1 – Goals
universal grammar – universal, common properties of languages abstracted from particular grammars, linguistic universals
particular grammar – grammar of a particular language– a set of rules or principles which specify how to form, pronounce, and interpret phrases and sentences in a language; grammar is a model (=systematic description) of the linguistic abilities of native speakers of a language which enable them to speak and understand the language fluently; a model of linguistic competence of the fluent native speaker of the language
morphology
syntax
phonology
semantics
competence – linguistic abilities of a native speaker
grammatical competence (language structure)
pragmatic competence (language use)
grammatical competence – a system of rules of sentence-formation, -interpretation, -pronunciation, etc.
performance – the actual use of language un concrete situations, often an imperfect reflection of competence
performance errors – slips of the tongue, mistakes etc.
intuition – the ability of native speaker to make judgments about whether a sentence is well-formed/has a particular structure or not
about sentence well-formedness
about sentence structure
idiolect – the individual way of speaking of a particular person
dialect – the way of speaking of people with a common geographical background
sociolect – the way of speaking of people who share a common social background
informant – a person who provides a linguist with information about some aspects of his/her native language
novel utterance – a sentence that we have never heard before
creativity of language – the speaker’s ability to produce new sentences that are immediately understood by other speakers although they bear no resemblance to sentences which are familiar
The language is rule-governed, there are syntactic, morphological, phonological, semantic rules that specify how to use the language.
generative grammar – a grammar incorporating an explicitly formulated set of syntactic, semantic, morphological, and phonological rules which specify how to form, interpret, and pronounce a given set of sentences (generate sentences); for grammar to be adequate, it must generate all and only the well-formed sentences of a language
infinite number of well-formed sentences (with performance limitations), finite set of rules (and finite experience of a child-learner)
corpus of utterances – a recorded sample of speech or text
elicitation – eliciting well-formedness judgments from a native speaker (informant)
criteria of adequacy
observational adequacy – specifying which sentences are syntactically, semantically etc. well-formed
descriptive adequacy – correctly specifying which sentences are well-formed and also properly describes syntactic, semantic etc. structure of the sentences to provide a principled account of the native speaker’s intuitions about this structure
explanatory adequacy – explaining why grammars contain certain types of technical devices and not others, what exactly are the defining characteristics of human languages that differentiate them from other communication systems; explaining how humans acquire their native languages. To attain explanatory adequacy, a theory must be universally valid, psychologically real, and maximally constrained.
theory of language – a set of hypotheses about the nature of possible and impossible grammars of natural languages, is universal, but maximally constrained, i.e. describes human languages only; must meet the condition of psychological reality (the language is an internalized system I-language, i.e. internalized language). To attain explanatory adequacy, a theory must be universally valid, psychologically real, and maximally constrained.
Autonomous Syntax Principle: No syntactic rule can make reference to pragmatic, phonological, or semantic information.
Structure-Dependence Principle: All grammatical rules are structure-dependent. (You can’t apply the rule to a given sentence unless you know what the syntactic structure of the sentence is, and what grammatical categories the words and phrases in the sentence belong to (pp. 32-33).
Universal Grammar – innate knowledge of the universals
absolute universals (nonstatistical) – a property which all languages share without any exception
relative universals (statistical) – general tendency in language, but one which has some exceptions (Consistent Serialization Principle – language tend to place modifying elements either consistently before or consistently after modified elements) (serialization – ordering of words and phrases)
Theory of Markedness – within which we distinguish between marked and unmarked phenomena
unmarked – accords with universal principles (absolute or relative) in a language (=regular)
marked – goes against some relative universal, is exceptional in some way (e.g. stylistically marked – have, for example, a literary or archaic flavour; court martial, postmaster general)
Theory of Core Grammar – common, universal, core of linguistic principles which characterise the full range of unmarked phenomena found in natural language
rule of Core Grammar – any rule which conforms to these principles
peripheral rule (non-core rule) – a rule that does not obey the principles concerned
Languages vary within fixed limits, the task is to define the set of possible parameters of variations across languages.
2 – Phrasal Categories
categorial constituent structure – all sentences are hierarchically structured out of words into phrases, each of the component words and phrases in a sentence belongs to a specific category
constituents – structural units that consist of sound-sequences that belong to various categories
phrases
head – the key constituent of a phrase
intuitions about syntactic structure
about the existence of constituents
about their belonging to categories
(labelled) tree diagrams = phrase markers (P-markers) – represent sentence structure (S-structure), mark the hierarchical grouping of words into and phrases into sentences (another way is labelled bracketing)
nodes – each represent a constituent
branches
word-level category – a set of words which share a common set of linguistic (especially morphological and syntactic) properties (individual words can belong to more than one category, need is a verb and a modal)
word-level categories, evidence
phonological: different stress patterns for some similarly looking words that are of different categories (increase, torment, transfer)
semantic: structural ambiguity
morphological: certain type of inflection can attach only to specific categories (verbs -s, -ed, -n, -ing; modals do not have such inflection)
syntactic: distribution (categories are distributional classes) – set of sentence-positions in which a word of a category can occur in
phrasal categories, non-syntactic evidence
morphological: phrasal inflection of the morpheme ‘s (the crown is the king of England’s), genitive ‘s is a Noun Phrase inflection, not a Noun inflection
semantic: the phenomenon of structural ambiguity
Mary looked very hard (‘very severely’ AP or ‘very intensely’ ADVP)
The President could not ratify the treaty. (It would not be possible for him to do it/It would not be possible for him not to do it – which constituent is modified by ‘not’: could or VP?) – scope ambiguity
phonological: negative contraction is possible when not modifies a modal and not a following VP (The President couldn’t ratify the treaty)
syntactic evidence
preposing – under appropriate stylistic conditions, certain parts of a sentence may be preposed for emphasis.
I can’t stand your elder sister. – Your elder sister, I can’t stand (though you brother is OK).
postposing – especially phrases that are felt heavy or long
He explained all the terrible problems that he had encountered to her. – He explained to her all the terrible problems that he had encountered.
Only phrasal constituents can undergo movement (preposing or postposing).
sentence-fragments
- Where did he go? - Up the hill. (=He went up the hill.)
Only phrasal constituents can serve as sentence fragments.
distribution of adverbial expressions – two kinds:
S-adverbs (like certainly), attached to an S-node
VP-adverbs (like completely), attached to a VP-node
ordinary coordination (CONJ: and, or, but)
He is a very shy and rather inarticulate man.
Only constituents of identical categories can be conjoined.
shared constituent coordination (right node raising)
John will, and Mary may, go to the party. John walked (and Mary ran) up the hill.
Shared constituent coordination is only possible where the shared string is a possible constituent of each of the conjuncts.
pronominalisation – there is a general property of natural languages that they possess devices for referring to entities mentioned elsewhere in the same sentence or discourse
proforms, pro-constituents (‘him’ is pro-NP, there is pro-PP)
- What do you think of [the man who wrote that unbelievably boring book]? - I can’t stand him.
ellipsis
- John won’t wash the dishes. - I bet he will wash the dishes if you’re nice to him.
Only VPs can undergo ellipsis (under appropriate discourse conditions).
phrase – a set of elements which form a constituent
noun phrase – an expression containing a head noun
Testing the structure
If it has the same distribution as an appropriate phrase of a given type, it is a phrase of this type.
[NP Drunks] would get off the bus. [NP People who get drunk] would get off the bus.
If it can undergo movement, this is a phrase.
Would [NP drunks] get off the bus?
Every afternoon, the big red bus would stop in front of the village clock, and [PP off the bus] would get a dear old lady.
If the driver told the drunks that they had to get off the bus, then [VP get off the bus] they would.
If it can serve as a sentence fragment, it is a phrase.
- Who would get off the bus? - [Drunks].
- What would drunks do? - [VP Get off the bus].
- Did he get off the train? – No, [PP off the bus].
If it permits positioning of S- or VP-adverbials, it is an S or a VP.
Drunks [S-adverbial certainly] would get off the bus. Drunks would [S-adverbial certainly] get off the bus.
Drunks would get [VP-adverbial slowly] off the bus.
If it can undergo ordinary coordination with a phrase of a given type, it is a phrase of this type.
[NP Drunks] and [NP other undesirable elements] would get off the bus.
If it serves as a shared constituent in the shared constituent coordination, it is a phrase. (Works only with the leftmost branch of the S.)
If it can be replaced by a proform, it is a phrase of the same type as the proform.
[They] would get off the bus.
If, whenever they needed to heed the call of nature, drunks [VP would get off the bus] – [pro-VP which] they obviously would…
If it can undergo ellipsis, it is a VP.
gapping – an ellipsis that leaves a gap in the middle of a phrase or clause; when a verb is gapped, a modal preceding it is also gapped
John bought an apple and Mary bought a pear.
Could John close the door and could Mary close the window?
Drunks would get off the bus and junkies would get off the train.
selection restrictions – the range of different expressions which can be used after a particular constituent. The difference between phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs – ‘get off’ and ‘get on’ take the same complement, whereas ‘put off’ and ‘put on’ do not. Therefore, there are of different nature.
strict adjacency principle – An NP complement of a verb must be positioned strictly adjacent to its verb
3 – Phrase Markers
terminal nodes – the nodes at the end of each complete tree structure, labelled with an appropriate lexical item
nonterminal nodes – other nodes
dominance – X dominates Y if X occurs higher up the tree than Y and they are connected by an unbroken set of branches
immediate dominance – a node immediately dominates another if it is the next highest node up in the tree and they are connected by a single branch
precedence – a node precedes another if it occurs to the left of the other node on the printed page
immediate precedence – a node immediately precedes another if it occurs immediately to the left of the other node
constituent – a set of nodes form a constituent iff they are exhaustively dominated by a common node, X is a constituent of Y iff X is dominated by Y
immediate constituent – X is an immediate constituent of Y iff X is immediately dominated by Y
c-commanding (constituent command) – X c-commands Y iff the first branching node dominating X dominates Y, and X does not dominate Y, nor Y dominate X; a node c-commands its sisters and their descendants
c-command condition on anaphors – an anaphor must have an appropriate c-commanding antecedent
no crossing branches – there cannot be discontinuous constituents
PS rules (phrase structure rules) – specify how sentences are structured out of phrases, and phrases out of words
recursion of structures – property to be reapplied indefinitely many times
complementary distribution – the relationship between two different elements, where one element is found in a particular environment and the other element is found in the opposite environment; elements which occur in complementary distribution should be analysed as belonging to the same distributional class
positional variants – the choice between them is determined by the position they occur in
adjective = [+V, +N] noun = [-V, +N]
verb = [+V, -N] preposition = [-V, -N]
supercategorial generalisations – that extend across more than one category
4 – Noun Phrases
N’ – an ‘intermediate’ type of nominal phrase, larger than N, but smaller than NP
Evidence for N’
distributional – ‘king of England’ can occur independently in other types of sentence-structure (e.g. He became king of England.)
structural parallelism between the [English king] and the [king of England] – the principle of maximising structural symmetry between related constructions
ordinary coordination – Who would have dared to defy the [king of England] and [ruler of the Empire]?
shared constituent coordination – He was the last (and people say the best) king of England.
pronominalisation – The present [king of England] is more popular than the last [one].
one is the kind of proform that can replace N’
Complements are always closer to the head than adjuncts.
vacuously recursive rule – self-defining
When the Noun has an overt Complement, then it functions only as an N. But when the Noun has no overt Complement, then it is not only an N, but also an N’.
The [student] with short hair is dating the [one] with short hair.
This [student] works harder than that [one].
Coordination: only constituents attached at the same level can be coordinated (therefore Adjuncts and Complements cannot).
Extraposition – adjuncts can be extraposed freely, while complements cannot: A student came to see me yesterday [with long hair]. (*A student came to see me yesterday [of Physics].)
Preposing – Objects of Complement prepositions can be preposed, Objects of Adjunct Prepositions cannot. [What branch of Physics] are you a student of? (*[What kind of hair] are you a student with?)
Co-occurrence restrictions (subcategorisation restrictions): In the case of a PP Complement, there are severe restrictions on the choice of P heading the PP; only some nouns permit of-phrase Complement (a student of Physics, *a boy of Physics), but the type of PP which functions as an Adjunct can be used to modify any type of head Noun (a student with long hair, a boy with long hair).
Complements
your reply [to my letter]
the attack [on the Prime Minister]
the loss [of the ship]
her disgust [at his behaviour]
his disillusionment [with Linguistics]
(PPs and Clauses)
the suggestion [that we should abandon missiles]
the demand [for him to resign]
the question [whether euthanasia is ethical]
the [Physics] student
tha ban [on pronography]/the [pornography ban]
recruitment [of personnel]/[personnel] recruitment
the appeal [for charity]/the [charity] appeal
relief [from famine]/[famine] relief
damage [to the brain]/[brain] damage
the investigations [into fraud]/the [fraud] invest.
a fan [of Debbie Harry]/a [Debbie Harry] fan
the allegations [of treachery]/the [treachery] all.
Adjuncts
the book [on the table]
the advertisement [on the TV]
the fight [after the match]
his resignation [because of the scandal]
a cup with [a broken handle]
(PPs, temporal NPs, APs, Clauses)
the abolition of taxes [next year]
those students of physics [absent from class]
the king of England [who abdicated]
the [Cambridge] student
the shop [on the corner]/the [corner] shop
the strike [in the shipyard]/the [shipyard] strike
the lady [of iron]/the [iron] lady
the bridge [over the river]/the [river bridge]
a sauce [with cream]/a [cream] sauce
tea [from China]/[China] tea
the weather [in winter]/the [winter] weather
Differences between the nominal pre- and postmodifiers.
The semantic relation between a prenominal NP and the N’ it modifies is much more vague (and has to be inferred from pragmatic clues) than in the case of a postnominal PP. The [proportional representation] campaign. = The campaign [for/against proportional representation].
prenominal NPs cannot contain a Determiner: a lover [PP of [NP classical music]] = a [NP classical music] lover BUT: a lover [PP of [NP the opera]] = *a [NP the opera] lover (an [NP opera] lover)
BUT2 Quantifiers (every, each, all, both, half, any, some, no) are not barred from occurring in attribute NPs: the [All India] radio station, an [all points] bulletin, a [half frame] camera, the president’s [no compromise] policy, an [each way] bet, an [any topic] discussion, an [every weekend] girl
Postmodifiers: Adjuncts, Complements
Adjunct Rule (optional) N’ → N’ PP
Complement Rule N’ → N (PP)
Premodifiers: Determiners, Complements, Attributes
Determiner Rule N’’ → (D) N’
Attribute Rule (optional): N’ → NP N’ / N’ → AP N’
Complement Rule: N’ → (NP) N
rule of structural symmetry: [NP the king of England] has symmetrical structure to [NP the English king] (both ‘of England’ and ‘English’ are complements)
APs can be used as postnominals adjuncts (the best person [available]), but with very complex restrictions (p. 212).
Each N’ specifies a semantic property:
the English teacher (i.e. the teacher of English) contains only one N’, it attributes only one semantic property (that the person teacher English)
the English teacher (i.e. the teacher who is English) contains two N’s and it attributes two properties (that the person is a teacher and comes from England)
Each N’ is a phonological unit:
the `English teacher (complement)
the `English `teacher (adjunct)
5 – Other Phrases
phrase structure:
(Specifier) + Head + (Complement/Adjunct)
(Specifier) + (Complement/Attribute) + Head
category variable – X (Y)
The word-level category X is said to be the (Immediate) Head of the X-bar constituent X and its Complement. This X-bar is itself the (Immediate) Head of the XP constituent containing it and the Specifier Phrase. In addition, X may be said to be the Ultimate Head of the XP.
Any given simple word-level category X has two different types of bar projection (i.e. phrasal expansion), namely a single-bar projection in to a ‘small’ X-bar Phrase, and a further double-bar projection into a ‘large’ X double-bar Phrase.
Verb Phrases_____________________________________________________________________
ASP – Aspectual Auxiliary [S[NP John] [M may] [VP[ASP be][V’[V reading] [NP a book]]]
The ASPs are verbal Specifiers: George will [ASP have] completely read the book. (‘completely’ and ‘utterly’ etc. are V’ Adjuncts)
Adjunct Rule (optional) V’ → V’ PP
Complement Rule V’ → V PP
Evidence of the V-bar
fronting: They swore that John may have been taking heroin, and [taking heroin] he might have been!
verbs like ‘begin’ and ‘see’ subcategorise V’ not a VP: I saw John [V’ run down the road].
structural ambiguity: He may decide on the boat.
pronominalisation ‘do so’ as a pro-V’: John will [buy the book on Sunday], and Paul will [do so] as well. John will [buy the book] on Tuesday, and Paul will [do so] on Thursday. John will [put the book on the table], and Paul will [do so] as well.
NP in a Complement PP can generally be passivised, whereas an NP on an Adjunct PP cannot.
Ellipsis: the VP and V’ can undergo ellipsis, and so V’ with the Complement (but not with the Adjunct): John might be going to the cinema on Tuesday.
- Who might be going to the cinema? - John might/John might be/John might be on Tuesday.
Gapping of a V may not leave more than one Complement of V within the containing V-bar.
There are no preverbal Complements, there are only Attributes and Specifiers before the Verb.
Complements
He will work [at the job]
He laughed [at the clown]
Adjuncts
He will work [at the office]
He laughed [at ten o’clock]
Attributes
his [desperate] search for her
his [complete] adoration of her
his [utter] rejection of the accusation
their [high] praise for her performance
Adjectival Phrases_________________________________________________________________
Postmodifiers:
John is [AP[A’[A’[A fond][PP of Mary]][PP in some ways]]]
Premodifiers:
Adjectives in English do not permit preceding complements. Among their premodifiers there are only Specifiers and Attributes.
John isn’t [AP[D that][A’[A fond][PP of Mary]]] – Determiner (also: very, as, so, quite, too, rather)
[A’[ADVPcompletely][A’ foolish]] – Adjunct
similarily with ADJPs (because ADJs are positional variants of As)
Prepositional Phrases_______________________________________________________________
Specifiers: right (right on the top shelf), so (so completely in the wrong)
Various phrases as Specifiers:
NPs: They found the dead miners [two miles] under the surface. They held a reunion [twenty years] after the war.
APs: The rabbit burrowed [quite deep] under the surface. The bodyguards stood [really close] behind him.
ADVPs: He disappeared [immediately] before the drugs raid. He died [very shortly] after the operation.
PPs: I found it [up] in the attic. You must have left it [down] in the cellar.
This dispute dates [back [from before the war]]. back – Head
I’ve put your books [[over] in the corner]. over – Specifier (pp. 251-2)
pronominalisation: put it right [on the top shelf] – put it right [there]
He was [partly in the wrong], and perhaps completely [so].
Complement: right on [the top shelf], fell off [the table]
Adjunct/Attribute: He was [completely] in the wrong/He was in the wrong [completely].
Some Prepositions subcategorise PP complements:
He stayed home because [of the strike].
He fell out [of the window].
Few people outside [of the immediate family] know.
Cross-categorial structural symmetry__________________________________________________
different types of Adjuncts and Attributes
double-bar adjuncts X” → X” Adjunct
[NP even [NP the oldest residents]] were surprised
[PP even [PP right at the top]] life is hard
single-bar adjuncts X’ → X’ Adjunct
zero-level adjuncts X → X Adjunct
He isn’t [AP[A’[A[A proud][ADV enough]][PP of his country]]].
Phrasal verbs are zero-level adjuncts [V[V turn][out]]
double-bar attributes X” → Attribute X”
[NP[NP the oldest residents] even]] were surprised
[PP[PP right at the top] even] life is hard
single-bar attributes X’ → Attribute X’
zero-level attributes X → Attribute X
Constraining/Generalising Categorial Rules_____________________________________________
Categorial rules should be restricted to endocentric structures i.e. structures where the category of a given Phrase matches that of its Head.
X – category variable
n – level variable (bar variable), stands for any level of bar projection
… - constituents which might be introduced by the rule
Endocentricity Constraint: All constituent structure rules are of the form: Xn → …Xm… (n≥m) where m≠n if … is null (i.e. if Xn is not branching)
Modifier Maximality Constraint: Every non-head term in the expansion of a rule must itself be a Maximal Projection of some category.
Determiner Phrases: He advocated an analysis along [essentially these] lines. He made [precisely that] point.
Generalised rules (category-neutral): (* = any number, possibly none)
Complement Rule: X’ → X YP* (YP* = any number of phrases of any type, not necessarily all of the same type)
Specifier Rule: XP → (YP) X’
Attribute Rule (optional): X’ → YP X’
Adjunct Rule (optional): X’ → X’ YP
Category Neutrality Constraint – all sentence-formation rules must be formulated entirely in category-neutral terms