I-

SYNTAX

Language vs. Language

Cognitive science is a cover term for a group of disciplines that aim for the same goal:
describing and explaining human beings ability to think.
The dominant theory of syntax is due to Noam Chomsky and his followers, starting in the mid1950s and continuing to this day, called Generative Grammar.
The underlying thesis of generative grammar is that sentences are generated by a
subconscious set of procedures (like computer programs). These procedures are part of our
minds. The goal of syntactic theory is to model these procedures, through formal grammatical
rules.
Science refers to a particular methodology for study: the scientific method, which we can
appy to language: Gather and observe data / Make generalizations / Develop hypotheses
In syntax, we apply this methodology to sentence structure. The hypotheses are called rules,
and the group of hypotheses that describe a languages syntax is called a grammar. There
can be prescriptive rules (as they prescribe how people should speak according to some
standard). The other approach is to write rules that describe how people actually speak,
whether or not they are speaking correctly. These are called descriptive rules.
Person refers to the perspective of the speaker with respect to the other participants in the
speech act. First person refers to the speaker. Second person refers to the listener. Third
person refers to people being discussed that arent participating in the conversation.
(Nominative refers to the case form the pronouns take when in subject position like I in I love
peanut butter; accusative refers to the form they take when in object positions like me in
John loves me.)
Generative grammar is a model of the psychology of Language.

Sources of Data.
collections of either spoken or written texts. Such data are called corpora (singular is corpus).
corpora are just not enough: there is no way of knowing whether a corpus has all possible
forms of grammatical sentences. In fact, due to the infinite and productive nature of
language, a corpus could never contain all the grammatical forms of a language, nor could it
even contain a representative sample. To really get at what we know about our languages, we
have to know what sentences are not well-formed. This kind of negative information is not
available in corpora, which mostly provide grammatical, or well-formed, sentences.
Instead we have to rely on our knowledge of our native language. This is subconscious
knowledge.
The psychological experiment used to get this subconscious kind of knowledge is called the
grammaticality judgment task. The judgment task involves asking a native speaker to read a
sentence, and judge whether it is well-formed (grammatical), marginally well-formed, or illformed (unacceptable or ungrammatical).
kinds of grammaticality judgements:

The meaning of the sentence is strange, but the form is ok. We call this semantic
illformedness and mark the sentence with a #. ill-formed from a structural point of view. This
is a syntactically ill-formed sentence.
When a generative grammarian refers to intuition however, she is using the term to mean
tapping into our subconscious knowledge. It has an entirely scientific basis. It is replicable
under strictly controlled experimental conditions.
WHERE DO THE RULES COME FROM?
Conscious knowledge is learnt. Subconscious knowledge is acquired. No all rules of grammar
are acquired, some facts about Language seem to be built into our brains, or innate.
Probably the most controversial claim of Noam Chomskys is that Language is also an instinct.
That human facility for Language is innate and called Universal Grammar (or UG).
The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition
The argument presented here is based on an unpublished paper by Alec Marantz. Language is
an infinitely productive system. That is, you can produce and understand sentences you have
never heard before.
The magic of syntax is that it can generate forms that have never been produced before.
Another example of the infinite quality lies in what is called recursion.
If there are an infinite number of inputs it is impossible to hear them all in your lifetime (let
alone in the 4-6 years that it takes you to master your native language). Infinite systems are
unlearnable, because you never have enough input to be sure you have all the relevant facts.
This is called the logical problem of language acquisition.
Generative grammar gets around this logical puzzle by claiming that the child acquiring
English, Irish, or Yoruba has some help: a flexible blueprint to use in constructing her
knowledge of language called Universal Grammar. Universal Grammar restricts the number of
possible functions that map between situations and utterances, thus making language
learnable.
Other Arguments:
that we are born with the knowledge that sentences like (15d) are ungrammatical.4 This kind
of argument is often called the underdetermination of the data argument for UG.
There are also typological arguments for the existence of an innate language faculty. All the
languages of the world share certain properties (for example they all have subjects and
predicates. These properties are called universals of Language:
recent research into language acquisition has begun to show that there is a certain amount of
consistency cross-linguistically in the way children acquire language. For example, children
seem to go through the same stages and make the same kinds of mistakes when acquiring
their language, no matter what their cultural background.
biological arguments:
language seems to be both human-specific and pervasive across the species. Research from
neurolinguistics seems to point towards certain parts of the brain being linked to specific
linguistic functions.
Explaining Language Variation:

certain innate parameters (or switches) that select among possible variants. Language
variation thus reduces to learning the correct set of words and selecting from a predetermined
set of options. English word order is subject verb object (SVO), but the order of an Irish
sentence is verb subject object (VSO) and the order of a Japanese sentence is subject object
verb (SOV))
CHOOSING AMONG THEORIES ABOUT SYNTAX
Chomsky (1965) proposed that we can evaluate how good theories of syntax are. These are
called the levels of adequacy. Chomsky claimed that there are three stages that a grammar
(the collection of descriptive rules that constitute your theory) can attain.
If your theory only accounts for the data in a corpus (say a series of printed texts) and nothing
more it is said to be an observationally adequate grammar.
A theory that accounts for both corpora and native speaker intuitions about well-formedness
is called a descriptively adequate grammar.
He points out that a theory that also accounts for how children acquire their language is the
best. He calls these explanatorily adequate grammars. The simple theory of parameters might
get this label. Generative grammar strives towards explanatorily adequate grammars.

IDEAS, RULES AND CONSTRAINTS INTRODUCED IN THIS CHAPTER

i) Syntax The level of linguistic organization that mediates between sounds and meaning,
where words are organized into phrases and sentences.
ii) Language (capital L) The psychological ability of humans to produce and understand a
particular language. Also called the Human Language Capacity. This is the object of study in
this book.
iii) language (lower case l) A language like English or French. These are the particular
instances of the human Language. The data source we use to examine Language is language.
iv) Generative Grammar A theory of linguistics in which grammar is viewed as a cognitive
faculty. Language is generated by a set of rules or procedures. The version of generative
grammar we are looking at here is primarily the Principles and Parameters approach touching
occasionally on Minimalism.
v) The Scientific Method Observe some data, make generalizations about that data, draw a
hypothesis, test the hypothesis against more data.
vi) Grammar Not what you learned in school! This is the set of rules that generate a language.
vii) Prescriptive Grammar The grammar rules as taught by so called language experts.
These rules, often false, prescribe how people should talk/write, rather than describe how they
actually do.
viii) Descriptive Grammar A scientific grammar that describes, rather than prescribes, how
people talk/write.
ix) Anaphor A word that ends in -self or -selves (a better definition will be given in chapter 4).

x) Gender (Grammatical) Masculine vs. Feminine vs. Neuter. Does not have to be identical to
the actual sex of the referent. For example, a dog might be female, but we can refer to it with
the neuter pronoun it. Similarly, boats dont have a sex, but are grammatically feminine.
xi) Antecedent The noun an anaphor refers to.
xii) Asterisk * used to mark syntactically ill-formed (unacceptable or ungrammatical)
sentences. The hash-mark or number sign (#) is used to mark semantically strange, but
syntactically well formed, sentences.
xiii) Number The quantity of individuals or things described by a noun. English distinguishes
singular (e.g., a cat) from plural (e.g., the cats). Other languages have more or less
complicated number systems.
xiv) Person The perspective of the participants in the conversation. The speaker or speakers
(I, me, we, us) are called first person. The listener(s) (you), are called the second person.
Anyone else (those not involved in the conversation) (he, him, she, her, it, they, them), are
called the third person.
xv) Case The form a noun takes depending upon its position in the sentence. We discuss this
more in chapter 9.
xvi) Nominative The form of a noun in subject position (I, you, he, she, it, we, they)
Accusative The form of a noun in object position (me, you, him, her, it, us, them)
xviii) Corpus (pl. Corpora) A collection of real world language data.
xix) Native Speaker Judgments (intuitions) Information about the subconscious knowledge of a
language. This information is tapped by means of the grammaticality judgment task.
xx) Semantic Judgment A judgment about the meaning of a sentence, often relying on our
knowledge of the real world.
xxi) Syntactic Judgment: A judgment about the form or structure of a sentence.
xxii) Learning The gathering of conscious knowledge (like linguistics or chemistry).
xxiii) Acquisition The gathering of subconscious information (like language).
xxiv) Recursion The ability to embed structures iteratively inside one another. Allows us to
produce sentences weve never heard before.
xxv) Observationally Adequate Grammar A grammar that accounts for observed real-world
data (like corpora).
xxvi) Descriptively Adequate Grammar A grammar that accounts for observed real-world data
and native speaker judgments.
xxvii) Explanatorily Adequate Grammar A grammar that accounts for observed real-world data
and native speaker intuitions and offers an explanation for the facts of language acquisition.
xxviii) Innate: Hardwired or built in, an instinct.
xxix) Universal Grammar (UG) The innate (or instinctual) part of each languages grammar.
xxx) The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition The proof that an infinite system like human
language cannot be learned on the basis of observed data an argument for UG.

xxxi) Underdetermination of the Data The idea that we know things about our language that
we could not have possibly learnedan argument for UG.
xxxii) Universal A property found in all the languages of the world.

TEMA DOS
Adjectives and Adverbs: Part of the Same Category? In much work on syntactic theory, there
is no significant distinction made between adjectives and adverbs. This is because it isnt
clear that they are really distinct categories. While it is true that adverbs take the -ly ending
and adjectives dont, there are other distributional criteria that suggest they might be the
same category. They both can be modified by the word very, and they both have same basic
function in the grammarto attribute properties to the items they modify. One might even
make the observation that they appear in completely different environments. As such we
might say they are in complementary distribution. Any two items in complementary
distribution can be said to be instances of the same thing. The issue is still up for debate. To
remain agnostic about the whole thing, we use A for both adjectives and adverbs, with the
caveat that this might be wrong.
The Golden Rule of Tree Structures Modifiers are always attached within the phrase they
modify.
Here is a common mistake to avoid: Notice that the AP rule specifies that its modifier is
another AP: AP (AP) A. The rule does NOT say *AP (A) A, so you will never get trees of
the form shown in (40):
Prepositional Phrases (PP)
Most PPs take the form of a preposition followed by an NP.
There might actually be some evidence for treating the NP in PPs as optional. There are a
class of prepositions, traditionally called particles, that dont require a following NP.
a) I havent seen him before.
b) I blew it up.
c) I threw the garbage out.

a) S' (C) S b) S { NP / S' } T VP c) VP (AP+) V ({NP/S'}) (PP+) (AP+) d) NP (D)

(AP+) N (PP+). e) PP P (NP) f) AP (AP) A
Recursivity The rules we have written here have a very important property. Notice the
following thing: The S rule has a VP under it. Similarly, the VP rule can take an S(') under it.
This means that the two rules can form a loop and repeat endlessly:
i) Fred said that Mary believes that Susan wants that Peter desires that etc.
This property, called recursivity, accounts partially for the infinite nature of human language.
Because you get these endless loops, it is possible to generate sentences that have never
been heard before. This simple property of these rules thus explains the creativity of human
language, which in itself is a remarkable result!
MODIFICATION & AMBIGUITY

CONSTITUENCY TESTS
a) Clefting:It was [ a brand new car ] that he bought. (from He bought a brand new car.)
b) Preposing:[Big bowls of beans] are what I like. (from I like big bowls of beans.)
c) Passive: [The big boy ] was kissed by [the slobbering dog]. (from The slobbering dog kissed
the big boy.
When Constituency Tests Fail. Unfortunately, sometimes it is the case that constituency
tests give false results. (which is one of the reasons we havent spent much time on them in
this text.) Consider the case of the subject of a sentence and its verb. These do not form a
constituent:
i) S
NP VP subject

NP

object

However, under certain circumstances you can conjoin a subject and verb to the exclusion of
the object:
ii) Bruce loved and Kelly hated phonology class.
Sentence (ii) seems to indicate that the verb and subject form a constituent, which they dont
according to the tree in (i). As you will see in later chapters, it turns out that things can move
around in sentences. This means that sometimes the constituency is obscured by other
factors. For this reason, to be sure that a test is working correctly you have to apply more
than one test to a given structure. Always perform at least two different tests to check
constituency; as one alone may give you a false result.
PSRs for conjunction. In order to draw trees with conjunction in them, we need two more rules.
These rules are slightly different than the ones we have looked at up to now. These rules are
not category specific. Instead they use a variable (X). This X can stand for N or V or A or P
etc. Just like in algebra, it is a variable that can stand for different categories. We need two
rules, one to conjoin phrases ([The Flintstones] and [the Rubbles]) and one to conjoin words
(the [dancer] and [singer]):
i) XP XP conj XP ii) X X conj X
These result in trees like:
iii) NP
NP conj NP
iv) V
V

conj