences, and this suggests that a more adequate version of the Principle of Compositionality might be formulated as in (402):

(402)

The interpretation of a sentence is determined by the interpretations of the words occurring in the sentence and the syntactic structure of the sentence.

If we understand the, dog, chased, a and rabbit, and if we know that the dog serves as subject, chased as predicate and a rabbit as complement in (401a), then we are equipped to understand the sentence, we might suppose.

The Principle of Compositionality in (402) is vital in understanding the phenomenon of structural ambiguity, illustrated by examples such as those in (403)

(see also section 10, p. 149):

(403) a.

Frank spotted the man with a telescope

b.

Frank spotted the man with a wooden leg

While it may not be immediately obvious, each of these sentences has two

different interpretations. For (403a), the most likely interpretation is that Frank looked through a telescope and spotted the man. However, it is easy to see another interpretation, whereby the man had a telescope and Frank spotted him (by

some means or other). Here, then, we have a single sequence of words with two interpretations, and (402) suggests that this is possible so long as the sequence can be associated with two syntactic structures. In section 18, we said that certain expressions which serve to modify other expressions have the function of being adjuncts. Accordingly, let us suppose that the with-phrases in (403) are adjuncts, and that the ambiguity of (403a) lies in whether the PP/prepositional phrase with a telescope is an adjunct to (and hence modifies) the VP/verb phase spotted the man, or whether it is an adjunct to (and hence modifies) the DP/determiner

phrase the man. If we further assume that an adjunct has the syntactic property that it attaches to a constituent to expand it into an even larger constituent of the same type, adjoining the PP with a telescope to the VP spotted the man will form the even larger VP spotted the man with a telescope, whereas adjoining the PP with a telescope to the DP the man will form the even larger DP the man

with a telescope. It would then follow that the two different interpretations of the VP spotted the man with a telescope have the two different syntactic

332

senten ces

structures shown below, and that these arise from merging constituents in

different orders:

(404)

a.

VP

b.

VP

VP

DP

V

DP

PP

V

DP

PP

spotted

the man

with a telescope

spotted

the man

with a telescope

(Here, we do not specify the internal structure of the DP the man and the PP with a telescope, both of which are irrelevant to the point under discussion.) For (404a), having formed the DP the man, we merge this as a complement with the head

V spotted to give the VP spotted the man; then having formed the PP with a

telescope, this is merged as an adjunct with the VP spotted the man to form the larger VP spotted the man with a telescope. This structure corresponds to the interpretation in which the telescope is used for spotting. The operations involved in producing (404b) are different. Here, having formed the man and with a telescope, these are merged with the PP serving as an adjunct to the DP, so as to form the larger DP the man with a telescope. Then, this DP, functioning as a complement, is merged with the head V spotted to give the VP spotted the man with a telescope. This structure is appropriate for the interpretation where the man who is spotted has a telescope.

What of (403b)? At first sight, you may feel that this sentence is unambiguous, its only interpretation being that the man has a wooden leg and Frank spotted him (by some means or other) – equivalently, the only structure for (403b) is one analogous to (404b). However, we suggest that a second interpretation, parallel to that readily available for (403a), can be provided for (403b). To get this interpretation, all we need to do is suspend our beliefs about what people typically use as aids for looking at the world and imagine that a wooden leg is equipped with a hidden telescope, so that Frank’s spotting works better if he looks through it. In short, as far as language is concerned, (403b) is every bit as ambiguous as (403a); however, beliefs we hold about the world make the ambiguity less accessible in the case of (403b), a fact to always bear in mind when investigating the interpretive possibilities for particular sentences.