Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and

Tasks

Overview
Introduction..........................................................................................................1
Preliminaries ........................................................................................................3
Main Goals and Tasks of Syntactic Theory.......................................................10
Constituent Structure .........................................................................................11
Syntactic Categories...........................................................................................12
Syntactic Relations.............................................................................................13
Structural Ambiguity .........................................................................................14
Constituents and Categories...............................................................................16
Constituency Tests .............................................................................................19

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

Introduction
Identify Syntax
Syntax: a. syntactic knowledge of speakers, a module of the mental grammar
of speakers;
b. a theory of the syntactic knowledge of speakers, a component of
grammatical theory
Distinguish syntactic knowledge from other aspects of the knowledge of L
Distinguish syntactic facts from other facts of L
Identify the area syntax covers distinguish it from other areas of language,
covered by other components of the grammar, e.g., phonology.
Identify the content of the adjective syntactic and distinguish it from others,
e.g., semantic, pragmatic, phonological
Distinguish syntactic phenomena & categories & rules from other phenomena
& categories & rules of language.

Syntactic structure is not obvious. Many students are too ready to believe that traditional sentence structure specified in terms of such notions as subject,
predicate, etc. is natural or obvious, or self-evident. But it is none of these.
Introduction

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

Kinds of Acceptability
In how many different ways things can go wrong, i.e., linguistic expressions
be unacceptable.
Grammatical (morphological & syntactic)
(1)
The smart girl has taught the little boy to read. (Acceptable, well-formed)
(2) * Smart girl the have to taught read littles the boy. (Ungrammatical)
Syntactically and morphologically ill-formed: Words in the wrong syntactic
positions, -s verb-inflection combines with the wrong category (A: little).
Semantic
(3) % Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. (Anomalous)
Semantically ill-formed, but grammatical: syntactically & morphologically OK.
Pragmatic (communicative)
(4)
a. Could you tell me the time, please?
b. Its 27 minutes to 8. (OK)
c. $ Of course I could! (Inappropriate)
Violates the Cooperative Principle and the Maxim of Relevance, but
grammatical and semantically well-formed.
Introduction

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

Preliminaries
What is the constituent structure of this sentence?
(5)
The student of English from UMB will meet the Dean at six.
Which of the following is the correct structural representation of the sentence?
(6)

The student of English from UMB will meet the Dean at six

(7)

The student of English from UMB will meet the Dean at six

The structure of such a relatively simple sentence is not al all obvious. There are a number of conceivable alternative possibilities. Only one may be correct.

Preliminaries

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

(8)

The student of English from UMB will meet the Dean at six

(9)

The student of English from UMB will meet the Dean at six

(10)

The student of English from UMB will meet the Dean at six
Preliminaries

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

(11)

The student of English from UMB will meet the Dean at six

Preliminaries

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

What is the syntactic category of each constituent?

(12)
S
Subject

Predicate
Operator/Aux Predicataion

The student of English from UMB will meet the Dean at six
(13)
S
Subject

Predicate
Verb Phrase

Object Adverbial

The student of English from UMB will meet the Dean at six

Preliminaries

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

(14)

S
VP

Aux

NP

The student of English from UMB will meet the Dean at six

(15)

IP
DP

I'
I

VP

The student of English from UMB will meet the Dean at six

Preliminaries

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

If the student of English from UMB is a constituent of the sentence, what is the
internal constituent structure of this constituent?
(16)
The student of English from UMB

(17)
The student of English from UMB

(18)

The student of English from UMB

Preliminaries

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

(19)

The student of English from UMB

What is the internal constituent structure of the rest of the sentence?
(20)

will meet the Dean at six

(21)

(22)

will meet the Dean at six

Preliminaries

will meet the Dean at six

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

Main Goals and Tasks of Syntactic Theory

General goals
1. Construct grammars of Ls that generate all and only the acceptable
sentences of L. (observational adequacy).
2. Construct grammars of Ls that represent the linguistic knowledge
(competence) of speakers of L. (descriptive adequacy).
3. Construct a Universal Grammar of NL. (explanatory adequacy, account of
language acquisition).

Specific tasks
1. Determine syntactic categories
2. Determine rules and principles for constructing syntactic structure
3. Determine constituent structure
4. Determine syntactic relations

Main Goals and Tasks of Syntactic Theory

10

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

Constituent Structure
Constituents of sentences
Constituents may contain constituents hierarchic structure
Structural restrictions structural unacceptability
Different kinds of acceptability (structural, semantic, etc.)
Structural ambiguity
For example:
Structural unacceptability:
(23) a. John took Mary to the cinema.
b. * Took John Mary to the cinema.
Structural ambiguity:
(24) a. Odd Year Book
b. [Odd Year] Book
c. Odd [Year Book]
(25) a. a Hungarian history teacher
b. a [Hungarian [history teacher]]
c. a [[Hungarian history] teacher]
Constituent Structure

11

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

Syntactic Categories
Sentences are composed of syntactic categories, not words.
(1)
a. The boy invited his sister.
b. * The boy sistered his invite.
Evidence:
Speakers of English never say sentences like (1b). Why not?
Speakers of E know something that prevents them from saying (1b):
o -ed is a Verb Inflection: Combines only with Verbs (not with Nouns).
o sister is a Noun, invite is a Verb.
o Nouns occur in (Object) Noun Phrases (Verbs do not).
So (combinatory rules and restrictions):
o [V+V-inflection] (invited) OK; *[N+V-inflection] (*sistered) Bad.
o N in NP (his sister) OK; V in NP (*his invite) Bad.
V, V-inflection, N, NP are syntactic categories.

Syntactic Categories

12

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

Syntactic Relations
What structural relations hold between the constituents of sentences?
Examples:
(1)
[loves Mary] loves is the head of the VP loves Mary
(2)
[loves Mary] Mary is the complement of the verb love
(3)
John is proud of himself. An antecedent binds an anaphor.
(4)
The dog wants some food. SubjectVerb agreement (Nr and Prsn)
(5)
vettl lisztet vs. megvetted a knyvet: VObject agreement. (Def/Indef)

Syntactic Relations

13

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

Structural Ambiguity
(6)
Flying planes can be dangerous. structurally ambiguous
Its two readings are:
(7)
a. Planes that fly can be dangerous. ( Flying planes are dangerous.)
b. For people to fly planes can be dangerous. ( Flying planes is
dangerous.)
The two readings of (6) two different structures (assigned to flying planes):
(7a): Planes fly planes is subject of fly
(7b): People fly planes planes is object of fly, people is understood subject
(6) surface form two different (homonymous) sentences (two in one)
Syntactic theory must account for structural ambiguity descriptive adequacy

Structural Ambiguity

14

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

Some other examples of structurally ambiguous expressions

(8)

a.
b.

[Odd Year] Book (a year book published in odd-numbered years)

Odd [Year Book] (a strange year book, published annually)

(9)

a.

a [Hungarian [history professor]]

a professor of history who is Hungarian by nationality
a [[Hungarian history] professor]
a professor of Hungarian history (of unspecified nationality)

b.
(10)

a.
b.

Structural Ambiguity

an [English [language teacher]]

a teacher of some unspecified language who is English by
nationality
an [[English language] teacher]
a teacher of English (of unspecified nationality)

15

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

Constituents and Categories

How to determine constituents and their category? (Constituency tests)
Restrictions and Constraints
Severe restrictions apply to combinations of lexical items
Severe constraints apply to structural configurations of lexical items.
Syntactic operations are structure-dependent. May be exploited in
constructing constituency tests!

Not anything co-occurs with anything else. Lexical categories c-select the syntactic category of their complements. (A lexical category also s-selects for its
complement, but his is irrelevant now. S-selection is semantic selection, not syntactic selection.)
4
Constituents may not occupy just any position in a phrase or configuration.
Constituents and Categories

16

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

(1)
(2)

Selectional Restrictions: C-selection

C-selection (Categorial Selection)
Lexical items c-select for the category of their complements.
a. John waited for Mary.
b. * John waited Mary.

(3)

a. John awaited Mary.

b. * John awaited for Mary.

Wait c-selects for a for-PP complement.

Await c-selects for a DP complement.

Constituents and Categories

17

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

Constraints on Syntactic Structure

Since English is an SVO language,
subjects must precede verbs, and
complements must (immediately) follow their heads.
(1)

a. John took Mary to the cinema.

b. *Took John Mary to the cinema.
c. * John took to the cinema Mary.
d. * John Mary took to the cinema.

(2)

a. John looked under the bed.

b. * John looked the bed under.

Constituents and Categories

18

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

Constituency Tests
Insertion
Certain optional elements, like the adverb apparently, may be inserted in
sentences in specific positions only. The positions out of which they are
excluded may be hypothesized to be constituent-internal positions. Thus, the
adverb apparently may be inserted between two constituents, but it cannot split
a constituent apart. Therefore, the permissible positions may be taken to be
constituent boundaries.
Example
(3)
a. The teacher has lost his temper.
b. Apparently, the teacher has lost his temper.
c. The teacher apparently has lost his temper.
d. The teacher has apparently lost his temper.
e. The teacher has lost his temper, apparently.
f. * The teacher has lost apparently his temper.
g. * The teacher has lost his apparently temper.
etc.
Constituency Tests

19

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

Substitution
Principles
(1)
Syntactic equivalence
Strings of words that may mutually and regularly replace each other in
sentences are syntactically equivalent. (Only syntactically equivalent
expressions may replace each other.)
(2)
Immediate constituents
The immediate constituents of an expression E are maximally long
substrings X of E that may be replaced by an (ideally monomorphemic)
equivalent expression Y shorter than X. X may itself be
monomorphemic.

Syntactically equivalent expressions belong to the same syntactic category (cf. . Kiss and Szabolcsi 1992:36). I.e., the observation that certain expressions
may mutually and regularly replace each other in a syntactic environment, i.e., they are equivalent, may also serve to establish syntactic categories, to which
these expressions will be said to belong.
6
Cf. . Kiss and Szabolcsi 1992:35. Alternatively: X is an immediate constituent of an expression E iff X is a maximally long substring of E that may be
replaced by an (ideally monomorphemic) equivalent expression Y shorter than X. X may itself be monomorphemic.
Constituency Tests

20

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Example
[The young linguist] will meet his friend in the local gallery after lunch.
He

[The young linguist] is a constituent of the sentence.

the young linguist and he belong to the same syntactic category: NP.
The young linguist [will meet his friend in the local gallery after lunch].
.. lies / is dead
[will meet his friend after lunch] is a constituent of the sentence.
will meet his friend after lunch, lies, and is dead belong to the same
syntactic category: (wait).
a. The young linguist will meet his friend in the local gallery.
b. * The young linguist meet his friend in the local gallery.
Will meet (Aux + V) is not a constituent.
The young linguist will [meet his friend in the local gallery after lunch].
lie / be dead
meet his friend, lie, be dead belong to the same syntactic category: VP.

Either met or meets could in fact replace will meet here, but note that both are marked for tense, as will meet is, unlike meet, which isnt. So met = meet +
tense, and meets = meet + tense.
Constituency Tests

21

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

will is not part of the VP.

Movement
(various types of movement)
Principle
(1) a. Movements move only constituents.
b. Whatever expression may move in such movements is a constituent.
1 VP Fronting
(2) a. He will [VP meet his friend in the local gallery after lunch].
b. Meet his friend in the local gallery after lunch, he will.
c. meet his friend in the local gallery after lunch is a VP.
(3) a. John will never [VP criticize himself].
b. Criticize himself, John never will.
c. * Will criticize himself, John never.

d. criticize himself is a VP.

8
9

Cf. Haegeman and Guron 1999:51.

Cf. Haegeman and Guron 1999:555. Can also be used to show that the auxiliary will and the verb do not form a constituent.

Constituency Tests

22

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

e. Aux + V (will criticize) do not constitute a VP.

2 Pseudo-clefting
Principle
(1) a. Only a constituent may occur in the focus of a pseudo-cleft.
b. Whatever occurs in the focus of a pseudo-cleft is a constituent.
(2)
a. John will want [some coffee].
b. What John will want is some coffee.
some coffee is a constituent.

Constituency Tests

23

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

Case Study
What is the constituent structure of this sentence (and similar sentences)?
(3)
The Committee would prefer for the Chairman to resign.
Alternative hypotheses
a. The Committee would [VP prefer [PP for the Chairman] [INFINITIVE to resign]]
VP
V

PP

Infinitive

prefer for the chairman to resign

for the Chairman is a PP
to resign is part of the VP headed by prefer and is sister to the PP
prefer takes two complements: a PP and an Infinitive
for the Chairman and to resign do not form a constituent

Constituency Tests

24

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

b. The Committee would [VP prefer [PP for the Chairman]] [INFINITIVE to resign]]
VP
V

PP

Infinitive

prefer for the chairman to resign

for the Chairman is a PP, a constituent of the VP
to resign is not a constituent of the VP headed by prefer
prefer takes a PP complement
for the Chairman and to resign do not form a constituent

Constituency Tests

25

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

c. The Committee would [VP prefer [for [the Chairman [INFINITIVE to resign]]]]
VP
V

Clause
for

Sentence
NP

Infinitive

prefer
the chairman to resign
for the Chairman is not a PP not even a constituent
the Chairman and to resign do form a constituent (a sentence)
for combines not with the chairman, but with [the chairman to resign]
[for the Chairman to resign] is a constituent of the VP

Constituency Tests

26

Syntactic Theory: Its Goals and Tasks

Pseudo-clefting
(4) * What the Committee would prefer for the Chairman is to resign.
[to resign] cannot be pseudo-clefted.
(5)

What the Committee would prefer is for the Chairman to resign.

[for the Chairman to resign] can be pseudo-clefted.

for the Chairman and to resign are not separate constituents.

for the Chairman is not a PP it is not a separate constituent.
(The first two alternatives are out.)
for the Chairman to resign is an (unbroken) constituent.
The correct structure is the third, in which for the Chairman to resign
forms a sentence-like constituent a special kind of clause.

10

We will leave it at that and will not explore the problem of its category status any further.

Constituency Tests

27