Basic Syntax. Doug Arnold We review some basic grammatical ideas and terminology, and look at some common constructions in English.

Similar documents
Introduction to HPSG. Introduction. Historical Overview. The HPSG architecture. Signature. Linguistic Objects. Descriptions.

1/20 idea. We ll spend an extra hour on 1/21. based on assigned readings. so you ll be ready to discuss them in class

Derivational: Inflectional: In a fit of rage the soldiers attacked them both that week, but lost the fight.

Universal Grammar 2. Universal Grammar 1. Forms and functions 1. Universal Grammar 3. Conceptual and surface structure of complex clauses

Argument structure and theta roles

Chapter 4: Valence & Agreement CSLI Publications

Construction Grammar. University of Jena.

Context Free Grammars. Many slides from Michael Collins

Pseudo-Passives as Adjectival Passives

Words come in categories

On the Notion Determiner

Syntax Parsing 1. Grammars and parsing 2. Top-down and bottom-up parsing 3. Chart parsers 4. Bottom-up chart parsing 5. The Earley Algorithm

CS 598 Natural Language Processing

Developing Grammar in Context

Today we examine the distribution of infinitival clauses, which can be

Advanced Grammar in Use

Constraining X-Bar: Theta Theory

The presence of interpretable but ungrammatical sentences corresponds to mismatches between interpretive and productive parsing.

BULATS A2 WORDLIST 2

Writing a composition

Ch VI- SENTENCE PATTERNS.

Inleiding Taalkunde. Docent: Paola Monachesi. Blok 4, 2001/ Syntax 2. 2 Phrases and constituent structure 2. 3 A minigrammar of Italian 3

Korean ECM Constructions and Cyclic Linearization

a) analyse sentences, so you know what s going on and how to use that information to help you find the answer.

Chapter 3: Semi-lexical categories. nor truly functional. As Corver and van Riemsdijk rightly point out, There is more

A Minimalist Approach to Code-Switching. In the field of linguistics, the topic of bilingualism is a broad one. There are many

The building blocks of HPSG grammars. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) HPSG grammars from a linguistic perspective

Heads and history NIGEL VINCENT & KERSTI BÖRJARS The University of Manchester

Grammars & Parsing, Part 1:

The Structure of Relative Clauses in Maay Maay By Elly Zimmer

Hindi Aspectual Verb Complexes

Feature-Based Grammar

ENGBG1 ENGBL1 Campus Linguistics. Meeting 2. Chapter 7 (Morphology) and chapter 9 (Syntax) Pia Sundqvist

Hindi-Urdu Phrase Structure Annotation

Agree or Move? On Partial Control Anna Snarska, Adam Mickiewicz University

Structure-Preserving Extraction without Traces

Multiple case assignment and the English pseudo-passive *

Som and Optimality Theory

The Structure of Multiple Complements to V

Approaches to control phenomena handout Obligatory control and morphological case: Icelandic and Basque

LNGT0101 Introduction to Linguistics

Word Formation is Syntactic: Raising in Nominalizations

Control and Boundedness

Theoretical Syntax Winter Answers to practice problems

Dependency Annotation of Coordination for Learner Language

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES & SOCIAL STUDIES

Case government vs Case agreement: modelling Modern Greek case attraction phenomena in LFG

Intra-talker Variation: Audience Design Factors Affecting Lexical Selections

Switched Control and other 'uncontrolled' cases of obligatory control

Minimalism is the name of the predominant approach in generative linguistics today. It was first

Linguistic Variation across Sports Category of Press Reportage from British Newspapers: a Diachronic Multidimensional Analysis

Prediction of Maximal Projection for Semantic Role Labeling

SOME MINIMAL NOTES ON MINIMALISM *

Virtually Anywhere Episodes 1 and 2. Teacher s Notes

CAS LX 522 Syntax I. Long-distance wh-movement. Long distance wh-movement. Islands. Islands. Locality. NP Sea. NP Sea

Derivations (MP) and Evaluations (OT) *

Underlying and Surface Grammatical Relations in Greek consider

The Discourse Anaphoric Properties of Connectives

Enhancing Unlexicalized Parsing Performance using a Wide Coverage Lexicon, Fuzzy Tag-set Mapping, and EM-HMM-based Lexical Probabilities

PROBLEMS IN ADJUNCT CARTOGRAPHY: A CASE STUDY NG PEI FANG FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR

Tibor Kiss Reconstituting Grammar: Hagit Borer's Exoskeletal Syntax 1

Specifying a shallow grammatical for parsing purposes

LEXICAL COHESION ANALYSIS OF THE ARTICLE WHAT IS A GOOD RESEARCH PROJECT? BY BRIAN PALTRIDGE A JOURNAL ARTICLE

Dependency, licensing and the nature of grammatical relations *

A Usage-Based Approach to Recursion in Sentence Processing

Parsing of part-of-speech tagged Assamese Texts

Unit 8 Pronoun References

GERM 3040 GERMAN GRAMMAR AND COMPOSITION SPRING 2017

Derivational and Inflectional Morphemes in Pak-Pak Language

The Inclusiveness Condition in Survive-minimalism

Formulaic Language and Fluency: ESL Teaching Applications

Iraqi EFL Students' Achievement In The Present Tense And Present Passive Constructions

Construction Grammar. Laura A. Michaelis.

AN EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH TO NEW AND OLD INFORMATION IN TURKISH LOCATIVES AND EXISTENTIALS

Word Stress and Intonation: Introduction

Written by: YULI AMRIA (RRA1B210085) ABSTRACT. Key words: ability, possessive pronouns, and possessive adjectives INTRODUCTION

Language Acquisition Fall 2010/Winter Lexical Categories. Afra Alishahi, Heiner Drenhaus

Update on Soar-based language processing

An Interactive Intelligent Language Tutor Over The Internet

Campus Academic Resource Program An Object of a Preposition: A Prepositional Phrase: noun adjective

CORPUS ANALYSIS CORPUS ANALYSIS QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

The Syntax of Coordinate Structure Complexes

CONTENUTI DEL CORSO (presentazione di disciplina, argomenti, programma):

EAGLE: an Error-Annotated Corpus of Beginning Learner German

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 154 ( 2014 )

BASIC ENGLISH. Book GRAMMAR

Type-driven semantic interpretation and feature dependencies in R-LFG

What Can Neural Networks Teach us about Language? Graham Neubig a2-dlearn 11/18/2017

Noun incorporation in Sora: A case for incorporation as morphological merger TLS: 19 February Introduction.

Basic Parsing with Context-Free Grammars. Some slides adapted from Julia Hirschberg and Dan Jurafsky 1

SAMPLE. Chapter 1: Background. A. Basic Introduction. B. Why It s Important to Teach/Learn Grammar in the First Place

On Labeling: Principle C and Head Movement

Language Acquisition by Identical vs. Fraternal SLI Twins * Karin Stromswold & Jay I. Rifkin

The subjunctive conundrum in English 1

Second Language Acquisition of Complex Structures: The Case of English Restrictive Relative Clauses

LTAG-spinal and the Treebank

"f TOPIC =T COMP COMP... OBJ

Compositional Semantics

ON THE SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS

A Computational Evaluation of Case-Assignment Algorithms

Transcription:

Basic Syntax Doug Arnold doug@essex.ac.uk We review some basic grammatical ideas and terminology, and look at some common constructions in English. 1 Categories 1.1 Word level (lexical and functional) categories (1) a. N noun baby, toy b. V verb see, kiss c. P preposition in, on, near d. ADJ adjective tall, grateful, alleged e. ADV adverb quickly, frankly,... f. DET determiner the, a, that g. QUANT quantifier all, some, many h. COMP complementizer that, whether, for i. COORD coordinator/conjunction and, or Many linguists also employ abstract categories I (INFL), SPEC (Specifier) that don t correspond to particular word classes. Open Questions Are there any other categories? Are the categories primitive, or do they decompose (e.g. N=[+N, V ], V=[ N, +V ], etc.)? What relations are there between the categories? (e.g. COMPs and Ps are similar; are adjectives and adverbs really distinct?) Many words are problematic: e.g. than: (2) a. Kim is taller than [ Sandy (is) ]. b. Kim is taller than [ Sandy ]. e.g. either,... (3) a. Sam is either very honest or very stupid. b. Sam is either running slowly or walking fast. 1.2 Subcategories Most of the above categories subdivide: Nouns: mass gold, water, spaghetti, wheat count baby, noodles, oats Prepositions: locative in, over, near in the house temporal before, after before the war case marking Sam is fond [of Sandy] Adjectives: 1

Verbs: predicative Sam became famous attributive An alleged criminal/*the criminal became alleged main see,kiss auxiliary be,have,can,must aspectual auxiliary Sam has gone modal auxiliary can, must, need One could call these subcategories, but the term subcategorization is generally used more narrowly for the way in which different words select (require/allow) different kinds and numbers of complement: Adjectives: (4) a. grateful [to her parents] [for everything] b. fond [of children] c. eager [to please] d. happy [that it worked] Verbs: (5) a. die [] Sam died b. love NP Sam loves Kim c. give NP, PP to give a book to Kim d. buy NP, PP for buy a book for Kim e. spare NP, NP spare me a minute f. put NP, PP loc put a book on the table g. persuade NP, S fin persuade Sam that she should go h. concede PP, S fin concede to Sam that she is right i. prefer S bse prefer that you go j. try VP Sam tried to leave k. seem PP to, VP Sam seemed to Sandy to leave The verb be is uniquely liberal in what it allows: (6) Sam is a fool/in a mess/happy/leaving (NP;PP;ADJP;VP) 1.3 Phrasal Categories Most word level categories have phrasal projections, e.g. (7) a. NP this baby, a large toy b. VP see the baby c. PP on the mat d. ADJP grateful to her parents e. ADVP fortunately for us f. DP?=NP g. QP almost all There are generally agreed to be phrasal projections between the lexical categories, and the full phrases, e.g. (with N=NP): 2

(8) N DET this AP very silly N N linguist Perhaps not every phrase type is the projection of a lexical or functional category. In particular, there are several views of sentences (clauses): They are headless (exocentric); They are projections of V; They are projections of I (INFL, an abstract category) There are associated views about the category of that the world is round: it is an S (projection of S); it is a projection of C (the complementizer that): CP Different kinds of sentence/clause Finite/Non-finite: (9) a. (that/whether) Sam is a fool b. (for) Sam to be a fool Root/Embedded: (10) a. Sam is crazy. b. I believe [ that Sam is crazy ] Relative Clauses: (11) a. The person who spoke to me [+W H, +subj] b. The person to whom I spoke [+W H, subj] c. The person that spoke to me [+that, +subj] d. The person that I spoke to [+that, subj] e. The person I spoke to [ that] f. The person to speak to [ finite] g. The person for us to speak to [ finite] 2 Grammatical Relations The HEAD of a phrase is the element that gives it is grammatical character (e.g. the element that makes an NP nominal). There is a fundamental distinction between: complements, arguments: (more or less) obligatory participants; the things that the head subcategorizes; adjuncts, modifiers: optional, and iterable circumstantials 3

(12) Unusually, Sam put the cat outside at 3:00 in the afternoon. ADJUNCT ARG HEAD ARG ARG ADJUNCT ADJUNCT (13) that clever Professor of Latin from Madrid ADJUNCT HEAD ARG ADJUNCT (14) a. HEAD b. SUBJ Subject The baby cried c. OBJ Direct Object The baby saw the cat d. IOBJ Indirect Object The baby it to the cat e. POBJ Prepositional Object near the wall f. COMP Complement Clause I think that he is sad g. XCOMP open complement Sam seems to be happy h. ADJUNCT adjuncts temporal/locative phrases 3 Some Common Constructions 3.1 Main Clauses, VPs (15) S NP VP Sam VP ADVP V NP NP yesterday gave the baby a toy 3.2 Unbounded Dependencies (16) a. On Kim, Sandy depends. b. *Kim, Sandy depends. c. On Kim, Chris believes [ S Sandy depends ] d. *Kim, Chris believes [ S Sandy depends ] (17) a. *Who do you believe [ the claim that Sam likes ] b. *Who do you know [ a man who likes ] c. *Who do you like [ Sam and ]? d. Who do you think [[ Sam likes ] and [Kim hates ]]? e. *Whose do you admire [ book ]? f. *Who do you believe that likes Sam? g. When do they *deny/?believe [ that Sam left ] (18) a. Kim i, Sandy loves i (Topicalization) b. I wonder [ who i Sandy loves i ] (Wh-question) c. The person [ who i Sandy loves i ] (Wh-relative) d. It s Kim [ who i Sandy loves i ] (It-cleft) e. This is [ what i Kim loves i ] (Pseudo-cleft) (19) a. Sandy i is hard to love i (Tough Movement) 4

b. I bought it i for Sandy to eat i (Purpose Infinitive) c. This is the person i [ Sandy loves i ] (Relative) d. It s Kim i Sandy loves i (It cleft) 3.3 Coordinate Structures In general: (20) XP XP CONJ XP (21) S NP VP a child VP CONJ VP opened the door and came in (22) S NP VP NP CONJ NP opened the door a woman and a child But notice: (23) Sam is dangerous, a fool, and out of her mind. (AP, NP, PP) 3.4 Relative Clauses There are many analyses, but one possibility is: (24) NP DET the N person N COMP that S S we saw 3.5 Expletive Subjects, Extraposition Expletive NPs are items like it and there: (25) a. It seems that we were wrong. b. There will be problems. Extraposition is exemplified in the following: 5

(26) a. That the world is round is obvious. b. It is obvious [ that the world is round ]. (27) a. I read [ a book by Chomsky ] last week. b. I read [ a book ] last week [ by Chomsky ]. (28) a. Sam is too clever to fall for that trick b. Sam is so clever that she will not fall for that trick 3.6 Control, Raising In both Control and Raising there appears to be a verb or adjective followed by a VP: (29) Sam tries to be funny. (Control, cf. also hopes, is eager) (30) Sam tends to be funny. (Raising, cf. also seems, is likely) The difference is that in Control, the main clause subject (Sam) is a semantic argument of the main clause verb. Syntactically, there are two main kinds of analysis: (31) a. Sam tries [ V P to be funny]. b. Sam tends [ V P to be funny]. (32) a. Sam i tries [ S P RO i to be funny]. (Control) b. Sam i tends [ S t i to be funny]. (Raising NP Movement) 4 Others (33) Sam went to Spain and Sandy to Italy. (Gapping) (34) Sam went to Spain but Sandy didn t. (VP Ellipsis) (35) Did Sandy go to Spain? (Subj-Aux Inversion) (36) Sam put in the shed an old and very smelly collection of sacks (Heavy NP Shift) 5 Reading For reasonable, and (from a computational perspective) useful, descriptions of many constructions of English, the following are recommended: Gazdar et al. (1985, Ch6, pp109-136), Borsley (1996), Bennett (1995), Sag and Wasow (1999). For more broader and more detailed discussion of particular constructions, look at Huddleston and Pullum (2002). For a serious discussion of basic ideas, and much insight into the constructions themselves, look at Huddleston (1984). Traditional grammar books such as Quirk et al. (1972) give a great deal of detail, and are useful as antidotes to the simplifications you find in the more theoretical books (on the other hand they often simply ignore constuctions that have proved interesting and important in recent years). References Paul Bennett. A course in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. UCL Press, 1995. 6

Robert D. Borsley. Modern Phrase Structure Grammar. Number 11 in Blackwell textbooks in linguistics. Blackwell Publishers, 1996. Gerald Gazdar, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey Pullum, and Ivan Sag. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Blackwell, Oxford, 1985. R. Huddleston. Introduction to the Grammar of English. CUP, Cambridge, 1984. Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum, editors. Language. Cambridge, 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. A Grammar of Contemporary English. Longman, London, 1972. Ivan A Sag and Thomas Wasow. Syntactic Theory: a Formal Introduction. Number 92 in CSLI Lecture Notes. CSLI Publications, 1999. 7