Constraints on movement transformations

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).