9. Structural Ambiguity related to Preposition
It is possible that V-P-P-NP sequence might have more than one constituent structure.
It could be represented that (69) (a) is an underlying structure, and (69) (b)~(69) (d) are all the
right surface structures that undergo WH-Movement with PPs, when the PPs ‘Away from who’
and ‘From who’ can be preposed. The possible underlying VP structures in (69) should be
two,
i.e. (70) (a) and (70) (b).
(69) (a) He was running away from who? ▶ If (70a) were the right underlying structure, we
(b) Who was he running away from ? should expect to be able to wh-prepose the NP who,
(c) Away from who was he running ? and PP1 away from who, but not PP2 from who, since
(d) From who was he running away ? extraction of PP2 out of PP1 violates AOAC. If (70b)
were the right underlying structure, we can expect to
prepose the NP who and the PP from who, but not
away from who, since the latter is not a constituent,
violating Unit Movement Constraint.
Therefore, (69) (c) can be derived from the underlying structure (70) (a), whereas
(69) (d)
can be derived from that (70) (b), and also (69) (b) can be derived from (70) (a) or (70)
(b).
Based on the (70) (b), running away can be interpreted as a phrasal verb, being a
single unit.
Since running sway from who can have either of the structures in (70), (69) (a) is
structurally
ambiguous.
10. A-Over-A Constraint(AOAC) Applied to NP
The underlying structure (72) (a) can have the right surface structure (72) (b), not
(72) (c) or
(72) (d), supporting the A-Over-A Constraint.
The NP phrase ‘which politician’s book about China’ has the structure of (73):
▶ The AOAC will block extraction of
NP3 out of its containing NP2; and
will also block extraction of NP2 out
of the containing NP1.
▶ So the AOAC makes entirely correct
predictions about (72), where only
(70) (b) is acceptable.
11. Subjacency Condition
One of the most important of these more general constraints is the Subjacency Condi-
tion.
For the purpose of the discussion, the three major transformations can be argued:
[1] Extraposition, [2] WH-Movement, and [3] NP-Movement.
[1] Extraposition
A complement of a nominal can be detached from the NP containing it, and extra-
posed
(=moved to clause-final position). The italicized postnominal Prepositional Phrase in
(74)(a)
can be moved to clause-final position in (74)(b) by application of Extrapostion:
The italicised postnominal clause within the subject NP can also be extraposed into
clausal-
final position like (75):
Now, let’s see a more complex case. In (76), the extraposed Prepositional Phrase
can be
positioned after appeared, but not after worrying:
For the explanation about different grammaticality between (76)(b) and(76)(c),
Chomsky
proposed Subjacency Condition as (77):
(77) Subjacency Condition
No constituent can be moved out of more than one containing
NP- or S-node (in any single rule-application
(NP and S are bounding nodes in respect to (77), since they limit the number and na-
ture
of the constituent boundaries that any moved constituent may cross in any single move-
ment.)
In (78), the extraposition ① satisfies Subjacency Condition by crossing a single bound-
ing
node NP, but the extraposition ② violates the Condition by crossing two bounding nodes
NP and S. To be more precise, (78) can be structured with a tree diagram like (78)’.
In the tree diagram, any elements should be moved through the projection toward
the higher categories, whereby the crossed bounding nodes are clearly revealed.
(78)’ S
NP VP
DET N’ AUX V’
the N S’ is V
fact COMP S worrying
that NP VP
DET N’ AUX V’
a AP N’ has V
critical N PP appeared
review P NP
of DET N’
his AP N
latest book
[2] WH-Movement
The wh-NP ‘what’ can be adjoined to the main clause COMP in (79) by application of
WH-Movement. This ultimately results in the sentence (80) of NP-AUX Inversion.
(79)
(80)
The wh-word ‘what’ has been moved out of both S2 and S1: this violates the condition
that no constituent can be moved out of more than one containing S or NP node. Thus,
the derivation outlined in (79) violates the Subjacency Condition. Therefore, it seems
that
sentence (80) is a counterexample to the proposed condition, since the condition appears
to wrongly predict that (80) is ungrammatical.
The proper account that can be given to the grammaticality of (80) is under the alternative
successive cyclic analysis proposed by Chomsky.
(83)
In (83), ‘what’ is adjoined to the subordinate clause COMP on the S’2 cycle, and then
moves from there to be adjoined to the main clause COMP on the S’1 cycle; i.e.
‘what’ moves from the subordinate COMP to the main clause COMP on successive cycles.
For this reason, the revised analysis is known variously as the successive cyclic analysis of
WH-Movement, or as the COMP-to-COMP analysis of WH-Movement, with the proce-
dure
from bottom to top.
On the basis of this analysis, each of the movement ① and ② crosses one bounding node
S2 and S1 respectively. So each movement ① and ② does not violate Subjacency Condition.
The successive cyclic COMP-to-COMP movement is a very important syntactic process
that can provide an appropriate account for the counterexample (80).
[3] NP-Movement
Another transformation which proves the effect of Subjacency Condition is NP-Movement.
The NP-Movement undergoes a substitution rule whereby any NP moves into an empty
NP position. The surface structures (85) are derived from the underlying structure (84).
(84) is thought John to want Mary to win
Movement of ‘John’ into the empty NP position on the S1 cycle would involve movement
across only one bounding node S2; by contrast, movement of ‘Mary’ into the empty NP on
the S1 cycle would involve movement across two bounding nodes S3 and S2. Accordingly,
(85) (b) violates Subjacency Condition and is not well-formed.
