Syntax I Where is English

Where is English? • When we speak of “English,” what are we Syntax I referring to? • Every native speaker has a complete knowledge system of their language. • As far as the grammar is concerned, it’s all part of a native speaker’s cognitive makeup. (Vocabulary is a different thing...) I-language, E-language • The notion of “English” is really an external notion. It’s kind of an “average” of the properties of the (nearly identical) knowledge systems that the individual speakers in the community have. • What we’re interested in here, in a sense, are the properties of a single speaker’s knowledge of language. We might call it “English” if that speaker is part of the “English” speech community. But it’s really an individual’s knowledge. It’s just that the community by and large has the same knowledge. The atoms of the system • However, it seems that it isn’t exactly the words—it is the properties each word has that seems to be basic. Verb or not a verb, plural or not plural... 1) Three dogs are here. One dog is here. 2) Three geese are here. One goose is here. 3) Three deer are here. One deer is here. In search of the atoms of the system • Syntax is—at least in large part—the study of the principles of sentence formation. • There are principles that govern which combinations of words are sentences of English. What is the “vocabulary” of these principles? What are they stated in terms of? • “Words” might be a good starting point. Properties... features... • Words have properties. Like being a verb, or being plural. • “Plural” is an abstract concept—there is no direct map to morphology (deer, geese, mice, feet, dogs, children, data), but they all make the same demands of the verb. Properties... features... Agreement • Same “agreement” requirement, regardless • In English, the subject and the verb of a • The abstract property of “plural” (or 1) The dog wants food. The dogs want food. of the actual morphological shape. “singular”) seems to be what the grammar is sensitive to. That’s smaller than a word. • (Morphosyntactic) features Agreement & interpretability • If the subject is plural (has a plural feature) then the verb must take on a “plural” form. • It is crosslinguistically common to have this kind of agreement relation between subject and verb. • Intuitively, the plural feature is interpretable on the subject, contributes to the meaning, “belongs there” in some sense. On the verb, the (agreeing) plural feature is just a “reflection”, uninterpretable—much more on that later. sentence need to agree in number and (for be) person. 2) The dog is hungry. The dogs are hungry. 3) I am hungry. We are hungry. Data from other languages 1) Il a dit qu’elle était malade he[3.sg] have[3.sg] said that she was ill ‘He said that she was ill.’ 2) Ils ont dit qu’elle était malade they[3.pl] have[3.pl] said that she was ill ‘They said that she was ill.’ • Why does it matter what other languages do? What are the features? What are the features? • Some features—that is, some properties—seem • No language says that subject and verb must agree in to matter for the purposes of syntax, some don’t. So, the identity of the features need to be part of our theory—features are just “properties”—but, the features that syntax relies on are the relevant properties. • We’re looking for the minimal (least complicated) set of features that suffices to explain the grammar. the feature [invented in early September], although there are things that have this property. • For the purpose of describing the grammar and explaining the syntactic principles, we don’t care about [invented in early September]. • We have evidence, though, that [plural] matters to syntax (at least in some way...) [plural] • We know number matters. In English, things can be singular or plural. So, a first guess is that nouns have either a [singular] feature or a [plural] feature. • Hypothesis: [sg] and [pl] are features a word can have. • Prediction: Four classes of words: [sg], [pl], [sg,pl], [] Science • That thing we just did? It was science. • We had some observations, the existence of singular and plural forms—and they matter for the grammar. • We formulated a hypothesis. • We identified other facts that we expect to hold —the predictions—if the hypothesis is correct. • Now, we’ll go back to the data to see if the predictions are borne out. Overgeneration [plural] • However—it turns out that the prediction is • So, we have a new set of observations, now not met in the data. • The prediction is that there are four number classes of nouns, but English has only two. • This hypothesis overgenerates—it predicts the existence of the actual distinctions, but it also predicts other distinctions that don’t exist. Undergeneration • An analysis that says “All words are singular” undergenerates. • All predicted combinations are attested. • Some attested combinations are not predicted. including the fact that there are just two classes. • And there’s a simpler story we can tell, one that predicts exactly two classes. • [plural] for plurals, [] for singulars. Privative features • There are (at least) two ways we can characterize features. • Above, we did it one way—the feature [pl] is there on plurals, and not there on singulars. This kind of feature—which is either there or not there—is a privative feature. Binary features • We could also view a feature as having values. • A binary valued feature could have either of two values. Usually “+” and “–”. • On this view, plurals have [+plural], and singulars have [–plural]. The Hopi dual 1) Pam taaqa wari that man ran[sg] ‘That man ran.’ 2) Puma ta!taqt yu!tu those man[pl] ran[pl] ‘Those men ran.’ 3) Puma taaqat wari those man[pl] ran[sg] ‘Those two men ran.’ Overgeneration? • The Hopi dual can be nicely described as being [+plural, +singular]. • So for Hopi we need both [±plural] and [±singular] (or the privative analog). • Which should predict the existence of a fourth number: singular, plural, dual, and neither singular nor plural. Which is the right way to think of features? • We don’t know from the outset which view is the best for describing syntax, we want to choose the one that best captures the generalizations we see. • The two views are not indistinguishable. They do make different predictions. Specifically, about what syntax can “see.” Hopi morphology • In Hopi, the dual is expressed by combining singular and plural. • Unlike what we observed about English— for Hopi, we have kind of an explanation of this if we analyze dual as [+pl, +sg] (or as [pl, sg]). • So, we seem to need to specify [±sg] for Hopi, but not for English. The fourth number? • There doesn’t, however, seem to be a fourth number—across languages. There’s really just the three kinds: singular, plural, and dual. • Adger tells a story at this point: There is an additional constraint that every noun needs to have some number feature. I want to come back to this in a little while. General structure of the account • Knowing a language is: The lexicon • To construct a sentence, we start with the i) knowing the “words” “words” and put them together. • We can describe the knowledge of the ii) knowing how to put them together iii)knowing how to pronounce them iv)knowing what they mean in combination Interfaces “words” We can view a “word” as a bundle of features, as defined by its assembly properties. The interfaces Grammar grammar assembles words into sentences. The sentences are interpreted and A-P system C-I system pronounced. Lexicon sound words of a language as being a list, a mental lexicon. Interfaces • The assembly process is the grammar proper. • The system that interprets sentences is another cognitive module (“conceptual-intensional system”) concerned with meaning, reasoning, etc. It interprets the constructed sentence at the interface. • The system that determines the pronunciation of sentences is yet another cognitive module (“articulatory-perceptual system”), interpreting the constructed sentence at its interface. meaning Points of tension • For English, it seems that independent [sg] and [pl] features is more complicated than we need—it seems to overgenerate. • In the broader picture, Language needs to allow for independent [sg] and [pl] features in order to accommodate duals in, e.g., Hopi. Tension • We need a hypothesis about what is different in languages with no dual (e.g., English). • Adger’s suggestion: All languages have singulars, but in languages without duals, singular is the default, the “number for nouns not specified for number.” The feature [sg] is not recorded in the English lexicon: book [], books [pl]. • So languages can differ in whether they record [sg] in the lexicon. What are the features? • Hard to say. A universal set, some used in some languages, but not others? Learned? • Some features seem not to exist, why? • Okham’s razor: keep theories as simple as possible. Here, we want to define the simplest set of features we can get away with and still explain the data. Category • Syntax is concerned with distribution. • Words seem to come in distributional classes. • One class of words can appear after the possessive pronoun my (my book, *my at, *my quickly, *my explode, *my purple). The nouns. • One class of words is compatible with past tense. The verbs. • One class of words is compatible with comparative (happier). The adjectives. Category • Words can be separated into classes: noun, verb, adjective, preposition, etc. • Classes also vary with respect to the kind of morphological endings they can have, and so forth. (Arrival, replacement, destruction; widen, computerize) Distribution examples • They have no noun. • They can verb. • They are adjective. • Very adverb, very adjective. • So long as it makes sense (e.g., with gradable adjectives; #they are very absent). • Right preposition. (right over the house) Nouns and verbs • Nouns have a category feature [N]. • Books [N, pl] • Verbs have a category feature [V]. • Complained [V] • Two independent features. • Four predicted categories. [N], [V], [N,V], [] • So, nouns are [N], verbs are [V]. • What might [N,V] be? Maybe adjectives are a bit “nouny” and “verby” at the same time. • And the fourth possibility? []? • The other basic category would presumably be prepositions. • But, really? []? Privative? Or binary? [±N, ±V] • There’s something kind of uncomfortable • The [±N, ±V] category system may seem a bit “out • We can soothe ourselves somewhat by • Consider what un- can attach to: about saying the prepositions simply lack category features. adopting binary category features instead of privative features. • Same predictions, but more in line with our intuition about what “category” should be. of the blue.” But it does yield some descriptive benefit. To wit: 1) untie, unfold, unwrap, unpack 2) unhappy, unfriendly, undead 3) *uncity, *uncola, *unconvention 4) *unupon, *unalongside, *unat [±N, ±V] Russian case • Case is a morphological form nouns take on • Basically, it applies to (reversible) verbs and adjectives, but not to nouns or prepositions. • Well, what are those? depending on where they are in the sentence (subject vs. object). English pronouns show this distinction: I like her, she likes me. Some languages (like Russian) show differing case forms on all nouns. • When Russian nouns are modified by an adjective, the adjective is also marked for case. Russian case • What gets marked for Case in Russian? 1) Krasivaya!! dyevushka!vsunula beautiful! ! girl! ! ! put chornuyu! koshku! v! pustuyu!! korobku black!! ! cat! ! in! emtpy! ! box ‘The beautiful girl put the black cat in the empty box.’ Lexical and functional • Nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs: These are lexical categories. They carry significant and arbitrary meaning, and they are open-class (new ones can be invented). • But not all words are of this kind (except maybe those on telegrams).† †Telegram (n.): An ancient form of texting. Functional categories/ syntactic “glue” Lexical and functional • Sentences are held together by little • Determiners: the, a(n), some, every, that, ... • Pronouns: you, him, they, my, your, ... • Infinitival to: to • Auxiliaries/modals: have, be, do, can, should, ... • Complementizers: that, for, if, ... “function words” as well. These are the functional categories. We will discuss these more later. 1) I expect that the CEO will want to retire. “Pre-noun things” vs. determiners, adjectives Determiners • Determiners generally come before a noun, and come in a few different types. There are differences between the types, though for now we’ll lump them together. Category: [D]. • Articles: the, an • Quantificational determiners: some, most • Interrogative determiner: which • Demonstratives: that, this • Possessive pronouns: my, your, their Determiners vs. adjectives 1) The big fluffy pink rabbit 2) *The my rabbit 3) *The that rabbit 4) *Every my rabbit Determiners cannot cooccur with other determiners, must precede any adjectives. • • Adjectives can occur with other adjectives. To properly describe the distribution of these elements, we really need to separate them into two classes. Lumping them together will not give us a simpler descriptive systems. • Can we lump determiners together with adjectives? • They both come before nouns. • They both seem to “modify” the noun. we didn’t need both categories (if they don’t • Ifmatter for syntax/distribution), we’d have a • simpler theory putting them together. Tall building, that building, a building, my building. Pronouns • Pronouns differ from nouns in a couple of ways (example: case marking), and should be considered a functional category. • The pronouns of English express person, number, and gender. • 1st person: I, me, we, us • 2nd person: you • 3rd person: he, she, him, her, they, them, it. Pronouns are Ds. Auxiliaries and modals • Different from verbs: have, be, do, will, can, • We’ll come back to this again later on, but we will treat pronouns as having category [D], like, say, the or which. 1) We linguists must stick together. Auxiliaries and modals • • In questions, auxiliaries “invert” with the subject, verbs don’t. • Will you leave? Can you leave? Do you leave often? *Leave you often? Infinitival to 1) I like to go to the movies. Auxiliaries occur before not, verbs don’t • You will not leave. You did not leave. *You left not. • Notice the extra do— “do-support” • Auxiliaries are responsible for things like tense, mood, modality, aspect, voice. • might, must, should, could, would, ... We abbreviate their category as [T] (“tense”). Infinitival to • Kind of looks like a preposition, but it’s not. Prepositions take nouns, to as a P has a kind of contentful meaning (endpoint of a path). Infinitival to takes (bare) verbs only, means nothing (apart from “untensed”). • It might be more like a modal: To and modals (can, might, should) seem to appear in the same place (between the subject and a bare verb form). Complementizers 1) Pat will leave. 2) I heard that Pat will leave. 1) I like that John can pick up his own drycleaning. 2) I’d like for John to pick up his own drycleaning. 3) I wonder if Pat will leave. 4) I am anxious for Pat to leave. • It is perfectly possible to embed a sentence inside another one. When we do this, it is indicated with a complementizer (introducing a complement clause). Category: [C]. The P for v. the C for • For is of course a preposition (I looked for you for three hours), but not when it is introducing clauses. • He headed right for the back row. • *He’d like right for the class to be over. • *He expressed interest in the class to be over. • Who would you vote for in the election? • *Who are you axious for to win the election? Regrouping • Lexical categories: • N: noun,V: verb, A: adjective, P: preposition • We started a feature decomposition of these by proposing that they are labels for feature bundles like [±N, ±V], which can characterize certain natural classes across categories. The D that v. the C that • Same kind of thing holds for that. 1) I liked that movie. 2) I heard that movie involved guinea pigs. • Sometimes you can replace for clauses with that clauses. 1) It is important that Pat votes. 2) It is important for Pat to vote. Regrouping • But there are many more than four categories. • Aux: auxiliary, C: complementizer, Adv: adverb, D: determiner, PRN: pronoun, T: modals, ... • So, we would need more features to make all of the distinctions. We won’t pursue that, however—we’ll just use the labels like N, V, A, P, D, T, C, etc.) Feature grouping Feature grouping • Features themselves seem to be grouped. • And this is the way we’ll think of them for • We can write this like [Cat: +N–V], and in • Consider: category. • [±N] is a feature, [±V] is a feature. There • We’ll see other groupings. E.g., Number much of the course. must be others to handle D, T, C, etc. But together they constitute the syntactic category. fact we’ll generally just write [N] as a shorthand for that. could be [Number:sg,pl] (or dual). Although number will in fact be part of a larger grouping including gender and person.