Edward Gibson

Okay. There's a different way to say the same idea. And it's like, well, the auxiliary verb, that will thing, it's at the front as opposed to in the middle. Okay. And so, and he looked, you know, if you look at English, you see that that's true for all those modal verbs and for other kinds of auxiliary verbs in English. You always do that. You always put an auxiliary verb at the front.

Okay. There's a different way to say the same idea. And it's like, well, the auxiliary verb, that will thing, it's at the front as opposed to in the middle. Okay. And so, and he looked, you know, if you look at English, you see that that's true for all those modal verbs and for other kinds of auxiliary verbs in English. You always do that. You always put an auxiliary verb at the front.

Okay. There's a different way to say the same idea. And it's like, well, the auxiliary verb, that will thing, it's at the front as opposed to in the middle. Okay. And so, and he looked, you know, if you look at English, you see that that's true for all those modal verbs and for other kinds of auxiliary verbs in English. You always do that. You always put an auxiliary verb at the front.

And when he saw that, so if I say, I can win this bet, can I win this bet, right? So I move a can to the front. So actually, that's a theory. I just gave you a theory there. He talks about it as movement. That word in the declarative is the root, is the sort of default way to think about the sentence, and you move the auxiliary verb to the front. That's a movement theory, okay?

And when he saw that, so if I say, I can win this bet, can I win this bet, right? So I move a can to the front. So actually, that's a theory. I just gave you a theory there. He talks about it as movement. That word in the declarative is the root, is the sort of default way to think about the sentence, and you move the auxiliary verb to the front. That's a movement theory, okay?

And when he saw that, so if I say, I can win this bet, can I win this bet, right? So I move a can to the front. So actually, that's a theory. I just gave you a theory there. He talks about it as movement. That word in the declarative is the root, is the sort of default way to think about the sentence, and you move the auxiliary verb to the front. That's a movement theory, okay?

And he just thought that was just so obvious that it must be true. That there's nothing more to say about that, that this is how auxiliary verbs work in English. There's a movement rule such that to get from the declarative to the interrogative, you're moving the auxiliary to the front.

And he just thought that was just so obvious that it must be true. That there's nothing more to say about that, that this is how auxiliary verbs work in English. There's a movement rule such that to get from the declarative to the interrogative, you're moving the auxiliary to the front.

And he just thought that was just so obvious that it must be true. That there's nothing more to say about that, that this is how auxiliary verbs work in English. There's a movement rule such that to get from the declarative to the interrogative, you're moving the auxiliary to the front.

And it's a little more complicated as soon as you go to simple present and simple past, because if I say, you know, John slept, you have to say that. did John sleep, not slept John, right? And so you have to somehow get an auxiliary verb. And I guess underlyingly, it's like slept is, it's a little more complicated than that, but that's his idea. There's a movement, okay?

And it's a little more complicated as soon as you go to simple present and simple past, because if I say, you know, John slept, you have to say that. did John sleep, not slept John, right? And so you have to somehow get an auxiliary verb. And I guess underlyingly, it's like slept is, it's a little more complicated than that, but that's his idea. There's a movement, okay?

And it's a little more complicated as soon as you go to simple present and simple past, because if I say, you know, John slept, you have to say that. did John sleep, not slept John, right? And so you have to somehow get an auxiliary verb. And I guess underlyingly, it's like slept is, it's a little more complicated than that, but that's his idea. There's a movement, okay?

And so a different way to think about that, that isn't, I mean, then he ended up showing later, right? So he proposed this theory of grammar, which has movement. There's other places where he thought there's movement, not just auxiliary verbs, but things like the passive in English and things like questions, WH questions, a bunch of places where he thought there's also movement going on.

And so a different way to think about that, that isn't, I mean, then he ended up showing later, right? So he proposed this theory of grammar, which has movement. There's other places where he thought there's movement, not just auxiliary verbs, but things like the passive in English and things like questions, WH questions, a bunch of places where he thought there's also movement going on.

And so a different way to think about that, that isn't, I mean, then he ended up showing later, right? So he proposed this theory of grammar, which has movement. There's other places where he thought there's movement, not just auxiliary verbs, but things like the passive in English and things like questions, WH questions, a bunch of places where he thought there's also movement going on.

And in each one of those, he thinks there's words, well, phrases and words are moving around from one structure to another, which he called deep structure to surface structure. I mean, there's like two different structures in his theory, okay? There's a different way to think about this. which is there's no movement at all.

And in each one of those, he thinks there's words, well, phrases and words are moving around from one structure to another, which he called deep structure to surface structure. I mean, there's like two different structures in his theory, okay? There's a different way to think about this. which is there's no movement at all.

And in each one of those, he thinks there's words, well, phrases and words are moving around from one structure to another, which he called deep structure to surface structure. I mean, there's like two different structures in his theory, okay? There's a different way to think about this. which is there's no movement at all.

There's a lexical copying rule such that the word will or the word can, these auxiliary verbs, they just have two forms. And one of them is the declarative and one of them is the interrogative. And you basically have the declarative one and, oh, I form the interrogative or I can form one from the other. It doesn't matter which direction you go.

There's a lexical copying rule such that the word will or the word can, these auxiliary verbs, they just have two forms. And one of them is the declarative and one of them is the interrogative. And you basically have the declarative one and, oh, I form the interrogative or I can form one from the other. It doesn't matter which direction you go.