Hostname: page-component-6565fbc58-6xfbb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-13T09:05:35.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Movement rules in functional perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Ronald W. Langacker
Ronald W. Langacker*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper offers a functional explanation for the existence and for the special properties of movement rules in natural languages. A survey of reasonably well-established movement transformations in English reveals certain asymmetries in the classes of such rules encountered empirically and in their formal properties. It is argued that the special formal properties of backing rules correlate with their function, which is different from the function of raising, lowering, and fronting rules. The latter three types can be given a uniform functional characterization in terms of the notion ‘objective content’, a notion that has figured prominently, though implicitly, in the history of generative grammar. This notion is discussed in preliminary terms, as is that of relative ‘prominence’, whose syntactic relevance has been clearly established. The hypothesis is advanced that raising, lowering, and fronting rules all serve the function of increasing the prominence of objective content in surface structure. This hypothesis accounts for the asymmetries noted in regard to the movement rules of English, and it also provides a motivated explanation for the fact that backing rules are upward bounded. Movement rules are shown to be only one facet of a broad conspiracy to ensure the surface prominence of objective content. This conspiracy is further explored in the context of information theory and generative semantics.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , December 1974 , pp. 630 - 664
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Akmajian, Adrian. 1972. Getting tough. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 373–7.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1971. Questions. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 153–66.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate, and Vennemann, Theo. 1972. Relative adjectives and comparison. Explorations in syntactic theory, ed. by Bedell, George (UCLA papers in syntax, 2), 107–97. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G., and Langendoen, D. T. 1971. A dynamic model of the evolution of language. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 433–63.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G. 1972. The interaction of speech perception and grammatical structure in the evolution of language. Linguistic change and generative theory, ed. by Stockwell, Robert P. & Macaulay, Ronald K. S., 32–95. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1957. Interrogative structures of American English (the direct question). (American Dialect Society, publ. 28.) University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Borkin, Ann. 1972. Two notes on want and desire. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 378–85.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael, MS. A new analysis of the relative clause: evidence for an interpretive theory.Google Scholar
Carden, Guy. 1970. A problem with primacy. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 527–33.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Anderson, Stephen R. & Kiparsky, Paul, 232–86. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Christie, William Jr. 1972. A non-non-source for comparatives. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 508–10.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald, and Harman, Gilbert (eds.) 1972. Semantics of natural language. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1971. Theoretical implications of some global phenomena in syntax. University of California, San Diego, dissertation.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1963. The position of embedding transformations in a grammar. Word 19. 208–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon & Harms, Robert T., 1–88. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., and Langendoen, D. Terence (eds.) 1971. Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Geis, Michael L. 1970. Adverbial subordinate clauses in English. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1971. Negative transportation: unsafe at any speed? Papers from the 7th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 120–33.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1971. On some questionable arguments about quantifiers and negation. Lg. 47. 282–97.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Roderick A. 1972. Syntactic change: a Cupan (Uto-Aztecan) case study. University of California, San Diego, dissertation.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Roderick A., and Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.) 1970. Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1971. Implicative verbs. Lg. 47. 340–58.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J., and Postal, Paul M. 1964. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1969. The transformational cycle in French syntax. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul, and Kiparsky, Carol. 1970. Fact. Progress in linguistics, ed. by Bierwisch, Manfred & Heidolph, Karl Erich, 143–73. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. 1964. Negation in English. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, Jerry A. & Katz, Jerrold J., 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1970. Some remarks on English manner adverbials. Studies in general and oriental linguistics presented to Shirô Hattori on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, ed. by Jakobson, Roman & Kawamoto, Shigeo, 378–96. Tokyo: TEC Co.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1969. On derivational constraints. Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 117–39.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970a. Repartee, or a reply to ‘Negation, conjunction and quantifiers’. Foundations of Language 6. 389–422.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970b. Pronominalization, negation, and the analysis of adverbs. In Jacobs & Rosenbaum, 145–65.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970c. Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1972. Linguistics and natural logic. In Davidson & Harman, 545–665.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Peters, Stanley. 1969. Phrasal conjunction and symmetric predicates. In Reibel & Schane, 113–42.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1968. Abstract syntax and Latin complementation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1969. A syntactic argument for negative transportation. Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 140–47.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1970. Another non-source for comparatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 128–9.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1971. If's, and's, and but's about conjunction. In Fillmore & Langendoen, 114–49.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1969a. On pronominalization and the chain of command. In Reibel & Schane, 160–86.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1969b. An analysis of English questions. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1969c. Mirror image rules I: syntax. Lg. 45. 575–98.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1970. Review of Spanish case and function, by Mark G. Goldin. Lg. 46. 167–85.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1971. Review of Syntaxe de la proposition nucléaire en français parlé, by Eddy Roulet. Modern Language Journal 55. 37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1973. Predicate raising: some Uto-Aztecan evidence. Issues in linguistics: papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, ed. by Kachru, Braj B. et al., 468–91. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1974. The question of Q. Foundations of Language 11. 1–37.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence. 1970. The accessibility of deep structures. In Jacobs & Rosenbaum, 99–104.Google Scholar
Lindholm, James M. 1969. Negative raising and sentence pronominalization. Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 148–58.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. Papers from the 4th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 71–80.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1970. English as a VSO language. Lg. 46. 286–99.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L. 1969. On the treatment of presupposition in transformational grammar. Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 167–77.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1971. Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1972a. On some rules that are not successive cyclic. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 211–22.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1972b. A remark on the verb-initial hypothesis. Papers in Linguistics 5. 124–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1974. On raising: one rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M., and Ross, John R. 1971. ¡Tough Movement sí, Tough Deletion no! Linguistic Inquiry 2. 544–6.Google Scholar
Reibel, David A., and Schane, Sanford A. (eds.) 1969. Modern studies in English. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa. 1970. A surface structure constraint on negation in Spanish. Lg. 46. 640–66.Google Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa. 1972. Remarks on operators and modalities. Foundations of Language 9. 209–41.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1969. Auxiliaries as main verbs. Studies in philosophical linguistics, series one, ed. by Todd, William, 77–102. Evanston, Ill.: Great Expectations.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Jacobs & Rosenbaum, 222–72.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1972. Act. In Davidson & Harman, 70–126.Google Scholar
Ross, John R., and Perlmutter, David M. 1970. A non-source for comparatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 127–8.Google Scholar
Sanders, Gerald A. 1970. Constraints on constituent ordering. Papers in Linguistics 2. 460–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Lg. 49. 19–46.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Peter A. 1972. Style disjuncts and the performative analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 321–47.Google Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A. M. MS. Predicate raising and dative in French and sundry languages.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1971. The deep structure of relative clauses. In Fillmore & Langendoen, 78–94.Google Scholar