Two theories of syntactic categories (original) (raw)

Constituents, arrays, and trees: two (more) models of grammatical description

Folia Linguistica, 2024

Generative syntax was built on the foundations of Immediate Constituent (IC) analysis, and IC methods and heuristics were an important tool in the early days of the generative enterprise. However, developments in the theory entailed a departure from some fundamental IC assumptions: we will argue that structural descriptions in contemporary generative grammar (transformational and non-transformational) define not constituents, but strictly ordered sequences closer to arrays. We therefore define and characterise IC approaches to syntax as opposed to what we will call Array-Based (AB) approaches. IC grammars define distributional generalisations, and proper containment and is-a relations between indexed distributionally defined categories. AB grammars, in contrast, define strictly ordered sequences of categories. In this paper we introduce and define the fundamental properties of IC grammar, and the changes in the generative theory that introduced arrays in phrase structure. We argue that it is crucial to distinguish between IC and AB grammars when evaluating the empirical adequacy of structural descriptions used in current syntactic theorising, as structures in AB and IC grammars represent different relations between expressions and may be better suited for different purposes.

Constituents, arrays, and trees: two (more) models of grammatical description (revised July 2022)

Under review, 2022

In this paper we argue that in addition to Immediate Constituent (IC) models, there is a relatively new variety of formalisms within what Hockett (1954) and Schmerling (1983) call Item-and-Arrangement grammars: we call them array-based (AB) grammars. These grammars have as a goal to define a hierarchically ordered sequence of nodes rather than establish distributional generalisations, and define 1-dimensional arrays instead of proper containment and is-a¬ relations. We argue that it is crucial to distinguish between IC and AB grammars in the interpretation of tree diagrams used in current generative theorising.

A speculation about what linguistic structures might be

Modular Design of Grammar

Linguistics is heavily invested in the idea that linguistic utterances have ‘structures’, but there seems to be relatively little insight into what these structures actually are. In this chapter, Andrews suggests that they can be regarded as ‘aspirational equivalence classes’ of computations whereby the utterances are produced or understood. ‘Aspirational’ refers to the fact that unlike the case of Proof Theory, where the idea of equivalence classes of proofs a.k.a. computations originated, in linguistics we do not know what the computations are, but can nevertheless motivate some ideas about how they are organized. A classic example from LFG is the proposal that constituent-structures are found by a different set of processes than those that find functional-structures; a suggested new example is a proposal that functional-structures for ‘words’ are computed prior to their integration into the functional-structure for the utterance. Andrews suggests that this might be an intermediat...

Readings on the topic of 'Linguistic Structure' (Lecture-1)

The opening remarks and first lectures assigned to any typical introductory course in linguistics (i.e., child language acquisition, syntax) often invest a sizable amount of time with the analysis of the hidden structure of language. The range of analyses can consist, from a minimum scale, of the simple observation of how language is recursive in nature (my Russian Doll note [1]), to a maximum-scale, of the entire fullsweeping presentation of Chomskyan-style syntax [2, 12]. Out of such first-course analyses of linguistic structure, various vignette discussions emerge: e.g., (i) the classic Skinner v Chomsky debate [3] (where the first-generation data of child utterances are introduced to the student: viz., Berko's 'Wugs test' [3]), (ii) morphological analyses and distinctions between derivational vs inflectional morphology [4], (iii) the development of morphosyntactic structure in child language [5,6,7,10], leading to (iv) maturational hypothesis of syntactic structure as pegged to the neuro-onsets of specific regions in the brain [3,13]. Concluding lectures often attempt to summarize actually 'what it is that makes language interesting' [8], while final 'accumulative lectures' attempt to show how such structure is widely pervasive throughout language in general [9]. In an overall sense, the Skinner v Chomsky debate as typically found in introductory lectures makes-up for a fine 'pedagogical device' in framing much of the discussion on language structure, upon which a maturational hypothesis as pegged to brain development can be easily overlapped. The material arranged here represent an array of pdf-lectures and chapter-readings on the topic of Linguistic Structure (in preparation for 'Linguistic Essays on the Topic of Structure'.

On the relation between morphology and syntax.

The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 2007

According to the traditional view, the relation between morphology and syntax is the following: while morphology builds up word forms-typically by combining roots with other roots and with affixes, but also by applying other operations to them, syntax takes fully inflected words as input and combines them into phrases and sentences. The division of labour between morphology and syntax is thus perfect: morphology only operates below the word level whereas syntax only operates above the word level.