Linguistics 581

Kinds of Linguistic Structure

Syntactic Structure.

First Intuition: We can complicate sentences in regular ways:

John is a handsome man.
John is a dark, handsome man.
John is a tall, dark, handsome man.
John is a sensitive, tall, dark, handsome man.
John is an intelligent, sensitive, tall, dark, handsome man.

I like the plumber in jeans.
I like the plumber in jeans with long hair.
I like the plumber in jeans with long hair at the back of the room.
I like the plumber in jeans with long hair at the back of the room on the stage.

Canonical word order.

English:

John read the book.
Subject Verb Object (SVO)

Japanese: SOV

• John-ga hon-o kai-masi-ta
• John book bought.
Irish: VSO

Others. Free word order too.

But there are no languages in which the canonical word order is SVO for some verbs, SOV for others.

This is like constrainst on reflectance, surface geometry, viewpoint, in the edge-finding problem in vision. Constraints on what needs to be computed.

When you pick a pattern there are certain ways in which it has to generalize. Just makes sense? It would be confusing to have different verbs have different word order? But there's already so much to learn when you learn a verb: conjugation, conjugation group, what the verb means, what prepositions go with it, if any. Why not word order too?

Maybe this constraint reveals something about the mind, or maybe something about how interpretation works. We leave that open.

Structure = patterns [Rules]

Language has different kinds of patterns [Rules]

phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic

Phonology.

• Made up out of individual sounds called phonemes: b, t, k, l, m, n....
• There are constraints on how sounds can be together:
  blick vs
  bnick, pnick, knick, gnick, dnick, tnick
  bmick, ...
  bngick, ...
  

  These constraints are not the same for every language. Greek pneuma ("breath") is pronounced with a pn sequence not possible in English. We change it to an "n" sound in borrowed words like "pneumatic".

  Morph structure = how words are built out of smaller words

  happy: happiness
  good: goodness
  bright: brightness
  remove: * removeness
  destroy: destruction
  remove: * removetion
  remove: removal
  construct: construction
  construe: construction
  fly: flight
  see: sight
  flee: flight
  

  Not all the things that are being put together by these word forming rules are words:

  • prefixes: pre-(prejudge) un-(unhappy) re-(redo)
  • suffixes: -ness(happiness),-al(removal, -tion(destruction)
  Minimal units that are being put together by these word formation rules are called morphemes (cf. phonemes).
  unhappiness = un + happy + ness

  Sometimes its hard to say WHAT morphemes went into forming a word, or how the final word shape is determined.

  1. flight = fly + t
  2. sight = see + t [???]
  3. flight = flee + t [???]
  4. destruction = destroy + tion [ destruct + tion ? (cf destruct + ive, in + destruct + able)]
  5. [_N tour] = [_N tour] + Ø

  Syntactic structure = how the words of the language are put together into larger units

  Definition of grammatical competence

  Knowledge of patterns,rules = grammatical competence

  Knowledge of what makes sense in the world, of how to use sentences in context = pragmatic competence

  • cross-eyed elephant
    
  • cross-eyed clam
    
  • cross-eyed kindness
    
  Pragmatic competence is different because it's not clear it is tied to the idea of linguistic patterns or rules. But it's still an important kind of knowledge about language.

  Definitions of grammar, grammaticality, generative grammar

  The totality of syntactic, semantic, phonological and morphological patterns (or rules) in a language is called its grammar. Notice pragmatics is excluded here, because it brings in knowledge of the world. A system of rules that generates all and only the sentences of the language is called a generative grammar. A speaker's grammatical competence is his or her knowledge of the rules of the language.

  A sentence not conforming to the rules of the language is called ungrammatical. [We mark it with an asterisk.]

  Just because a sentence or phrase is odd doesn't mean it's ungrammatical in this technical sense.

  A sentence may be phonologically, morphologically, syntactically, and semantically acceptable. But pragmatically strange.

  Look at the cross-eyed elephant. (pragmatic)
  Look at the cross-eyed kindness. (pragmatic)
  * Look at the cross-eyed from. (syntactic: ungrammatical)
  * Strive for kind-ity. (morphological)
  
  Note use of asterisk to indicate ungrammaticality.

  Linguistic Levels

  Different kinds of knowledge, different kinds of anomalies

  • Phonological: bnik
  • Syntactic: ?? Large have green ideas nose
  • Semantic: Green ideas have large noses
    • ? I read books in an hour.
    • He wouldn't lift a finger to help me.
    • ? He lifted a finger to help me.
  • Pragmatic: Green frogs have large noses
    • ? He read both of the three books assigned.
    • ? He washed herself.
    • Rules of Conversation:
      -- Do you have coffee to go?
      -- Sure. [Starts to pour]
      -- Oh, no thanks. I don't want any.

  Syntax

  Ambiguous and non-ambiguous sentences:

  • Oh, we're now addressing the question of AIDS in the White House.
  • The White House is now addressing the question of AIDS.
  • The question of AIDS in the White House is now being addressed

  A Structural account:

  • Oh, we're now [addressing [the question of [AIDS [in the White House.]]]]
  • Oh, we're now [addressing [the question of AIDS] [in [the White House.]]]

  Why have structure intervene? Why not just go directly to meaning?

  Correlations: Readings correlate with certain syntactic patterns.

  • [The question of AIDS in the White House] is now being addressed by us.
  • We're now addressing the question of AIDS very carefully in the White House.
  Related sentences that have the same or similar readings plausibly have many of the same phrases.

  Why should this be?

  Phrases have meanings. Syntax tells us how to put meanings together. Therefore different phrasal configurations can give us different meanings.
  1. The man walked his happy dog.
  2. The dog walked his happy man.
  3. I know a man who speaks French.
  4. A man I know speaks French.

  Principle tasks:

  • Syntax should tells us what phrases there are and provide a plausible foundation for compositional syntax: how meanings are built up out of phrases. [contrast between sentences (1) and (2)]
  • Semantics should tells us how meanings relate to one another. [similarity between sentences (3) and (4)]

  More correlations. What can be MOVED is a phrase.

  • He explained all the terrible problems he had encountered to her.
  • He explained to her all the terrible problems he had encountered.
  • He explained all the to her terrible problems he had encountered.

  Sometimes what can be omitted is a phrase:

  • John won't put the vodka in the drink, but Bill will. [omitted= put the vodka in the drink.] of or as an immediate part of a verb phrase: completely
  • * John won't put the vodka in the drink, but Bill will put. [omitted= the vodka in the drink.]
  • * John won't put the vodka in the drink, but Bill will put the vodka. [omitted= in the drink.]

  Important notions thus far:

  • Phrases: what's in them, what's not:
    1. The man walked his happy dog.
    2. The dog walked his happy man.
  • Types of phrases (verb phrase versus S-phrase): Syntactic Category.
  • Being an IMMEDIATE part of a phrase:
    • The team can rely *certainly/completely on my support.
  

  Context free grammars

  We'd like to have a precise statement of what kind of constituents are possible in the language, and what kinds cxan occur isdie other kinds.

  Context free grammars are a good vehicle for capturing constituency.

  • S -> NP (M) VP | VP
  • VP -> V NP
  • VP -> V PP
  • NP -> (Art) (Adj) (N) N | ProperName
  • S -> VP (M) VP
  • VP -> is/are Adj
  • PP -> P NP Good things:
    1. One set of rules for NP, whether in subject position or not.
    2. Lots of sentenecs we haven't seen before now "generated"

    But CFGs but have many limitations:

    1. John is in the corner.
    2. * John are in the corner

    Agreement sometimes correlates with important structural facts.

    1. Flying planes is dangerous
    2. Flying planes are dangerous.
    3. Her flying planes through that airspace is dangerous.
    4. * Her flying planes through that airspace are dangerous.