Sookmyung Women s University Graduate School of TESOL Introduction to Linguistics Fall 2014

Transcription

1 Week 9 Basic Sentence Structure and Terms Radford et al. (2009), Chapters 18 and 19 Sookmyung Women s University Graduate School of TESOL Introduction to Linguistics Fall 2014 Before delving into the way that syntax is seen as working from the generative perspective, it is important to make sure that we understand the terms that are used. Most of these terms are also used in more traditional approaches to grammar/syntax so they should be somewhat familiar. Grammatical Category When looking at words we introduced the idea that a word is a specific category (noun, verb. Etc.) and that the category of a word is determined, at least in part (in English anyway since English is a configurational language) from its position in a sentence. When we look at the syntactic behavior of a word we can talk about its grammatical category. (1) John loves his candy. In sentence 1 John is a noun, loves is a verb, his is a determiner, and candy is another noun. Grammatical Function The grammatical function is the role that a word or group of words plays in a sentence. A sentence is traditionally divided into two parts or functions the subject and the predicate but there are also additional functions that need to be introduced. (2) John and Mary kicked around the idea for a while. In this sentence John and Mary comprises the subject. They are joint subjects. While kicked around is the predicate. Subject The subject of a sentence is the often though of the doer of the action Predicate The predicate describes the action. (3) Chris really loves his chicken. In this case loves is the predicate. So we can see that predicates are typically verbs. Complement In addition to the subject and the predicate there are also complements as a type of grammatical function. The complement is generally the entity that is affected by the action. (4) Simon bit his lip. In (4) above his lip is the complement as it is what is being affected.

2 Argument The predicate has what are called arguments. The arguments of the predicate are the entities involved in the action. Essentially the arguments of the predicate are the subject and the complement. In the following sentence (5) Olivier and the cream are the arguments of the predicate whipped. (5) Olivier whipped the cream. Clause The clause is an important unit in syntax. It minimally contains a subject and a predicate and may contain other types of categories. All of the examples below show single clauses of different sizes; i.e. with more or less elements. (6) John died. (Subject + Predicate) John died a peaceful death (Subject + Predicate + Complement) John died a peaceful death in the jaws of the giant clam (Subject + Predicate + Complement +?) Case Since, as I am sure you have figured out by now the arguments of the predicate we have mentioned so far, subjects and complements often seem to be a similar grammatical category (nouns) e need to find some way of differentiating them. Of course, English being a configurational language we know that subjects generally precede the predicate while complements typically follow it, but his is not always the case. There needs to be some way syntactically of marking whether an entity is acting as a subject or a complement. This is where case comes in. Case is a system that marks entities for their function in the clause. We typically speak of three different cases; nominative, accusative, and genitive. Nominative case is typically marked on subjects. Accusative (Objective) is typically marked on complements. The only problem is that in English case is not always overtly marked as it is in some languages. (7) I like him. He likes me. In (7) we can see that case marking is still overtly marked on pronouns in English (I-me and hehim) but it is not overtly marked on other types of subjects and complements as shown in (8). (8) The armadillo dug a hole. Here there is no overt marking of nominative or accusative case on the elements involved but there is good reason to believe that these elements are still marked for case even if it is not overt or visible. Constituents Constituents are structural units. Words are generally grouped into what are called constituents. Constituents can be made up of a single word or of several words. We identify constituents as a unit because they function like a single unit. They have to move together and nothing can be inserted in between them. Constituents, for their part, are also he building blocks of phrases. In the sentence below: (9) The chihuahua bit the hell out of the unfortunate man. In (9) above the chihuahua is a constituent as the two component parts the and chihuahua are

3 somehow connected syntactically. Adjunct Adjuncts are one additional type of grammatical function. Adjuncts typically provide additional information about an activity. (10) I saw him on Tuesday. In (10) on Tuesday is an adjunct. It supplies additional information that is optional. (11) I saw him at a great distance on Tuesday. We can also stack adjuncts. Topic and Comment are terms that come from the study of what is called focus. The idea that Radford et al. (2006) are trying to show here is that it is possible to front a complement if the complement is the topic of the sentence. Tense It seems that there is one last grammatical fiction that needs to be introduced and that is tense. Tense provides information regarding the timing of the activity as shown in the following example (12). (12) John was hit by a running deer. In (12) above the tense is marked by the auxiliary was. Simple/Complex Sentence When looking at sentences we can designate them as being either simple or complex. A simple sentence is one with a single clause, even if that clause is quite long as is shown in (13) below. (13) The miniscule man with the amazing curly red hair whacked the unfortunate horse all over its hindquarters with a most vicious stick. A complex sentence, on the other hand, is one that contains two or more clauses as in (14). (14) Betty thought that the armadillo had true elegance. Boris wanted to bite the candy bar. Complement/Main clause In a complex sentence the different clauses can be differentiated as either being the main clause or the complement clause. As is quite obvious from the terms a complement clause is one which functions as a complement of the verb in the main clause. (15) William believes he can fly. In (15) he can fly is a complement of the verb believes. Tensed/untensed

4 Looking aback at (14) we can see a different between the complement clauses in each example sentence there. In the first one, the verb in the complement clause is tensed. This means that the verb is marked with tense features. This is not true in the second one, which is in bare infinitival form and therefore, untensed. This is shown more clearly in the two examples in (16) below. (16) John hoped that he would win. John hoped to win. Finite/non-finite The difference between finite and non-finite verbs relates at least in part to whether a verb is tensed or not. A finite verb is one that is marked for tense and agreement features and takes a nominative subject as in (17) below. (17) June wants that he runs for office. A non-finite verb is one which is untensed and not marked for agreement and the subject is not in the nominative case, as shown in (18). (18) June wanted him to run for office. Finite clause/non-finite clause The difference in finite and non-finite verbs extends to clauses as well and is observable in the example above (14-18). Aspect Progressive Perfect As we have noted earlier in the course, aspect refers to the duration of an action. In English we make the distinction between progressive and perfective aspect. It is important for us to see these as being separate from tense, as shown in (19) below. (19) John is bathing the chicken. John was bathing the chicken. In (19) the aspect is the same (progressive) but the tense is different. This is shown with the perfective in (20). (20) All the clean chicken is gone. All the clean chicken was gone. Infinitive The final form that a verb can take is the bare or infinitival form. Infinitives are often preceded by a to marker, but this need not be the case, as show in (21). (21) She never would have allowed him to cut down the tree. She refused to let him cut down the tree. (22) She abhorred him cutting down the tree. In 22 we see that clauses with overtly marked aspectual features are also non-finite. Relative pronoun

5 A relative pronoun is a pronoun that functions as the complement of a verb. It can also function as the subject of a complement clause. (22) I saw someone. I saw someone standing by the fire. I wondered who killed the beautiful chicken. Relative clause A relative clause is a clause that has a relative pronoun as its subject. Relative clauses are finite although they do not mark for agreement. Radford et al. (2006) mention 4 different types of sentences based on their functions. Interesting for us is that these different types of sentences also have different syntactic properties. Declarative function A declarative sentence is used to make a statement. (23) The tornado destroyed the town completely. Interrogative function An interrogative sentence is one that asks a question. The verb is often fronted. (24) Did you really kiss the poisonous frog? Imperative function An imperative sentence is one that makes a command. The subject is often ellipsed and the verb is non-finite. (25) Put your socks on. Exclamative An exclamative sentence is one used to show surprise or delight. It is typically preceded by a whword and the verb is moved to the end of the sentence. (26) What a wonderful day it was. As Radford et al. (2006: 254) show it is possible to mix sentence types in complex sentences, whjch shows an important distinction between sentences and clauses. Phrases Aside from clauses another very important building block of sentences is that of phrases. A phrase is a collection of two or more words that form some sort of unit. This unit is other than a clause since it does not contain a subject and a predicate. As we mentioned briefly above phrases are made out of words that are merged. When two words are merged into a phrase, one of those words becomes the head. The head of a phrase dominates the phrase and determines its semantic as well as syntactic properties. So in (27) where we have merged the words throw and eggs into a phrase, throw is the head. (27) throw eggs Since the verb throw is the head of the phrase all the properties of the verb project through the phrase and the phrase behaves like a verb, as can be seen in (28).

6 (28) John likes to smile on Halloween. John likes to throw eggs on Halloween. We therefore refer to the phrase after it head and throw eggs is a verb phrase or VP. The relationship between the elements in a phrase can be shown in a tree diagram. VP V throw N eggs This can also be shown in a bracket system of notation, as shown in (29), but when the structures become larger and more complex it is easier to use tree diagrams. (29) [ VP [ V throw][ N eggs]] If we start expanding this out we can create a sentence like we have in (28) (John likes to throw eggs) we have to figure out the category of the to infinitive. By comparing sentences, we can see that to is functioning as a tense marker in much the same way that will functions as a tense marker. This is shown in (30). (30) Jill knows John to throw eggs. Jill knows John will throw eggs. We can therefore posit a single functional category called tense that works for both of them. Our tree now looks like this. TP T VP To V N throw eggs Now we have to decide filter in the verb for the sentence, John likes to throw eggs. Like is a verb and is the head of the entire predicate likes to throw eggs so all of that comes under the verb to make a VP. But the VP is finite and therefore is marked for tense. That is, it needs to somehow agree with the subject so we need to posit that tense is also present on the verb like. This is also good because it simplifies the theory and makes it more regular and systematic. We can posit that all VPs are, in fact, the complements of a TP. TP T VP V TP like T VP

7 to V NP throw N We can see looking at this tree that basically we have the same type of structures that repeat themselves. What we basically have is a string of complements. Thinking about the whole sentence now we need to consider what we are going to do with the subject John. It somehow does not seem fitting to make subject the head of the entire sentence. Intuitively we know that the subject is not really what syntactically controls the sentence. The job certainly falls on the predicate (the verbal element). So this leaves us with the problem of where we are to place the subject in the tree. It bears remembering that these tree diagrams are not just there to help us understand the underlying structure of an utterance. They also represent our mental states and are constrained by the theory. It has been posited that subjects are part of a different kind of phrase structure. Up until now we have only looked at complements. Now we need to posit a new one called specifier. Specifiers occur in a different position in the tree. To posit specificers we also need to posit a new addition to our trees. Our trees now have levels. So, we have the phrasal head level, VP for example. Then we have the bar level (V ) and finally the maximal projection or V level as shown in (31) below where X means any category. (31) XP X X So our specifier is the daughter of XP and the sister of X. This is how the whole tree looks then. Please notice that since we posit the X level in one place it needs to be everywhere for consistency and systematicity. We will also need it when we consider adjuncts, our third type of phrase structure, as described below. TP N T John T VP V eggs V TP like T VP T V to V NP throw N

8 N eggs A bit of a summary/recap with some slight bit necessary extensions Here are some basics of syntax followed by some less basic and more up-to-date aspects of the theory. Words are merged to form units called constituents in much the same way that sounds and morphemes are put together to form words. These constituents are then used to form phrases which are headed by one word, the lexical category which will dominate the phrase. We, thus, have phrase types determined by the lexical category of the head. It is important to remember that in generative theory all the elements are separate. Thus when doing syntax we worry not so much about the meaning but rather of the syntactic behavior of the phrases. All observation and explanation must be made using only ideas central to the syntactic component. Thus, theories of syntax are created by observing the syntactic behavior of words alone. In the beginning of the generative movement it was observed that phrases of the same type behave in the same or similar ways in relation to where they are placed in relation to other phrases. That is, certain phrases typically occupy similar positions in a structure. Remember, the key here for generativists is simplicity and systematicity. They are looking to design a model for language that is not merely descriptive. Generative models should indicate how utterances can be created, not just describe in an idiosyncratic way the ones that are there. Generativists want their models to be simple yet powerful because they should, in theory, describe how every human language goes about doing this. For this reason generativists decided to look deeply into language. They have to try to find what all languages have in common despite the seemingly huge surface differences. Chomsky in developing his system took inspiration from an older theory already present in phonology, D- structure and S-structure. Thus, it is also attractive and maybe natural to assume that some of the underlying ideas inherent the systems we learned in phonology and morphology are the same or similar in syntax. Utterances are made up of words that have been merged into constituents, and then phrases and finally clauses. A clause necessarily contains two parts, a subject and a predicate. A simple utterance is one which contains only one clause, while a complex utterance contains more than one clause. Again, complex utterances are created by merging clauses. Trees We also looked at how we can draw trees to show us how this merger works. Trees are drawn based on what are called phrase structure rules. It is assumed that these phrase structure rules are housed in the brain and that there is a severely limited number of them. There are rules which pertain to different arguments a clause can contain. Look below at the three phrase structure rules. In class we looked at phrase structure rules from a very descriptive point of view and I mentioned that such simple/descriptive trees are not very useful. Nor are they systematic. To solve this problem, Jackendoff (1977) came up with the theory of X-bar. The purpose of tree diagrams was originally to simply create a visual representation of the structural aspects of utterances. No one initially suspected at all that they might actually be used to do more than merely describe the structure of utterances in a very simple way. All this changed with the advent of x-bar theory. X-bar theory was first formalized by Jackendoff in 1977 with the publication of X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. From this point on x-bar became a theory in itself. This was forced by the basic underlying principle of x-bar theory, which was that all

9 phrases are essentially the same. This simple idea forced the issue and the trees became more abstract. Once more, x-bar has played an important role in constraining and helping to simplify Chomsky`s overall theory of language. The simple principles which make up x-bar theory and the structures that are so obvious in the trees that are made using this theory have had a profound effect on syntactic theory over the years. Most of the principles and parameters that have emerged make use of this framework. Just look at binding relations, theta-marking, case-marking, and government, not to mention movement. The current descriptions of these important principles would be impossible without the accompanying concepts of x-bar theory. It is, then, possible to posit that there might be tree-like representations in the brain as well as part of UG. Thus x-bar became part of UG and not just a handy device that teachers used to use to teach their students grammar. The underlying principle of X-bar is that all phrases, whether lexical or functional, behave in the same structurally. We can thus label all phrases as X. Leveling is important in X-bar and there are three levels inherent in each phrase. So a lexical item is projected into a tree and immediately the three other levels (X, X`, X``) appear. X-bar theory is extremely simple. In X-bar theory there are only three real phrase structure rules. NP -----> (D) N` (Specifier Rule) XP -----> (YP) X` (N` > N` (PP)) (Adjunct Rule) X` > X` (YP) N` > N (PP) ; (Complement Rule) X` > X (YP) {PS. The parenthesis in the rules indicates that something is optional.} Taking a look at this we find there are two things that we need to go over. The first one is the notion of tree diagrams. In the blue book they have been drawing flat trees with only two levels, the phrase level (NP, PP, VP, etc.) and the word level (N, P, V, etc.). We now want to argue that there are levels (at least three). We will call these levels double bar (V = VP), bar (V`), and just the word level (V). As you can see from the phrase structure rules above, adjuncts occur at a different level in the tree than complements. Let s take a look now at how adjuncts and complements differ and make sure that this is the right idea. Look at the examples below. These examples are taken from Radford (1988). (1) a student of Physics (complement) (2) a student with long hair (adjunct) We can differentiate complements from adjuncts semantically by saying that in the former their meanings are more essential to the head while the latter just offer addition, often unrelated information. So, for example, it is important or even essential to know what a student studies, but the length of their hair is irrelevant. On a syntactic level, what is interesting is that the two behave differently. (3) a student of Physics with long hair (4) *a student with long hair of Physics Here the second phrase is not grammatical. This tells us that complements must occur closer to their heads than adjuncts. Now look at this. (5) *the student of Physics of chemistry (6) the student with long hair in the corner Here we can see that the adjunct rule is recursive while the complement rule is not. If this is true

10 then we should be able to put our adjuncts in any order. (6a) the student in the corner with long hair Likewise if the adjunct rule is recursive we should be able to stack adjunct ad infinitum by simply adding more X` levels to the structure. This is shown below in (6b) (6b) the student with long hair in the corner wearing jeans with a tattered notebook etc... Now, how about this? (7) the student with long hair his father cut Here we have an NP (student) which has an adjunct (with long hair) that in turn has another complement (his father cut). We can see that the second complement can t be moved to modify the other NP in the utterance. (8a) the student with long hair his father cut on Wednesday (8b) *the student with long hair on Wednesday his father cut We can plainly see that complements are inherently attached closer to their heads than adjuncts and therefore must occur on a closer level. Now that we have looked at these more layered trees, we can mover forward. Up until Section 19 of the text, we looked at phrases in an idiosyncratic way. We have also really only looked at and used lexical phrases systematically. There were as many different types of phrases as there are word types. Remember, in syntax a large part of what we want to do is limit the options available to us when we go to create sentences. One of the best ways of doing that is to limiting the number of categories. The four lexical phrases in x-bar syntax are Noun Phrase (NP), Verb Phrase (VP), Prepositional Phrase (PP), and Adjective/Adverb Phrase (AP). The structure of the phrase is preserved by the endocentricity constraint, which states that all lexical phrases must have the same structure. They must all contain a head as well of the other levels necessary in the description. This means that all lexical categories must follow the same basic principles. This not only retains the structural uniformity of the tree, but works to curtail possibilities in the tree. For example, because of endocentricity a VP must go to V`, V, and finally the lexical representation, which carries the same features that are present at the VP level. The lexical category cannot change, nor can the specific nature of the VP. All the levels must be realized for each entry. Inherent in the x-bar theory is also the idea of levels, as explained above. The idea for levels was developed based on sentences like the one shown in (9) below. (9) The elephant whipped the farmer with its tail. In this utterance the VP is composed of a verb and an NP and PP. After a cursory glance it is possible to see that the status of the NP and the PP is different. First of all the PP is optional, while the NP is obligatory.

11 (10) The elephant whipped the farmer. (11) *The elephant whipped. (12) *The elephant whipped with its tail. Part of the problem with so-called `baby trees` is that they cannot show the difference between phrases like the farmer and with its tail. For this reason, we need to posit the idea of levels in the tree. On closer inspection we can see some further differences between the two. We can stack one but not the other. (13) *The elephant whipped the farmer his wife with its tail. (14) The elephant whipped the farmer with its tail, on Wednesday, in the mud, while performing a jig. We can also change the order of one, but not the other. That is, we can move one around, but the other is stuck with the verb. (15) The elephant, with its tail, whipped the farmer. (16) *The elephant, the farmer, whipped with its tail. The phrase, the farmer, is a complement and must be located near the verb it modifies on the tree. The phrase, with its tail, is an adjunct and is not as closely related to the verb. We can show these distinctions in the tree by putting them in at different levels. Complements are the daughters of X` and the sisters of X. This places them close to the entity they modify. In fact, they are sisters. Adjuncts are the daughters of X` and the sisters of X`. This puts them at a higher level on the tree and further from the lexical entity. They are like cousins of the word they modify, a much more distant relation than being sisters. This distance also allows them to occur recursively and to move rather freely. To add more adjuncts all we have to do is add more levels via X` to the tree structure. Thus, we have now shown how the three levels of the tree structures work by describing complements and adjuncts. There is still one more grammatical function that we need to quickly go over, namely that of specifiers. Specifiers in x-bar theory are the daughters of XP and the sisters of X`. Once more, in English they branch to the left of their head. Now to understand the role or the position of specifiers in Syntactic theory we need to understand the difference between subjects and objects (arguments) are they are thought to relate to the verb (predicate). The predicate (verb) is seen by syntacticians a being the most important element of a clause. For the moment we can think about the predicate as being the head of a clause, but remember this will change as we add in functional categories soon. It is the predicate which chooses its complements. The choice of complements is part of a predicates lexical entry, as we discussed so long ago. Remember that in syntactic theory this does not mean that a specific verb picks a specific complement as in (17) below. (17) The crocodile loves chicken. The claim is not that the verb love chooses a specific word chicken. It is claimed that a specific type of verb (transitive) specifies that is requires a complement (or two, or none) and if a complement is required then the category if the complement, but not the word itself is specified. This should all be review, so we will move on. Now, the important part is that the predicate does not stipulate anything in regard to its subject. Subjects are outside of the verbs sphere of influence. This is

12 reflected in the spaces they are claimed to occupy in the tree structure; namely, specifier position. We can see that spec (specifier) is in a different place than complements. It is much higher and therefore more distant from the verb. Thus, placement in the tree structure is intended to be indicative of the structural relationship (as defined in part by constituency) between elements. Such arrangements are made based on observations of how such elements behave syntactically regarding movement possibilities and other less overt behaviors such as case-marking and theta-role marking. Central to the specifier - VP relation is the idea of TENSE and AGREEMENT. It has been observed and posited that it is the subject which imposes TENSE and AGREEMENT features in the verb. For this to happen the subject in the specifier position must be higher in the tree than the verb, which it is. This, on the basis of observations regarding selection restrictions of predicates (predicates select complements, not subjects) and TENSE and AGREEMENT marking it has been concluded in x-bar that subjects occupy specifier position. We are now ready to tackle the more abstract idea of functional categories.