<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W98-0506">
  <Title>Movement rules revisited&amp;quot;</Title>
  <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="50" type="abstr">
    <SectionTitle>
0. Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The Praguian approach to formal description of language (in detail, see Sgall et aI. 1986), works with dependency syntax and includes the topic-focus articulation into the (underlying, tectogrammatical) syntactic representations of sentences, using the left-to-right order of the nodes of the dependency tree for that purpose.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The edges of the tree denote the dependency relations and the nodes carry complex labels indicating their lexical and morphological values (e.g. Preterite). No nonterminals and no nodes corresponding to function words (auxiliaries, prepositions, conjunctions, articles) are present in the tree. Counterparts of function words (and function morphemes) are parts of the complex symbols of the nodes. Instead of using the notion of phrase, we work with subtrees (i.e. the governor and its dependents, or all its subordinate nodes, where &amp;quot;subordinate&amp;quot; is the transitive closure of &amp;quot;dependent&amp;quot;).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The present paper concentrates on a motivating discussion pointing out the reasons for distinguishing three layers of the order of lexical occurrences (Sect. 1), presenting a characterization of movement rules (Sect. 2), discussing certain relevant relationships between the level of syntax and that of morphernics (Sect. 3), and sketching a possibility how to proceed from surface (morphemics) to (underlying) syntax (Sect. 4). A way how to formalize the description of (underlying) syntactic slructure is  briefly outlined in Section 5.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> 1. Three layers of word order 1.1 As has been argued in detail in Sgall et al.  (1986), there are good reasons (concerning the semantic relevance as well as syntactic constraints of the topic-focus articulation, see below) to distinguish three layers of the order of the occurrences of lexical (autosemantic) items in the sentence: (i) the surface word order, which can be understood as the order of items on the level of morphemics; on that level the sentence representation has the shape of a string of word-forms (rather than that of a tree); (ii) the communicative dynamism (underlying word order), i.e. the order of nodes in an underlying (tectogrammatical) representation (TR), which has the shape of a dependency tree; the topic of the sentence is characterized as consisting of items which are less dynamic than those belonging to its focus; thus, if A belongs to the topic in all TRs of a given sentence S and B belongs to the focus in some of the TRs of S, then A is less dynamic than B; (iii)the systemic ordering of valency slots (kinds of dependency relation), which is specified in the valency frames (included in the lexical entries), see Sgall et al. 0986), Sgall (in press).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Let us illustrate the mentioned three layers by the following example (with the capitals denoting the intonation center of the sentence): &amp;quot;The work on this paper was supported by the grant of the Czech Grant Agency GA~R 405/96/K214.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> last week.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> A difference between (i) and (ii) - the surface word order and the communicative dynamism concerns here the fact that the most dynamic item (the bearer of the intonation center) does not occupy its prototypical position at the end of the sentence. Since the temporal adverbial at the end follows the intonation center, it can only be understood as belonging to the topic of the sentence, i.e. as less dynamic than the focus. Let us assume that the preferred reading of (1) - see Fig.1 - can be paraphrased as &amp;quot;As for the last week in my sister's life, (she) was (then) visited by a painter in Paris&amp;quot;; the order of the valency slots (the communicative dynamism) of the (tectogrammatical) syntactic tree representing this reading is, in ascending order, Patient</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> (with the Patient being the least dynamic item, i.e. the topic proper, and the verb being less dynamic than the Actor and more dynamic than the temporal adverbial).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10">  As a matter of fact, another surface order corresponding to this underlying wee may be that of(2): (2) Last week, my sister was visited by a painter in PARIS.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> The relationship between (ii) and (iii) is reflected in (1) by the fact that the above mentioned ascending order of valency slots is in accordance with the systemic ordering within the focus (Actor preceding Locative), while this is not the case with the .position of Actor with regard to the two valency slots in the topic: Actor follows both Temporal and Objective, although the systemic ordering of these three valemcy slots is Temporal - Actor - Objective (see Haji6owi and Sgall 1987; Haji6ovfi 1991). This difference is determined by the fact that the parts of the topic are less dynamic than those of the focus, even if the degrees of dynamism are then not in accordance with systemic ordering. The restriction that the communicative dynamism within the focus part of the sentence is in accordance with systemic ordering, is crucial for the specification of syntactic representations, as will be seen in paragraph (ii)Co) in Sect. 5.3.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> 1.2 The differences in communicative dynamism are relevant not only for the appropriateness of the use of the given sentence in this or that context, but also semantically, even in the narrow sense of differences in truth conditions. This clearly concerns sentences with certain kinds of complex quantification, such as (3), but also sentences without such (overt) quantifiers, such as (4) - (7) (I mostly use examples taken fi, om earlier linguistic discussions):  (3) (a) Two languages are known by everybody in this ROOM.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> Co) Everybody in this room knows two LANGUAGES.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="14"> (4) (a) He wrote his dissertation on SUNDAYS. Co) On Sundays he wrote his DISSERTATION.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="15"> (5) (a) I exercise in the MORNINGS.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="16"> Co) In the mornings I EXERCISE.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="17"> (6) (a) John saw an EXPLOSION.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="18"> Co) Mary saw an EXPLOSION.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="19"> (c) John and Mary saw an EXPLOSION.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="20"> (7) (a) An explosion was seen by JOHN.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="21"> Co) An explosion was seen by MARY.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="22"> (c) An explosion was seen by JOHN AND MARY.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="23"> (d) An EXPLOSION was seen by Johri and  Mary.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="24"> With (6c) John and Mary could have seen different explosions, which is not the case with (7c), at least on the preferred reading. It is worth noting that the mere change of the position of the intonation center in (7d) gives a reading different</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="26"> from (7c), namely the same reading as that of (6c).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="27"> Examples in which the degrees of dynamism within topic are relevant can be presented e.g.  from Czech: (8) (a) Tady byla loni MILENA. here was last-year Milena E. Here was MILENA last year. (b) Byla tady loni MILENA.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="28">  was here last-year Milena E. Last year, MILENA was here. While (8a), with 'tady' \[here\] in the position of topic proper (i.e. the least dynamic word), which may carry a (contrastive) phrasal stress, can be paraphrased as &amp;quot;The place we are now is where MILENA was last year&amp;quot;, (8b) means &amp;quot;R happened that MILENA was here (not necessarily in the place we are now, but in a broader sense) last year.&amp;quot; In the sequel, we argue first for the usefulness to work with movement rules between syntax and morphemics (Section 2), we characterize our approach to these two levels of grammar (Section 3), focussing then on the transition from morphemics to syntax (Section 4) and on a formal specification of syntactic (tectogrammatical) representations and their transduction to morphemic ones (Section 5).</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>