Applying TG Model in Contrasting

November 23, 2010

Reasons for applying the TG model in contrasting i) It is explicit : in deriving SS from DS each step must be formulated ii) It provides a common point of departure for CA: Universal Base Hypothesis : the DSs are universal Iii) The transformations applied to DS are taken from a universal stock (formal universals)

e.g. standard TG practice to derive attributive adjectives from predicative adjectives contained in relative clauses . Transformations needed to derive SS from DS are: RCF (Relative Clause Formation- relativisation) , RCR (Relative Clause Reduction whiz-deletion) and Modifier Shift :

DS I have an apple + the apple is red -> RCF I have an apple which is red -> RCR I have an apple red -> MS I have a red apple -> SS I have a red apple. The analogous input and transformation history for the Serbian string DS ja imam jabuku + jabuka je crvena -> RCF ja imam jabuku koja je crvena -> RCR ja imam jabuku crvena -> MS ja imam crvena jabuku -> Con ja imam crvenu jabuku -> P imam crvenu jabuku -> SS Imam crvenu jabuku.

The analogous Spanish string SS (Yo) tengo una manzana roja. would contain one rule less ( MS) than Serbian, but would share the optional rule (PPruning) iv) TG approach provides identical means for explicit disambiguation in two languages: preposed adjectives can be ambigous

e.g. The industrious Chinese dominate the economy of South East Asia. (All of them or only the industrios ones, whereas those who are not industrious dont?) The same in Serbian: e.g. Vredni Kinezi dominiraju privredom jugoistone Azije. The ambiguity of the attributive structure can be explicitely accounted for by deriving the two readings from two different bases: The Chinese [Chinese are industrious] dominate the economy.... -> The Chinese who are industrious dominate the economy ... and [The Chinese dominate the economy of SE Asia] AND [ Chinese are industrious ] -> The Chinese, who are industrious, dominate ...

When the attributive adjective is derived from the restrictive relative clause, the reading is only the industrious ones ; when it is derived from the non-restrictive relative clause, the reading is all Chinese v) Reference to DS can explain SS different possibilities in languages :

Der den ganzen Nachmittag unter dem Wagen schlafende Hund... (Lit: *the the whole afternoon under the car sleeping dog) Eng. The dog (,) which slept under the car the whole afternoon... Serb. Pas(,) koji je spavao ispod kola celo poslepodne ... Der den ganzen Nachmittag unter dem Wagen schlafende Hund... (Lit: *the the whole afternoon under the car sleeping dog) Eng. The dog (,) which slept under the car the whole afternoon... Serb. Pas(,) koji je spavao ispod kola celo poslepodne ...

Rule: German takes attributive modifiers in prenominal position even if they are clearly of clausal origin. English and Serbian do not allow for that. In E and S, only clause-final adjectives may be preposed. In G, the basic order in DS is that finite verb comes in final position. Der Hund, der den ganzen Nachmittag unter dem Wagen schlief... -> By applying the rule F (fronting) , schlief gives the participle schlafende, which, when preposed to the nominal Hund takes with it everything that precedes .

In E, there is NOTHING before the verb: The dog WHICH slept under the car the whole afternoon -> So, only the verbal element can get preposed by F, giving The sleeping dog under the car... Or , nothing will be preposed The dog sleeping under the car

In Serbian, the options are even fewer, the verbal element cannot be preposed by fronting, so the RC is the only option. Apart from comparing the transformational component, it is possible to compare the PSR (branching diagrams)