Syntax Tony Threw Out the Couch

Some things we know n Is this English? Pat the book lifted. Pat lifted the book. n Lifted Pat the book. n Pat book the lifted. n n Syntax I n It’s surprisingly complicated It’s surprisingly complicated 1) 2) Tony threw out the couch. Tony threw the couch out. F Prepositions can go on either side of the object. 3) 4) Tony stormed out the door. * Tony stormed the door out. 6) What did Mary say John bought? What did Mary say that John bought? F Ok, that is optional. 7) Who did Mary say bought coffee? *Who did Mary say that bought coffee? 5) 8) It’s surprisingly complicated 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) Bill thinks Mary is a genius. Her mother thinks Mary is a genius. She thinks Mary is a genius. I asked Mary to buy coffee. What did you ask Mary to buy? Who did you say bought coffee? I borrowed the book Bill bought in DC. *Who did you borrow the book bought in DC? Why? How do people know this? n All native speakers of English know this. n Little kids weren’t told these rules (or punished for violating them)… “You can’t question a subject in a complement embedded with that” n “You can’t use a proper name as an object if the subject is co-referential.” n 1 Two questions n What do people know about their language? n n Including things we know “unconsciously” Systematicity What people eventually end up with is a system with which they can produce (and rate) sentences. A grammar. Even if you’ve never heard these before, you know which one is “English” and which one isn’t: n n If we don’t know we know it, how did we come to know it? Eight very lazy elephants drank brandy. Eight elephants very lazy brandy drank. 16) 17) Positive and negative evidence n n n Adults know if a given sentence S is grammatical or ungrammatical. This is part of the knowledge kids gain through language acquisition. Kids hear grammatical sentences (positive evidence) Kids are not generally told which sentences are ungrammatical (no negative evidence) Positive and negative evidence n n n One of the striking things about child language is how few errors they actually make. For negative feedback to work, the kids have to make the errors (so that it can get the negative response). But they don’t make the errors. But languages differ The “Language instinct” n n n n The linguistic capacity is part of being human. Like having two arms, ten fingers, a vision system, humans have a language faculty. The language faculty (tightly) constrains what kinds of languages a child can learn. =“Universal Grammar” (UG). n English, French: Subject Verb Object (SVO) n n n Japanese, Korean: Subject Object Verb (SOV) n n n John ate an apple. Pierre a mangé une pomme. Taroo-wa ringo-o tabeta. Chelswu-ka sakwa-lul mekessta. Irish, Arabic (VSO), Malagasy (VOS), … 2 But languages differ n English: Adverbs before verbs n Mary quickly eats an apple. n *Mary eats quickly an apple. n (also: n Parameters n n Mary ate an apple quickly) n French: Adverbs after verbs n n Geneviève mange rapidement une pomme. *Geneviève rapidement mange une pomme. n We can categorize languages in terms of their word order: SVO, SOV, VSO. This is a parameter by which languages differ. The dominant formal theory of first language acquisition holds that children have access to a set of parameters by which languages can differ; acquisition is the process of setting those parameters. What are the parameters? What are the “universal” principles of grammar? The enterprise n n n The data we will primarily be concerned with are native speaker intuitions. Native speakers, faced with a sentence S, know whether the sentence S is part of their language or isn’t. These intuitions are highly systematic. We want to uncover the system (which is unconscious knowledge) behind the intuitions of native speakers—their knowledge of language. I-language n n n We are studying the system behind one person’s pattern of intuitions. Speakers growing up in the same community have very similar knowledge, but language is an individual thing (“I-language”). I-languages of a community is can be characterized, but it is external to the speaker (“E-language”), not any one person’s knowledge, a generalization over many people’s I-languages. n Competence n n We are also concerned with what a person knows. What characterizes a person’s language competence. We are in general not concerned here with how a person ends up using this knowledge (performance). You still have your language competence when you are sleeping, in the absence of any performance. Being drunk doesn’t make you think “bought some John coffee” is English, though perhaps one might say it. For example, Parisian French. Prescriptive rules n Another thing we need to be cautious of are prescriptive rules. Often prescriptive rules of “good grammar” turn out to be impositions on our native grammar which run counter to our native competence. n After all, why did they need to be rules in the first place? 3 Prescriptive rules n n n n n n Prepositions are things you don’t end a sentence with. We want to successfully complete this course. Remember: Capitalize the first word after a colon. Don’t be so immodest as to say I and John left; say John and I left instead. Impact is not a verb. The book which you just bought is offensive. Prescriptive rules n When making grammaticality judgments (or when asking others to make grammaticality judgments), we must do our best to factor out prescriptive rules (learned explicitly in school). n Judgments We’re not interested in studying the prescriptive rules; we could just look them up, and it isn’t likely to tell us anything deep about the makeup of the human mind. Syntax as science n Another complicating fact is that a sentence can be bad for any number of reasons, only some of which we are interested in at a given point. n Here, we will study syntax scientifically. This means, in particular, approaching syntax using the scientific method. n *Student the meditated happily. The pebble meditated happily. A Sun rose in the East. John wondered who to go with. n Step 1: Gather observations (data) Step 2: Make generalizations Step 3: Form hypotheses Step 4: Test predictions made by these hypotheses, returning to step 1. n n n A simple introductory example 1) 2) 3) 4) n n n n A simple introductory example Bill kissed himself. Bill kissed herself. Sally kissed himself. Sally kissed herself. 1) Try these out. Which ones sound good, which ones don’t? n 2) 3) 4) Bill kissed himself. *Bill kissed herself. *Sally kissed himself. Sally kissed herself. Hypothesis: An anaphor must have an antecedent which agrees with it in gender. 4 Hypothesis: An anaphor must have an antecedent which agrees in gender. n Hypothesis: An anaphor must have an antecedent which agrees in gender. Let’s test the hypothesis against more data. 5) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) The robot saw itself in the mirror. *John and Bill saw himself in the mirror. *The boys saw himself in the mirror. *Mary and Jane saw herself in the mirror. John and Bill saw themselves in the mirror. Mary and Jane saw themselves in the mirror. The boys saw themselves in the mirror. 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) n Our hypothesis only explains (5). What is the generalization? Hypothesis: An anaphor must agree in gender and number with its antecedent 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) n The executives gave themselves a raise. *I gave himself a cookie. I gave myself a cookie. You gave myself a cookie. *You gave herself a cookie. *You gave himself a cookie. You gave yourself a cookie. The robot saw itself in the mirror. *John and Bill saw himself in the mirror. *The boys saw himself in the mirror. *Mary and Jane saw herself in the mirror. John and Bill saw themselves in the mirror. Mary and Jane saw themselves in the mirror. The boys saw themselves in the mirror. Person n n n n n I is “first person singular” You is “second person singular” (you left) or “second person plural” (you left = y’all left) He, She is “third person” We is “first person plural” They is “third person plural” Again, our hypothesis doesn’t successfully predict which of these are grammatical and which aren’t. What’s the generalization? Anaphors seem to agree with person. Myself for first person singular, ourselves for first person plural, yourself for second person, himself, herself, or itself for third person singular, themselves for third person plural. Hypothesis about anaphors Levels of adequacy n An anaphor must agree in gender, number, and person with its antecedent. n This is the hypothesis we will end with, although there will be more to do with anaphors. n Incidentally, gender, number, and person very often go together. Very rarely will you see agreement with one and not the others as well. n n n If our hypotheses can predict the existence of the grammatical sentences in a corpus (a set of grammatical sentences), it is observationally adequate. If our hypotheses can predict the nativespeaker intuitions about which sentences are grammatical and which are ungrammatical, it is descriptively adequate. 5 Levels of adequacy n n If we can take a descriptively adequate set of hypotheses one step further and account not only for the native speaker judgments but also for how children come to have these judgments, our hypotheses are explanatorily adequate. It’s this last level that we are hoping to achieve. n n n Refresher on syntax n Words can be grouped into categories by part of speech like noun, verb, adjective, preposition, … n Parts of speech are determined distributionally (traditional “semantic” definitions don’t work) Basic principles Parameters of variation How to set the parameter from input n n Constituents n The words that make up a sentence like… n n n Constituents n Functioning as a unit… The students did their syntax assignment. The students did the crossword puzzle. n John did the crossword puzzle. n The crossword puzzle is what John did. n *Crossword puzzle is what John did the. n John likes the crossword puzzle. n John likes the jigsaw puzzle. n John likes the theater. n The students did their syntax assignment. n …are grouped together into component parts, constituents, which function together as a unit. Among them, [the students], the do-ers, and [their syntax assignment], the done. Phrases n n A phrase is a constituent that has a central core word (called the head of the phrase); other words in the phrase generally relate to (or modify the meaning of) the head. The category of the head determines the category of the phrase. n The happy students is a noun phrase, headed by the noun students. Happy modifies students, the specifies which students. Ran swiftly is a verb phrase, swiftly modifies ran. The yinkish dripner blorked quastofically. Yinkish is an adjective, dripner is a noun, to blork is a verb, quastofically is an adverb. Sentences n Complete sentences need to have a subject and a verb. John left. *John. n *Left. n The happy students left speedily. n n n So sentences are made of noun phrases and verb phrases. 6 Sentences n n n n We could say a sentence is either: n n n n n John left (speedily). The happy students left (speedily). Trees a noun and a verb a noun and a verb phrase a noun phrase and a verb a noun phrase and a verb phrase S Or we could say: n n a sentence is a noun phrase and a verb phrase a phrase always has a head, and sometimes that’s all. Of the past and the future n n n NP VP N V John left Of the past and the future n Progress was incremental, and often required revising our assumptions about how sentences are really put together. n It’s now half a century later, and we have learned a lot about how syntax works. Data was examined, generalizations were arrived at, hypotheses were formed, predictions were tested—and often led to revisions of the generalizations and the hypotheses, and so forth. Of the past and the future Some milestones Serious scientific study of sentence structure of this kind generally began in the 50’s, driven to a great extent by the work of Noam Chomsky. Two goals of the class: n n n We can start by drawing the structure of a sentence like this, which means: “John left is a Sentence composed of a Noun Phrase (composed of John) and a Verb Phrase (composed of left). Note the heads. Think like a syntactician. Be able to read books, articles, etc. about syntax. It’s not really enough to just know what people concluded, we need to understand why they concluded what they did. n n n n Until about the mid-70’s, phrase structure rules (like what we’ll see today). Mid-70’s, X-Bar Theory (a generalization about what are possible PSRs). In the 80’s, a fairly significant shift to Government and Binding Theory (viewing grammar a little less like a computer program). Very productive. In the 90’s, another shift to the Minimalist Program (an attempt at simplification, as well as a change in philosophy). 7 What’s different n n Progress was incremental, and very often the differences between the stages of generative linguistic theory are not as great as they seem. Just looking at the forest from a different perspective (sometimes with a microscope). So let’s start with the data and some generalizations, and pretend that we’re back in the 60’s for a while. Finding constituents n How do we find constituents in a sentence? For many of them, we can guess, but a guess isn’t evidence. If sentences and phrases have structure, we should be able to test for this structure. Replacement test n n A constituent is a group of words which function as a unit. If you can replace part of the sentence with another constituent (the smallest constituent being a single word), this tells us that the replaced section of the sentence is a constituent. This isn’t foolproof, but it usually works if you try to keep the meaning as close as possible. Replacement test n n n n n n Sentence fragment test n Generally, only constituents can be used in the fragmentary response to a question. n n The n the sandwiches. *Ate the. What did the students eat? n The n *The. What did the students do? n Ate n students. sandwiches. [The students] [ate [the sandwiches]]. The students ate the sandwiches. They ate the sandwiches. The students ate them. The students dined. [The students] [ate [the sandwiches]]. Movement tests—”clefting” n n Who ate the sandwiches? The students is a constituent. n n The students left. They left. If you can move a sequence of words X together to another part of a sentence that means roughly the same thing, X is a constituent. Clefting: creating a sentence of the shape It was — who/that — out of your sentence. n Start with: It was — who sentence. n Pick a candidate for being a constituent. Put it in place of the — and cross it out in the sentence. Pick who or that. n n n n It was — who/that John bought coffee. It was John who/that John bought coffee. It was coffee who / that John bought coffee. 8 Movement tests—clefting n The students ate the sandwiches. Movement tests—preposing n It was [the students] who ate the sandwiches. n It was [the sandwiches] that the students ate n It was [eat the sandwiches] that the students did. n *It was [the] that students ate the sandwiches. n Preposing involves creating a sentence by putting a constituent at the beginning of the sentence of this form: n — is/are who/what/where/… — n The students ate the sandwiches. [The students] are who ate the sandwiches. [The sandwiches] are what the students ate. [Eat the sandwiches] is what the students did. *[The] is what students ate the sandwiches. n n n [The students] [ate [the sandwiches]]. n n Coordination test n Generally you can replace a constituent of a certain type X with another constituent of type [X and X]. n n n n n When constituency tests fail [The students] ate the sandwiches. [[John] and [the students]] ate the sandwiches. The students ate [the sandwiches] The students ate [[the sandwiches] and [the eggrolls]]. n n John prepared and the students ate the sandwiches. n [[John prepared] and [the students ate]] the sandwiches? n The coordination test failed to reveal the structure. When constituency tests fail Moral: Don’t rely on just one constituency test. n Use several tests, assuming that occasionally any given test might yield a anomalous result. But consider: n This shows two things: 1) that the students and John are each constituents (as is John and the students), and 2) that the students is the same kind of constituent as John n [The students] [ate [the sandwiches]]. Trees and constituency n [The students] [ate [the sandwiches]] The students ate the sandwiches 9 Trees and constituency n [The students] [ate [the sandwiches]] The students constituent ate Trees and constituency n The students the sandwiches constituent n n n The constituents we have identified are the noun phrases and the verb phrase, which have internal pieces as well. n NP D n n An NP needs to have a head noun. An NP can have a determiner: n NP: (D) N Parens mean D is optional n VP N V The students ate NP D N the sandwiches Inside the NP The NPs we found have a D and an N The students n The sandwiches [The students] [ate [the sandwiches]] S The is a determiner (D). Students and sandwiches are nouns, heading the Noun Phrase (NP). Ate is a verb, heading the Verb Phrase (VP) n the sandwiches Trees and constituency Inside the NP n ate constituent Phrases and constituents n [The students] [ate [the sandwiches]] n n n The enthusiastic students ate the sandwiches. The enthusiastic syntax students ate the sandwiches. The enthusiastic syntax students in LX522 ate the sandwiches. But there are lots of other kinds of NPs… 10 Inside the NP n n n n The enthusiastic students… Enthusiastic is an adjective (modifying students). So we need to revise our hypothesis about the components of NP. NP: (D) (Adj) N Inside the NP n n n n The enthusiastic syntax students… We know enthusiastic is an adjective modifying students. What is syntax? Syntax seems to also be an adjective modifying students. You can have two adjectives in an NP. We need to revise our hypothesis again. Inside the NP n n The enthusiastic syntax students… NP: (D) (Adj) (Adj) N ? n n n n n Inside the NP n n The big red fluffy dog barked. The excited big red fluffy dog barked. NP: (D) (Adj) (Adj) (Adj) (Adj) N ? This seems to miss a generalization. Instead… NP: (D) (Adj+) N + means “repeat as many times as necessary” n n n n n The enthusiastic students in LX522… Intermission: What’s in LX522? It is a prepositional phrase (PP), with a head preposition (P) in. To a pretty close approximation: PP: P NP n Inside the NP n The enthusiastic students in LX522… We can have in LX522 in an NP too. In the tree… in the big green tree… Modifiers n Golden Rule of Modifiers: Modifiers are always attached within the phrase they modify. n [NP The enthusiastic syntax students in LX522] Back to the problem, revising our hypothesis: NP: (D) (Adj+) N (PP) modifiers head noun modifier 11 Modifiers D n n head noun PP Modifiers PP D The bird in the tree on the hill… This is an NP… n head noun PP PP The bird in the tree on the hill… ? The bird in the tree on the hill left. n I left. n The bird in the tree on the hill and I left. n n Trick question: Should we revise our NP rule to NP: (D) (Adj+) N (PP+)? Modifiers D n head noun PP The actual structure… PP D The bird in the tree on the hill… n head noun The bird in the tree on the hill… D n Answer to the trick question: Not based on this evidence! n NP We can draw the same information in a tree. NP N the bird PP Trees We can draw the same information in a tree. D head noun P Trees n NP PP P in NP D N the tree P D N the bird NP = D N PP NP D N the hill PP: P NP PP P in PP on The NP is still just D N PP PP NP D N the tree NP = D N PP … PP P on NP D N the hill 12 Modifiers D n n n n n head noun PP Trees n PP And the tree… NP The book of poems with the blue cover… Now should we revise our NP rule to NP: (D) (Adj+) N (PP+)? Of poems modifies book. With the blue cover modifies book. Answer: Yes, this is evidence for the new NP rule. D the n n n n Chris ate pizza at the café. n Chris ate pizza at the café hungrily. n Pat bought peanuts at the café for a dollar. n Pat bought peanuts at the café for a dollar on Tuesday triumphantly. AdjP the N Adj cover A VP can have any number of adverbs before or after the verb. n Pat left quickly. VP: V (Adv) VP: (Adv+) V (NP) (Adv+) D Pat quickly left. n Pat often left early. n Pat cleverly rarely shouts loudly twice. Pat left. VP: V The students ate the sandwiches. The students ate the sandwiches hungrily. NP n Inside the VP n N P with Inside the VP A VP can sometimes have an adverb. n NP blue n n book P poems A VP always has a head verb (V). n PP PP of Inside the VP n N VP: (Adv+) V (Adv+) What we’ve got… n n n NP: (D) (Adj+) N (PP+) PP: P (NP) VP: (Adv+) V (NP) (PP+) (Adv+) n n VP: (Adv+) V (NP) (PP+) (Adv+) n The very happy students left. [NP D Adv Adj N ] V n What should we do now? n 13 AdjP and AdvP What we’ve got now… NP: (D) (AdjP+) N (PP+) PP: P (NP) n VP: (AdvP+) V (NP) (PP+) (AdvP+) n AdjP: (Adv) Adj n AdvP: (Adv) Adv n n n The very happy students left. The Golden Rule of Modifiers says that modifiers must attach inside the phrase they modify. n n n n Very is modifying happy. Very must be inside an Adjective Phrase (AdjP) AdjP: (Adv) Adj The students left very quickly. n n n Very is modifying quickly (an adverb). Very must inside an Adverb Phrase (AdvP) AdvP: (Adv) Adv n n n n n Let’s digest this a bit. Every phrase has one required element. This one required element is the head. Every phrase has only one head. What we’ve got now… n n n n n n n n n NP: (D) (AdjP+) N (PP+) PP: P (NP) VP: (AdvP+) V (NP) (PP+) (AdvP+) AdjP: (Adv) Adj AdvP: (Adv) Adv Given this, AdvP looks somewhat suspicious. Which Adv is the head in very quickly? Suppose: Modifiers are always phrases. This requires a revision to get us closer… What we’ve got now… n n n n n n n n n NP: (D) (AdjP+) N (PP+) PP: P (NP) VP: (AdvP+) V (NP) (PP+) (AdvP+) AdjP: (AdvP) Adj AdvP: (AdvP) Adv Hypothesis: Phrases consist of one head and modifier phrases. There’s still one non-conformist in our midst. Should D be a DP? Put this on hold: Leave this is the sole exception. n Yes, D should be a DP, but there is a complication that we need to come back to. 14