What is zone theory?

Thomas Michael Gross要

旨

依存文法が苦手な の は特に語順 を説明す る こ と で あ る 。 なぜな ら ば， 依
存文法の要素は単語な ので， 単語以上の要素 を想像 し な い か ら ， 語順のよ う な抽象的な現象は記述で き な い の で あ る 。 し か し ， 語順の記述は望
ま し い で あ ろ う と 思 っ て い る 。 本論文では， 依存文法の専門用語か ら ，
語順が記述で き る 術語 を 定義 し て， 言語の デ ー タ に 適用 し て み る 。
キ ー ワ ー ド ： 日本語 ： 依存文法 ・ 語順
英語 ： Dependency grammar, word order

DEPENDENCY THEORY
Dependency theory is the name for a syntactic formalism that centers on hierarchical, i.e.
antisymmetric relationships between syntactic constituents. Syntactic constituents can bewords or phrases. This is not the place to lead an appropriate discussion, but it is possible
to convincingly show that within a dependency theoretical framework phrases cannot be
defined prior to words, and thus are not basic. Basic syntactic constituents in a dependency
theory are always words—an assumption that is corroborated by the fact that most writing
systems use a symbol to separate words. This symbol usually has no physical form, but can― 37 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. ５

be created on a keyboard by pressing the space key. There are exceptions like Chinese andJapanese, for example, but there is no known writing system that uses a symbol to unify or
separate phrases.
Depending on a given language, words themselves may not be simplex but consist ofanalyzable parts, called morphs. Whether morphs can, may, or must be abstracted tomorphemes is a matter that is being discussed currently, but that matter is not yet decided.
Personally, I believe there are good arguments in favor of the assumption of morphemes,
and I also think that there are very good economic reasons to apply the notion ofmorphemes to descriptions such as valency theory. However, it is not essential to theunderstanding of this paper to assume the existence of morphemes. I have therefore taken toa unified notation “morph(eme)” in order to give any reader the possibility to follow thetechnical proposal outlined below.
It does not matter either whether words are simplex or complex because a simplex word
constitutes a morph(eme) by itself. The expression “morph(eme)” is a global expressionthat comprises at least three different notions: i) a certain amount of semantic information,ii) a certain amount of formal information, and iii) a certain amount of physical information.
Semantic information can come in different layers. For example, the English flexeme –s for[3.sg.] also expresses “present tense”, but it expresses it differently than the expression
present tense. In present tense, “present tense” is the meaning of present tense, but“present tense” in [3.sg.] –s is not a meaning, but a grammatical function that extends to theverb to which –s is assigned. Meanings are also called sememes. Besides sememes andgrammatical functions, there are features. There are semantic features and grammaticalfeatures. For example, a semantic feature of present tense is [-CON(crete)], i.e. present
tense is not a word that designates a physical object. Furthermore, present tense contains
the grammatical feature [sg], because it always takes singular form without pluralizing
affixes. Semantic features are also called semes, and grammatical features are called
grammemes. Sememes, functions, semes and grammemes are summarized by the term
semanteme.
Formal information can be highly stratified. While present tense is a compound noun, –s isa flexeme. Distinguishing between nouns and flexemes is an important business, because
on the object level of languages nouns cannot occur in places where flexemes usually occur.
The difference in morphological classes such as noun or flexeme is expressed by classemes.
Thus, present tense carries the classeme [N’] (for compound noun), and –s carries the― 38 ―

What is zone theory?

classeme [+f] (for flexeme).
Physical information is any information on the phonology of a morph(eme). Thereby, amorph(eme) is expressed as an array of phonemes. However, this property is not essential
to the topic I address here.
Semantemes and classemes of different morph(eme)s of different words can interact, andfor all practical purposes do so constantly in sentence structuring. Although I am presently
not able to provide a detailed statistical account, experience indicates that in the
overwhelming majority this interaction between semantemes and classemes is logicallyantisymmetric. But there are exceptions that shall be utilized later in this paper.
Depending on whether it is a semanteme or a classeme that is affected by the interaction
between two morph(eme)s, there are two different, general types of interaction: i) selection,and ii) control.
(D-1)

A morph(eme) N selects the semanteme S of another morph(eme) M
iff the admissibility of M to cooccur with N hinges on M having S as asemanteme.

(Ex-1)

red books

The morph(eme) book carries the seme [+CON] because it designates a physical object.
Physical objects must have color (even black holes are black!), therefore red fits theadmission criterion, because its semanteme “red” is a color.
(D-2)

A morph(eme) N controls the classeme C of another morph(eme) M
iff the admissibility of M to cooccur with N hinges on M belonging to a certain
morph(eme)-class C.

(Ex-2)

red books

The morph(eme) book carries the classeme [N], and this classeme admits the occurrence ofother morph(eme)s with the classeme [A]. Since red is an adjective, it is controlled.
The difference between selection and control is very important at a specific level ofmorphosyntax. However, as soon a more general description is desired, terminologicaleconomy dictates a unifying concept. This concept will be called proto-dependency.

― 39 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. ５(D-3)

A morph(eme) M is proto-dependent on another morph(eme) N
iff N selects or controls M.

(Ex-3)

red books

The morph(eme) book selects the color feature of red, and controls the classeme [A] of red.
Therefore, red is proto-dependent on book.
Proto-dependency is still a relationship between morph(eme)s.

Syntactic description,

however, demands a relationship between syntactic constituents—which in a dependency
theory are words. Words are defined differently in different languages. In the most generalway, a word must at least consist of one morph(eme) which itself carries a lexical classeme.
A lexical classeme designates a morph(eme)-class whose member can occur without othermorph(eme)s. This may sound like a circular definition, but for that purpose, affixes aredefined prior to lexemes.
Given that the notion of word is established, a first type of hierarchical interaction between
words can be defined by proto-dependency. It is called direct or immediate government:(D-4)

A word W immediately governs another word X
iff a morph(eme) N of X is proto-dependent on a morp(eme) M of W.

(Ex-4)

red books

Because red is proto-dependent on book, the word books immediately governs the word
red. The converse term to direct government is direct or immediate successor. Successor
terminology is crucial for special types of definitions that are required later on.
(D-5)

A word W is an immediate successor of another word V
iff V immediately governs W.

(Ex-5)

red books

Because books immediately governs red, red is an immediate successor of books.
Immediate government and its conversion, immediate successor, are the basic relationships
of a dependency syntax. However, for holistic purposes and for inferring general andabstract statements from syntactic information, the above terms themselves are not generalenough. A dependency syntax would most definitely work without any further terms, but it― 40 ―

What is zone theory?

would be very troublesome to define properties only with the concept of immediate
government. It would be like trying to talk about a long line of ancestors only with theterms parent and child. In order to make a dependency more terminologically intuitive,
further terms are necessary.
Such a further term is indirect government, a relationship between two words that are not ina immediate government relationship.
(D-6)

A word W indirectly governs another word Y
iff W immediately governs a word X which immediately governs Y.

(Ex-6)

astonishingly red books

Since books immediately governs red, and because red immediately governs astonishingly
by control of the adverbal suffix –ly, books indirectly governs astonishingly.
As much as it was desirable to unify selection and control to proto-dependency, immediate
and indirect government should be unified to general government:(D-7)

A word W generally governs another word X
iff W either immediately governs or indirectly governs X.

(Ex-7)

astonishingly red books

Since books immediately governs red, and indirectly governs astonishingly, books generally
governs red and astonishingly.
For later definitions, the completion of the successor definition thread is very important.
However, instead of creating a converse term to indirect government, indirect successor
shall have a much broader range. I shall achieve this by using a recursive definition. In arecursive definition, one part of the definiens (the defining part of a definition) is equivalent
to the definiendum (the defined part of a definition). It is required, however, that the lastverification step of a recursive definition ends with a part of the definiens that is different
from the definiendum.
(D-8)

A word W is an indirect successor of another word V
iff V indirectly governs W, or
if there is another word X which is an indirect successor of V,― 41 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. ５

and X generally governs W.
(Ex-8)She has bought astonishingly red books.

The word book is an indirect successor of the finite verb has because has indirectly governs
book. But the words astonishingly and red are also indirect successors of has because
books generally governs both astonishingly and red, and books is an indirect successor ofhas. books immediately governs red, and indirectly governs astonishingly.
Immediate and indirect successor relationships are unified as general successor:(D-9)

A word W is a general successor of another word V
iff W is either an immediate successor of V, or W is an indirect successor V.

The notion of general successor is required to define the important term phrase.
(D-10)1n

A series of words W ,...,W is a phrasew

iff there is a word W , and
1

v

x

n

w

if all other words W ,...,W , W ,...,W are general successors of W .
(Ex-10)astonishingly red books

The series astonishingly red books is a phrase because astonishingly and red are general
successors of books. In a phrase, the word of which all other words are general successors
plays a crucial role, and it is called the head.
(D-11)

A word W is the head of a phrase P
iff all other words V1,...,Vn in P are general successors of W.

(Ex-11)astonishingly red books

The word books is the head of the phrase astonishingly red books.
Once there are phrases, it becomes necessary to define hierarchical relationships forphrases. Government and successor relationships only allowed words as appropriate relata.
Hierarchical relationships for phrases are called dependency relationships, and they arevalid between a word and one or more phrases.

― 42 ―

What is zone theory?

(D-12)A phrase P immediately depends on a word W
iff W immediately governs the head H of P.

(Ex-12)

She bought red books.

red books is a phrase with the head books. books is immediately governed by bought, thus
red books is immediately dependent on bought. If the head of a phrase P is an indirect
successor of another word W, then P is indirectly dependent on W.
(D-13)A phrase P indirectly depends on a word W
iff the head H of P is an indirect successor of W.

(Ex-13)She bought books in a bookshop.

in a bookshop is a phrase which is directly dependent on bought. a bookshop is also aphrase, but its head bookshop is an indirect successor of bought. Therefore, a bookshop isindirectly dependent on bought.
Immediate and indirect dependencies are unified as general dependencies:(D-14)A phrase P generally depends on a word W
iff P immediately depends on W, or if P indirectly depends on W.

Having defined the proto-dependency relationship, the government relationships, thesuccessor relationships, and the dependency relationships, in a next step zone theory
becomes accessible.

ZONE THEORY
The central idea of zone theory is the notion that word order is a mechanism by which
major syntactic constituents are located according to specific properties that are expressedby the internal structure of the head. Word order change—or scrambling—is the result of
relocating a constituent with reference to its prior location. Until now a theory that deals
with scrambling in a systematic way without compromising central issues of thedependency notion, has not been provided within the dependency grammar community.
The zone theory proposed below tries to tackle the problems of basic word order and― 43 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. ５

scrambling while staying within the terminological borders of dependency theory, but theprice is high: the reader should expect some very difficult formalizations.
As outlined briefly above, zone theory assumes that syntactic constituents are locatedaccording to the internal structure of the major—or finite—head. Finite heads are for allpractical purposes always verbs, and the internal structure of verbs is very rigid—in every
language. For instance, in German verb lexemes always precede suffixes which in turnalways precede flexemes. The same is true for Japanese. In German—a language that
contains numerus flexemes—tense suffixes always precede numerus flexemes. Since
lexemes, tense suffixes, and numerus flexemes are expressed by distinct morph(eme)s,
basic word order can be derived by determining which of these morph(eme)s interacts withwhich major syntactic constituents. The starting point for zone theory is thus the definitionof a head-structure:
1-n(D-15)The head-structure of a head H is the serial order of morph(eme)s M in H.

(Ex-15)

kauf.t.ebuy+[past tense]+[–2 sg.]

The above-mentioned major syntactic constituents are more precisely defined as primaryconstituents:(D-16)A phrase P is a primary constituent of a word W
iff P is immediately dependent on W.

(Ex-16)

Das Mädchen kaufte gestern ein Buch in einem Buchladen.
“The girl bought a book in a bookshop yesterday.”

The phrases das Mädchen, ein Buch, gestern, and in einem Buchladen are primaryconstituents because they are immediately dependent on the head kaufte. The analogue istrue for the English sentence.

In a next step a hierarchical relationship between amorph(eme) of a head and a primary constituent is defined:(D-17)A morph(eme) M of a word W zone-commands a phrase P
iff a morph(eme) N of the head H of P is proto-dependent on M,
and P is a primary constituent of W.

― 44 ―

What is zone theory?

(Ex-17)

Das Mädchen kaufte gestern ein Buch in einem Buchladen.
“The girl bought a book in a bookshop yesterday.”As (Ex-15) shows, the head kauf.t.e consists of three morph(eme)s: the verb stem kauf, thetense suffix –t, and the flexeme +e. The noun book is selected, and the preposition in iscontrolled by the verb stem kauf. Therefore the heads Buch and in are proto-dependent on
the verb stem kauf. The adverb gestern, however, is proto-dependent on the tense suffix –t.
Therefore, there are two different zone-command relationships.
Primary constituents that are zone-commanded by the same morph(eme) in thehead-structure, are considered as located in the same zone:(D-18)

Two primary constituents P1 and P2 are located in the same zone Z
iff a morph(eme) M zone-commands both P1 and P2.

(Ex-18)

Das Mädchen kaufte ein Buch in einem Buchladen.
“The girl bought a book in a bookshop.”

The primary constituents ein Buch and in einem Buchladen are zone-commanded by thesame morph(eme) of the head-structure, kauf. Therefore, they are located in the same zone.
If two primary constituents are located in the same zone, then they are located at different
loci (sg. locus)(D-19)

Two primary constituents P1 and P2 are located in different lociiff P1 and P2 are located in the same zone.

Therefore, the primary constituents ein Buch and in einem Buchladen are located on
different loci in the same zone.
Two major zone types must be distinguished: i) remote zone, and ii) close zone. The notionof remote zone is somewhat difficult to grasp, but it is one of the most central concepts ofzone theory.

Primary constituents are zone-commanded by morph(eme)s of thehead-structure. This means that morph(eme)s of the heads of primary constituents areproto-dependent on morph(eme)s in the head-structure. If primary constituents are locatedin different zones, they must be zone-commanded by different morph(eme)s of thehead-structure.

Proto-dependency, and thus also zone-command, are hierarchical― 45 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. ５

relationships.

Sometimes, however, proto-dependency relationships hold for any

configuration of their relata. This is commonly called “agreement” in linguistics. Primaryconstituents are considered as located in the remote zone if the proto-dependency
relationship that justifies the assumption of a zone-command relationship runs both ways:(D-20)A primary constituent P is located in a remote zone RZ
iff a morph(eme) N of the head H of P is proto-dependent on a morph(eme) M
in the head-structure,
and M is proto-dependent on N,even if N is also proto-dependent on another morph(eme) X in thehead-structure.

(Ex-20)

A good girl reads many books.

The noun girl in the primary constituent a good girl contains a grammeme [3.sg], and thesame grammeme is also contained in the flexeme –s of the head. It is difficult to decide on
the specific hierarchy in this and similar cases. The flexeme –s could as much be
proto-dependent on the grammeme [3.sg] of the noun girl as vice versa. Therefore, thedefiniens of (D-20) holds, and the girl must be located in the remote zone. The otherprimary constituent many books must not be located in a remote zone, because there is not
relationship whatsoever between any morph(eme)s in many books and –s.

Primary

constituents that are not located in a remote zone, are located by default in a close zone.
(D-21)A primary constituent P is located in a close zone CZ
iff the conditions for a remote zone do not hold.

(Ex-21)

A good girl reads many books.

The primary constituent many books is located in a close zone.
Zone-command relationships instantiate localizations, i.e. they assign a specific localization
to primary constituents. There are six possible localization structures for two primaryconstituents and their head:
(S-1)

1

2

1

2

P P [M -M ]― 46 ―

What is zone theory?

(S-2)[M1-M2] P1 P2(S-3)

P2 P1 [M1-M2](S-4)[M1-M2] P2 P1(S-5)

P1 [M1-M2] P2(S-6)

P2 [M1-M2] P1

In (S1-4), the head is on the periphery, in (S-5) and (S-6) it is not. It is also possible to saythat the primary constituents are on the periphery in (S-5) and (S-6). In (S-1), (S-2), and(S-5) the order of the primary constituents P is equivalent to their zone-commanding
morph(eme)s in the head-structure; i.e. the order of the primary constituents echoes theorder of their zone-commanding morph(eme)s. In (S-3), (S-4), and (S-6), the order of the
primary constituents does not echo the order of their zone-commanding morph(eme)s; theorder of the primary constituents mirrors the order of their zone-commanding
morph(eme)s. (S-5) is a compound structure in which the primary constituents are on the
periphery and echo the order of their zone-commanding morph(eme)s. (S-6) is also acompound structure, because the primary constituents are on the periphery, and they mirror
the order of their zone-commanding morph(eme)s.
Thus, three different localization types can be distinguished: i) peripheral, ii) echo-, and iii)
mirror-localization. Peripheral localization requires the further terms of smallest linear
index and greatest linear index. A linear index is an integer assigned to a word in a
sentence. If a word is the first word in the sentence, the word receives {1} as linear index;
if it is the second word, it receives {2} etc. The smallest linear index is that linear index
that has the smallest value in a sentence, and conversely the greatest linear index is the onethat has the greatest value in a sentence.
(D-22)A primary constituent Px is peripherally localized in a structure S
iff the word with the smallest linear index in P is also the word with thesmallest linear index in S,
or the word with the greatest linear index in P is also the word with the greatest
linear index in S.

(Ex-22)

Good1 girls2 read3 books4.

There are two primary constituents in (Ex-22): good girls and books. Good girls is― 47 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. ５

peripherally localized because the word with the smallest linear index (={1}) in the primaryconstituent good girls, namely good, is also the word with the smallest linear index in thewhole structure good girls read books. Conversely, books is peripherally localized because
it is the word with the greatest linear index in the primary constituent books and in thewhole structure. Thus, peripheral localization leads to a structure where the head isbracketed by its primary constituents.
In an echo-localization the localization of primary constituents, the order of the primaryconstituents echoes the alignment of zone-commanding morph(eme)s in the head-structure.
(D-23)

Two primary constituents P1 and P2 are echo-localized as #P1-P2#
iff the head-structure of a head H is #M1-M2#
and M1zone-commands P1
and M2 zone-commands P2.

(Ex-23)

Wenige Bücher lesen nur dumme Mädchen.
“Only stupid girls read few books.”

Nur dumme Madchen (= only stupid girls) and wenige Bücher (= few books) are primaryconstituents of lesen (= read). The flexeme +en (= M2) of lesen zone-commands nur
dumme Mädchen (= P2), and the verb stem les (= M1) zone-commands wenige Bücher (=P1). Since, the head-structure is M1-M2 and the primary constituents appear as P1-P2 theprimary constituents are echo-localized.
In a mirror-localization the localization of primary constituents is a mirror image of thealignment of zone-commanding morph(eme)s in the head-structure.
(D-24)

Two primary constituents P1 and P2 are mirror-localized as #P2-P1#
iff the head-structure of a head H is #M1-M2#(Ex-24)and M1zone-commands P1

and M2zone-commands P2.

Lesen brave Mädchen Bücher?
“Do good girls read books?”

Brave Mädchen (= good girls) and Bücher (= books) are primary constituents of lesen (=read). The flexeme +en (= M2) of lesen zone-commands brave Mädchen (= P2), and the― 48 ―

What is zone theory?

verb stem les (= M1) zone-commands Bücher (= P1). Since, the head-structure is M1-M2 andthe primary constituents appear as P2-P1 the primary constituents are echo-localized.
If primary constituents in a sentence are peripherally localized and mirror-localized, they are
considered as being cross-localized.
(D-25)

Two primary constituents P1 and P2 are cross-localized
iff P1 and P2 are mirror-localized,
and P1 and P2 are peripherally localized.

(Ex-25)

A good girl reads books.

Since a good girl and books are peripherally localized and mirror-localized, they are also
cross-localized. It is important in my opinion to stress the fact that what is currently
referred to as adjacency in English as a necessary requirement for word ordering, is in facta cross-localization. The primary constituents are only adjacent to the head reads, but not totheir respective zone-commanding morph(eme)s. This has never been taken up by anybody
working in the generative grammar framework!
In the attempt to describe—and possibly predict—different word orders, transformational
syntaxtheories

assumebase

structures.

Base

structures

are—often

very

abstract—assumptions on certain structures that form the starting point of all kinds ofpossible word order changes. However, in many transformational theories, the term “basestructure” not only has a technical standing, there is also a more sublime understanding of
the term in a neurological and cognitive sense.
In zone theory, base structure is used in a purely technical sense with no assumptions about
linguistic neurology whatsoever. To emphasize this point, the definition of base structure
requires that candidates must be acceptable utterances of natural languages. Designating a
structure as a base structure does not imply, however, that this structure is in any way
simpler or more primary than structures that can be—technically—derived from it.
The definition of base structure first requires the definition of two types of cycles.
(D-26)A cycle is constituted by a head H and its primary constituents P1-Pn
iff Pi is located in the remote zone RZ.

(Ex-26)

Ich weiss, dass er gestern ein Buch kaufte.

― 49 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. ５“I know that he bought a book yesterday.”
The whole sentence (Ex-26) is a cycle because ich is located in the remote zone. However,
the embedded clause dass er gestern ein Buch kaufte is also a cycle, because er is located in
the remote zone with respect to the head kaufte.
The definition of matrix cycle requires furthermore the term initial element:(D-27)

A word W is an initial element
iff W is not a general successor of any other word X.

In (Ex-26), the verb weiss is an initial element because there is no other word in thesentence of which weiss is a general successor.
Consequently, a matrix cycle is a cycle where the head is not a general successor of anotherword.
(D-28)

A head H and its primary constituents P1-Pn constitute a matrix cycle
iff H and P1-Pn constitute a cycle,
and H is an initial element.

In (Ex-26), the whole sentence is a matrix cycle, while the embedded clause is only a cycle,
but not a matrix cycle.
A base structure then is a cycle which constitutes an acceptable utterance, and where theremote zone and the close zone are mirror-localized if the close zone is closer to thehead-structure than the remote zone, or where the remote zone and the close zone arecross-localized if the close zone is not closer to the head-structure than the remote zone.
(D-29)A cycle C is a base structure
iff C is an acceptable utterance,
and the remote zone RZ and the close zone CZ are mirror-localized,
and CZ is closer to the head-structure H of C than RZ,or, if there is no mirror-localization, then RZ and CZ are cross-localized.

(Ex-29.1)(dass) brave Mädchen viele Bücher lesen.
“(that) good girls read many books.”― 50 ―

What is zone theory?

(Ex-29.2)

Lesen brave Mädchen viele Bücher?
“Do good girls read many books?”(Ex-29.3)

Brave Mädchen lesen viele Bücher.
“Good girls read many books.”

In German, among the sentences (Ex-29.1-3), (Ex-29.1) must be the base structure because
the primary constituents brave Mädchen and viele Bücher are mirror-localized, and theclose zone viele Bücher is closer to the head-structure lesen than the remote zone brave
Mädchen. (Ex-29.2) cannot be a base structure because the primary constituents are
echo-localized, but not mirror-localized. (Ex-29.3) cannot be a bast structure because there
is already a structure that qualifies with mirror-localized primary constituents. In English,
the base structure is the same in (Ex-29.1-3) with the primary constituents good girls andmany books being cross-localized.
In order to talk about the changes word order instantiates, the resulting structure bychanging the word order of a base structure has to be described with respect to its basestructure. Therefore, the original position of a primary constituent or a head in its basestructure, and the resulting position in its word order changed structure must be
distinguished. A source position, thus, is the position primary constituents and their headtake in the base structure.
(D-30)

A localization of a primary constituent P or a head-structure H is a source
position
iff P or H are localized in a base structure.

(Ex-30)(dass) brave Mädchen viele Bücher lesen.
“(that) good girls read many books.”

In (Ex-30), the primary constituents brave Mädchen and viele Bücher, and the head lesen
take source position because they are located in a base structure. If a structure is not a basestructure, at least one primary constituent or the head must take a different position thantheir source position. This new position is called goal position.
(D-31)

A localization of a primary constituent P or a head-structure H is a goal

― 51 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. ５

position
iff P or H are not localized in a source position.
(Ex-31.1)

Lesen brave Mädchen viele Bücher?
“Do good girls read many books?”(Ex-31.2)

Brave Mädchen lesen viele Bücher.
“Good girls read many books.”

In (Ex-31.1), the head lesen is on a goal position, because (Ex-31.1) is not a base structure,and because lesen has a different location in its base structure (Ex-30).
In (Ex-31.2), both the head lesen and the primary constituent brave Mädchen are in goal
positions, because they are not in their source positions.
The change between a structure where all elements take source position and a structure
where at least one element takes goal position, can be called movement. This term implies
the notion that that element which is on a goal position has moved there from its source
position.
(D-32)A primary constituent P or a head-structure H have moved to a goal position
iff P or H are not localized in a source positions.

(Ex-32.1)

Lesen brave Mädchen viele Bücher?
“Do good girls read many books?”(Ex-32.2)

Brave Mädchen lesen viele Bücher.
“Good girls read many books.”The primary constituent brave Mädchen is considered as having moved from its source
position in (Ex-32.1) to a goal position in (Ex-32.2). If a structure can be formed bymoving one element from another structure to a position it did not previously take, the firststructure will be regarded as having derived from the latter.
(D-33)

A structure T has derived from a structure S
iff T can be formed by the movement of at least one element of S.

The terms movement and derivation are likely to get mixed up with the concept oftransformations in transformational constituency grammars.

― 52 ―

The crucial difference,What is zone theory?

however, is that zone theory does not make assumptions on language acquisition and related
neuro-linguistic

theories.

Whetherhumanbeings perform—albeit

unconscious-

ly—transformations on linguistic structures in respective brain centers is still not decided.
Evidence is more than thin in this respect.
Dependency theory as a linguistic theory deals with the analysis of result structures of
linguistic action. I.e. people speak or write, and the results of these actions, namely soundstructures and sign structures are analyzed with respect to their syntax by dependency
theory. Linguistic action is among all actions human beings can perform, a poeitic action.
Poeitic actions are those actions that leave a trace after performation. Painting a picture is apoeitic action, because once the action is performed, there is a trace of this specific action,
namely the picture. Speaking is a poeitic action that leaves ephemere traces, namely sounds
that are very short-lived. However, from a certain technological state on, you are able to use
devices that record sound, and thus are able to conserve speech traces and make them more
long-lived. Writing leaves comparatively long-lived traces, but only in comparison to
speaking; it depends on the durability of the medium used to conserve writing symbols how
long-lived the writing traces are going to be.
The analysis of linguistic traces as results structures is per se limited. It appears to me thatin the same manner as it is for all practical purposes impossible to deduce the internal
psychic state of a painter from chemical analysis of the colors used in her paintings,
linguistics is speculative when it tries to deduce internal workings of the linguistic brain
centers from syntactical analysis of linguistic result structures.
For this reason, neither movement nor derivation (along with base structure, source andgoal position) imply any assumptions about the workings of our brains. They are merely
abstract and technical devices to calculate statements on linguistic structure—in this paper:
syntactic structures. In this respect, I again emphasize that the notion of base structure does
not relate to a fictitious structure that may or may not be a neuro-linguistic form on whichsyntax operates in the brain. It is merely the starting structure in a calculus for word orderchange. The calculus I have in mind is not expansive or cumulative like most logicalcalculi, but permutative. That means that a structure does not expand in quantity by
application of rules, but that elements of the structure change position.
For example, in German a yes/no-question is derived by moving the head from its source
position at the right periphery of the structure to a source position on the left periphery of
the structure. The rule required here would be something like move the head to the left

― 53 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. ５

periphery! We find that a simpler rule will derive all possible structures for a German basestructure.
(1)(dass) [das Mädchen gestern] RZ [in einem Buchladen ein Buch]CZ kaufte(2)

kaufte [das Mädchen gestern] RZ [in einem Buchladen ein Buch]CZ?

The rule move the head to the left periphery! has been applied to (1) and yields (2). In anext step, we can apply the rule move exactly one primary constituent to the left periphery!
This will yield any sentence below:(3.1)

das Mädchen kaufte [gestern] RZ [in einem Buchladen ein Buch]CZ.

(3.2)

gestern kaufte [das Mädchen] RZ [in einem Buchladen ein Buch]CZ.

(3.3)

in einem Buchladen kaufte [das Mädchen gestern] RZ [ein Buch]CZ.

(3.4)

ein Buch kaufte [das Mädchen gestern] RZ [in einem Buchladen]CZ.

Although the sentences (3.1–4) consists of the same elements, they are not completely
equivalent in pragmatic terms, but rather answers to different questions. It also depends onwhether there is stress on the first element or not.
In German, there are thus two major rules:(R-1)

move the head to the left periphery!

(R-2)

move exactly one primary constituent to the left periphery!

However, (R-2) can only be applied once. The same is true for English, although not every
primary constituent can be moved. English starts with a base structure such as (4.1). For
this reason, the only movement that can apply at all is (R-2).
(4.1)[the girl]RZ bought [a book in a bookshop]CZ [yesterday]RZ.

(4.2)

yesterday [the girl]RZ bought [a book in a bookshop]CZ.

(4.3) *

a book, [the girl]RZ bought [in a bookshop]CZ [yesterday]RZ.

(4.4) *

in a bookshop [the girl]RZ bought [a book]CZ [yesterday]RZ.

English makes use of (R-2), but it cannot be applied to close zone elements. In English,― 54 ―

What is zone theory?

subjects and objects stay adjacent to their respective heads. That can be shown by thefollowing sentence:(5)

Did the girl not buy a book in a bookshop yesterday?

In (5) the girl is adjacent to did, and a book to buy. That the girl is not adjacent to buy, isillustrated by the position of not between the girl and buy.
In wh-questions on any constituent other than the subject, (R-2) applies to any constituent:(6.1)

What did [the girl]RZ [buy [in a bookshop]CZ’]CZ [yesterday]RZ(6.2)

Where did [the girl]RZ [buy [a book]CZ’] [yesterday]RZ(6.3)

When did [the girl]RZ [buy [a book in a bookshop]CZ’]CZWith respect to (6.1-3), it must be remarked that buy and all its general successors form aclose zone CZ, while buy itself acts as a head-structure for CZ’. This embedded zoning
happens whenever a natural language uses periphrastic tenses or modi.
For instance, Japanese does not have periphrastic constructions for tense or modus, but
incorporates all features into the finite verb mainly by agglutination, sometimes also by aprocess close to fusion. In comparison to German and English, Japanese is also remarkablethat the subject is not localized in the remote zone. Since there is no morph(eme) other thanthe verbal lexeme on which subject primary constituents are proto-dependent, Japanese
subjects may not be located into a remote zone if they are not marked other than with thenominative case marker =ga.
However, if a subject—or for that matter any other phrase—is marked with the exclusive
focus marker =wa instead of nominative =ga, then the subject moves from the close zone
into the remote zone. The exclusive focus marker =wa tends not to appear with verbs thatare not inflected with a finite flexeme, or with a flexeme that carries an actual finite
function.
(7.1)

私は本 を 買 っ た。

watashi=wa hon=o kat.ta.
‘I’ =exclusive focus / ‘book’ =accusative / ‘buy’ +perfect tense
I bought a book.

― 55 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. ５(7.2)

私が本 を 買 う こ と は多 い。

watashi=ga hon=o ka.u koto=wa oo.i.
‘I’ =nominative / ‘book’ =accusative / ‘buy’ +present tense / ‘matter’ =exclusive
focus / ‘frequent’ +present tense
It does happen a lot that I buy a book.
In (7.1) the verb kat.ta is finite, and the flexeme +Ta commands the exclusive focus marker
as all finite flexemes do in finite position. In (7.2), however, the verb ka.u, although +Ru is
a finite flexeme, is not in finite position and therefore unable to assign the exclusive focus
marker. The exclusive focus marker at the end of koto is assigned by the finite flexeme +iof the adjective oo.i.
Causative constructions in German and English are periphrastic constructions; in Japanese asuffix verb –Sas.u or –Sase.ru is suffixed to the verb. This leads to different syntactic
constructions, and to different zoning:(8.1)

Ich lasse ihn ein Buch kaufen.

(8.2)

I let him buy a book.

(8.3)

私は彼 に 本 を 買わ せ る 。

watashi=wa kare=ni hon=o kaw.ase.ru.
‘I’ =exclusive focus / ‘he’ =dative / ‘book’ =accusative / ‘buy’ -causative+present tense
All sentences (8.1–3) mean the same. However, German and English share the same zone
structure, while Japanese has a different one.
(9.1)

[Ich]RZ lasse [ihn [ein Buch] CZ’ kaufen] CZ.

(9.2)[I] RZ let [him buy [a book] CZ’] CZ.

(9.3)[watashi=wa]RZ [[kare=ni] CAUS [hon=o] LEX] kaw LEX.ase CAUS.ru.

In (9.1), the accusative ihn and the constituent ein Buch kaufen is zone-commanded by thecausative lexeme verb lass, while the flexeme +e zone-commands the remote zone subject.
The analogue is true for the English sentence (9.2). In (9.3), however, the dative kare=ni iszone-commanded by the causative suffix verb –ase, while the object hon=o is― 56 ―

What is zone theory?

zone-commanded by the lexeme verb kaw.
The principal problem in Japanese, if zone theory is applied, is not that subjects—other than
German and English subjects—are not automatically located in the remote zone.

If

Japanese subjects and other constituents are located in the close zone, how should closezone constituent order look like? Is there sufficient evidence to place the subject in front of
the object in Japanese base structure in a way as to ensure that Japanese is truly a
SOV-language? It turns out that there is such evidence, but only for structures withnominative and accusative marked constituents. This can be proved by looking at floatedquantifiers in Japanese (cf. Gross (1999a: 141ff)).
(10.1)

学生は三人本 を 読ん だ。

gakusei=wa san.nin hon=o yon.da.
‘student’ =exclusive focus / ‘three’ -person / ‘book’ =accusative / ‘read’ +past
tense
Three students read books.
(10.2)

学生は本 を 三冊読ん だ。

gakusei=wa hon=o san.satu yon.da.
‘student’ =exclusive focus / ‘book’ =accusative / ‘three’ -book / ‘read’ +past
tense
The students read three books.
In (10.1), the quantifier san.nin refers to gakusei which is indisputable since the suffix noun–nin must refer to people, not to books. There was a certain amount of discussion about thequestion what kind of phrase structuring there was to be assumed to hold between gakusei
and san.nin, but it is safe to say that post-nominal quantifiers are not in the syntactic
domain of the host nouns. This assumption is corroborated by the fact that no Japanesequantifier takes case markings when in a verbal syntactic domain. As a consequence, thequantifier san.nin in (10.1) is a primary constituent of yon.da, because yon.da prohibits any
case marking for san.nin. The same is true for (10.2) where san.satu clearly refers to hon.
If Japanese had a SOV-order, then movement of the object hon to the left periphery should
render the subject between the quantifier and its host noun. If, however, on the contrary
Japanese had a OSV-order then the movement of the subject gakusei to the left periphery― 57 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. ５

should render the object between the quantifier and its host noun. The next two sentences
show, that the assumption for OSV does not hold, and that it must be concluded that theword order for subjects and objects is SO.
(11.1)

本 を 学生は三冊読ん だ。

The students read three books.
(11.2) * 学生は本 を 三人読ん だ。
Three students read books.
However, if the subject occurs together with a complement other than the object or with an
adjunct, then the subject must be closer to the verb in the base structure.
(12.1)

学生は オ フ ィ ス に 二人来た。

gakusei=wa ofisu=ni hutari ki.ta.
‘student’ =exclusive focus / ‘office’ =dative / ‘two~people’ / ‘come’ +past tense
Two students came to the office.
(12.2)

ド ア が こ の鍵で二つ開 い た。

doa=ga kono kagi=de hutatu ai.ta.
‘door’ =nominative / ‘this’ / ‘key’ =essive / ‘two~things’ / ‘open’ +past tense
Two doors opened with this key.
In (12.1) the allative complement ofisu=ni occurs between the subject and the quantifier
hutari in exactly the same position that hon=o occurred in in (11.2). In (12.2) it is the
instrumental adjunct kono kagi=de that occurs in the same position. However, unlike(11.2), (12.1) and (12.2) are acceptable. This means that Japanese subjects in the basestructure are closer to the head-structure than other complements or adjuncts. Among otherthings that is a very strong indication that Japanese subjects are located in the close zone.
Zone theory is thus able to provide something very important to the dependency theory
framework, namely the idea of abstract categories such as zones and head-structures thatcan be used to account for localization preferences in different languages. As thesecategories are by their definitions rooted in previously defined dependency terms, they arealso rooted in dependency theory itself.

― 58 ―

What is zone theory?

Literature:
Gross, Thomas Michael (1999a): Theoretical Foundations of dependency syntax. München:
iudicium.
—(1999b): Zonentheorie: Dependentielle Wortstellungstheorie. Aichi University: Faculty of
Letters: Bungaku Ronsô 120. p170–159.

― 59 ―