Syntax PDF

An Introduction to Syntax. 1. Levels of Analysis 1.1 Linguistic units. Constituents Syntax has traditionally taken the sentence as the starting point. Smaller units are regarded as building blocks of sentence structure. The parts into which a sentence can be segmente...

An Introduction to Syntax. 1. Levels of Analysis 1.1 Linguistic units. Constituents Syntax has traditionally taken the sentence as the starting point. Smaller units are regarded as building blocks of sentence structure. The parts into which a sentence can be segmented are called the constituents of the sentence. The term immediate constituents (ICs) refers to those constituents which together form a higher-order constituent, for example in 'John took a walk' "a" and "walk" are the ICs of "a walk" and "took" and "a walk" are the ICs of "took a walk"... The whole sentence is not considered a constituent of anything, since the sentence is largest unit of syntactic description. 1.2 Phrases, words and morphemes Constituents can also be considered not as building blocks of sentence structure but as independent linguistic objects with their own characteristics and internal structure. From this point of view, they are called phrases. Just like constituents, phrases may consist of single words ('John') or several ('a walk'). 2  Phrases can be lengthened by adding more words: in doing so, the phrase's internal structure is modified, but not the overall sentence structure: "a long walk". We can distinguish several types of phrases according to the class to which the head (the most dominant constituent) of the phrase belongs. We distinguish at least the following: noun phrase: 'a walk', 'a walk in the sun' verb phrase: 'took a walk', 'could have been fun' adjective phrase: 'fairly interesting', 'too good to marry' adverb phrase: 'admittedly', 'very well' prepositional phrase: 'in the morning sun', 'in Spain' Phra ses are made up of words, and a minimal phrase consists of one single word. In the same way as before, we can look upon words as constituents of a phrase, but also as independent linguistic objects. 1.3 Rankscale and rankshift We have already set up a hierarchy of units of linguistic description: morphemes function as constituents of words, words as constituents of phrases, phrases of sentences. This hierarchy has been called the rankscale: TEXT Sentence Phrase Word 3 Morpheme Sounds However, units are not always composed of units of the next lowest rank. Quite frequently, a unit of a given rank functions as a constituent of a unit of the same rank or even a unit which is one step lower down the rankscal e. This phenomenon is called rankshift. Thus, sentences can function as constituents of other sentences: 'I know she isn't here' sentences can function as constituents of phrases '...pleased you could come' phrases can function as constituents of other phrases '... at the corner of the street' words in the structure of other words: 'treetop; goldsmith; blackbird' 1.4 Functions and categories So we have seen that every linguistic unit (except the sentence,...) can be considered as an element that plays a role within a larger structure, or as something with its own characteristics and internal structure. From the first point of view, we are concerned with its function. From the second, we are concerned with its category or class. 4  Ex. the units "John" and "walk", individually considered are nouns, and therefore belong to the same category or class. But we can also look at "John" and "a walk" as constituents of a larger structure (the sentence) and then their functions are different: "John" is the subject and "a walk" is the direct object. So there is not a one-to-one correspondence between functions and categories. Ex.: the same noun phrase can realize 4 different functions: He leaves next week (adverbial) Next week is the time to do it (subject) Let's call next week 'period A' ( direct object) Suppose we give next week priority (indirect object) Ex: The same function can be realized by different categories: 'He understood the problem' (noun phrase) 'He understood what I was talking about' (sentence) Thus, we distinguish two types of syntactic analysis that can be performed on any given sentences: Functional or relational analysis Phrase structure or categorial analysis 2. Functions 5  Direct Object (DO): a single complement immediately following a verb if it can become the subject in a passive sentence. E.g.: 'She read the grammar book' 'Our neighbours are looking after the children' If the verb is followed by two complements both of which can become the subject of a passive sentence, then the first complement is the indirect object and the second the DO. Indirect Object (IO): associated with the first two complements (see above) that can be the subject of the passive sentence. The first is the IO. E.g.: 'She gave me the money' 'He teaches us grammar' The IO can be substituted by a prepositional phrase with to- following the DO. E.g.: 'The firm offered him the job' 'She showed me her room' 'They gave me the money' This is not possible with some verbs, however: 'They fined me $20' 'You can spare yourself the trouble' 'The shop charged me 10$ for this' 6  Benefactive Subject (BO): It resembles the IO (same position in the sentence). It can also be replaced by a prepositional phrase, but usually with the preposition for not to. 'Her father bought her a car' 'Fetch me the paper, will you?' 'He made himself a cup of tea.' 'She played me a few songs.' 'He wrote me a letter.' A nother difference with the IO is that the BO cannot become the subject of a passive sentence: * I was written a letter Subject Complement (SC): it complements the verb, but is related to the subject of the sentence, i.e., sth. that is said about the subject. E.g.: 'She is a happy girl' 'She became a good friend of mine' 'He got very depressed' 'He died a poor man' 'I feel relaxed' Object complement (OC): it p redicates something about the DO, which it follows. E.g.: 'She called me a psycho' 'I consider it unnecessary' 7 'I find it inappropriate' The OC becomes the SC in passive sentences Predicator Complement (PC): strictly speaking, all of the above are PCs (as they all complement the verb). This category is a miscellaneous type of complement that does not fit well in any of the types above. the simplest case is a DO that cannot become the sub ject of the passive sentence. E.g. 'This car costs £16,000' 'He resembles his father' 'It took me two hours to prepare dinner' 8  3. Categories Phrases consist minimally of a Head. This means that in a one-word phrase like [children], the Head is children. In longer phrases, a string of elements may appear before the Head: [the small children] For now, we will refer to this string simply as the preHead string. A string of elements may also appear after the Head, and we will call this the post-Head string: [the small children in class 5] So we have a basic three-part structure: pre-Head Hpost-Head string ead string [the small c in class 5] hildren 3.1 The Noun Phrase (NP) As we've seen, a noun phrase has a noun as its Head. Determiners and adjective phrases usually constitute the pre- Head string: [NP the children] [NP happy children] [NP the happy children] 9  In theory at least, the post-Head string in an NP can be indefinitely l ong: [NP the dog that chased the cat that killed the mouse that ate the cheese that was made from the milk that came from the cow that...] Fortunately, they are rarely as long as this in real use. The Head of an NP does not have to be a common or a proper noun. Recall that pronouns are a subclass of nouns. This means that pronouns, too, can function as the Head of an NP: [NP I] like coffee The waitress gave [NP me] the wrong dessert [NP T his] is my car If the Head is a pronoun, the NP will generally consist of the Head only. This is because pronouns do not take determiners or adjectives, so there will be no pre-Head string. However, with some pronouns, there may be a post-Head string: [NP Those who arrive late] cannot be admitted until the interval Similarly, numerals, as a subclass of nouns, can be the Head of an NP: [NP Two of my guests] have arrived [NP The first to arriv e] was John The general structure of the noun phrase is the following: 10  (predeterminer)* (determiner)* (postdeterminer)* (premodifier)* HEAD (postmodifier)* Ex.: All the many very beautiful girls with hats at the party Predeterminers: all, double, half, twice, both, many, such, what Determiners: articles, demonstrative and possessive prono uns. Postdeterminers: numbers, many, other, last, few, more, own, etc. Premodifiers: an adjective phrase: 'very beautiful girls' a noun phrase: 'traffic jam', 'speed limit' a classifying genitive: 'a dog's life', 'a men's shop' an adverb phrase: 'a through road', 'the then chairman' Postmodifiers: an adjective phrase: 'people concerned', 'book hard to come by', 'a car faster than yours', 'a plan less ambitious than we expec ted', 'a cave so dark that...' an adverb phrase: 'the way down', 'the road ahead', 'the man outside' a prepositional phrase: 'the city of Rome', 'the edge of the desk', 'the day before yesterday', 'the house opposite yours' a noun phrase: 'girls your age', 'a car that colour', 'a hat 11 this size' a relative clause: 'the book that I told you about' an appositive clause: 'our hesitation whether we should go or not', 'the fact that he is a gentleman', 'the news that he had been fired' a non-finite clause: 'the man to talk to', 'the energy to write such a book', 'the men digging a hole', the children injured in the 3.2 The Adjective Phrase (AP) In an ADJECTIVE PHRASE (AP), the Head word is an adjective. Here are some examples: Susan is [AP clever] The doctor is [AP very late] My sister is [AP fond of animals] The pre-Head string in an AP is most commonly an adverb phrase su ch as very or extremely. Adjective Heads may be followed by a post-Head string: [AP happy to meet you] [AP ready to go] [AP afraid of the dark] A small number of adjective Heads must be followed by a post-Head string. The adjective Head fond is one of these. Compare: My sister is [AP fond of animals] *My sister is [fond] 12  The general structure of the adjective phrase is the following: (premodifier)* HEAD (postmodifier)* Premodifier: Adverb phrases: very useful, extremely difficult, far more interesting Postmodifier: the adverb enough: 'good enough' a prepositional phrase: 'afraid of mice', 'full of water', 'good at football', 'qualified for the job' that- clause: 'worried that he might fall', 'c ertain that he is married' comparative adjectives (-er): 'longer than we had expected' non-finite clause: 'afraid to go', 'anxious to leave', 'eager to please', 'dubious what to do next', 'uncertain what to tell her', 'eager for the party to start', 'sorry for her to leave' 13  3.3 Adverb Phrase (AdvP) In an ADVERB PHRASE, the Head word is an adverb. Most commonly, the pre-Head string is another adverb phrase: 'He graduated [AdvP very recently]' 'She left [AdvP quite suddenly] In AdvPs, there is usually no post-Head string, but here's a rare example: '[AdvP Unfortunately for him], his wife came home early' The general structure of the adverb phrase is the following: (premodifier)* HEAD (postmodifier)* Premodifier: a (intensifying) adverb phrase: ver y seldom, extremely stupidly, quite soon, fairly often, much more carefully. Postmodifier: the adverb enough: well enough, bravely enough to deserve a medal a finite clause: They work harder than we expecte 3.4 The Verb Phrase (VP) The verb phrase consists of verbal forms only, except in the case of multi-word verbs. The maximum number of verbal form is five. 14  The principal part of the VP is the lexical (or main) verb. The lexical verb can occur on its own, but it may cooccur with auxiliary verbs in several patterns. writes, may write may have written may have been writing may have been being written 3.5 The Prepositional Phrase (PP) PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES usually consist of a preposition and a prepositional complement (the post-head string). Here are some examples: [PP through the window] [ PP over the bar] [PP across the line] [PP after midnight] This makes PPs easy to recognise: they nearly always begin with a preposition. A pre-Head string is rarely present, but here are some examples: [PP straight through the window] [PP right over the bar] [PP just after midnight] 3.6 Phrases within Phrases We will conclude this introduction to phrases by looking briefly at phrases within phrases. Consider the NP: [NP s mall 15 children] It consists of a Head 'children' and a pre-Head string 'small'. Now 'small' is an adjective, so it is the Head of its own adjective phrase. We know this because it could be expanded to form a longer string: 'very small children' Here, the adjective Head 'small' has its own pre-Head string 'very': [AP very small] So in 'small children', we have an AP 'small' embedded with the NP 'small children'. We represent this as follows: [NP [AP small] children] All but the simplest phrases will contain smaller phrases within them. Here's another example: [PP across the road] Here, the Head is 'across', and the post-Head string is 'the road'. Now we know that 'the road' is itself an NP -- its Head is 'road', and it has a pre-Head string 'the'. So we have an NP within the PP: [PP across [NP the road]] NB: When you examine phrases, remember to look out for other phrases within them. 4. Subordination and Coordination Wh en a given function (S, DO, IO, etc) has as its categorial counterpart not a phrase, but a clause, the resulting sentence is said to be complex, because more than one VP is present. Subordination is a non-symmetrical or hierarchical 16 relation (as a opposed to coordination), holding between two clauses in such a way that one is a constituent part of the other. This hierarchical relation can be graphically shown by means of a tree structure: The container clause is called the main clause or superordinate clause. This may correspond with the sentence 17 (main/superordinate clause), but it can also be another subordinate clause (subordinate/superordinate clause). This phenomenon is called embedding or nesting. Example: 18  The subordinate clause must have a function in the sentence or c lause structure. Clauses can also be part of phrases (rankshift). In this case it is a simple sentence even though there is more than one verb phrase in the sentence. Subordinate clauses can also be realized by non-finite and verbless clauses. 19 20 This chapter is about the nature of syntax, sentence structure, especially the unbounded length of sentences, how this unboundedness is possible, and how we deal with it through abstract knowledge. I. UNBOUNDEDNESS OF SYNTAX Every language has a certain number of phonemes, and an inventory of morphemes (a mental dictionary), but there can be no inventory of sentences. This is apparent in the fact that every day, repeatedly, we freely speak and understand sentences which we have never spoken or heard before. Probably, indeed, the reader has never before encountered any of the sentences in this book. Despite their complete novelty as whole sentences, hopefully you will have little difficulty understanding them. Take the following quite ordinary sentence, presumably new to you: The corner grocery sells motor oil but it closes at ten. The words are few and ordinary, and the topic mundane, just like most of the sentences we utter and encounter. It is likely, indeed, that most sentences which we encounter are new to us, because the number of sentences of a language is unbounded. Even the length of sentences is unbounded. Given any sentence in any language, no speaker of the 1anguage will have difficulty adding one more word to it: 21  What? What happened? What happened next? Guess what happened next. Do you know I guessed what happened next? Don‟t you know I guessed what happened next? Don‟t you know I guessed what happened at the next door? Etc. This unboundedness of syntax, of the number and length of sentences, is a result of the general characteristic of language known as creativity: people are always saying things in new ways -especially always constructing new sentences. Even though we speak, write, hear, and read such new sentences continually, new sentences rarely catch our attention, unless they include new words. Presumably this is because the most basic elements of sentence structure are relatively few and very, very familiar. 2.Three aspects of syntax Syntax concerns sentence structure, and sentence structure may be said to have three aspects: grouping, function, and word order. These three aspects of syntactic structure are all represented in a tree diagram of a sentence. Figure 1.1 is an example: the tree diagram of the sentence Those pesky beavers inhabit a narrow stream above the lake. 2.1. Grouping Grouping is the grouping of words into meaningful and functional phrases, which are members, or constituents, of larger phrases. Groupings recognized in 22  S NP VP Det Aj N V NP Det Aj N PP P NP Det N Those pesky bevs inh a narr str above the lake the above sentence are the sentence itself (S), noun phrase (NP), verb phrase (VP), and prepositional phrase (PP). Each of these is represented as a 'node', or branching point, in the tree diagram. Notice that in this sentence the prepositional phrase is included in or is a constituent of the lower noun phrase. 2.2. Function Function concerns the relationship of the noun phrases to the verb and to other words and word groups in the sentences. There are three different kinds of functions in the sentence above: grammatical relations, parts of speech, and relations of head and modifier. 2.2.1. Grammatical relations 23  Grammatical relations concern certain major types of phrases recognized by the grammar, apparent in their location in a tree diagram, and include the following traditionally recognized aspects of grammar: a. subject, the noun phrase (NP) immediately under S b. predicate, the verb phrase (VP) immediately under S c. direct object, the noun phrase immediately under VP , and d. object of preposition, the noun phrase immediately under PP 2.2.2. Parts of speech Also recognized in the tree diagram are word types, including the traditionally recognized parts of speech: a. determiner (Det): those, a, and the, b. adjective (Aj): pesky and narrow, c. noun (N): beavers, stream, and lake, d. verb (V): inhabit, e. preposition (P): above. Noun and verb are word categories you could reasonably expect to find in all languages. Determiner and adjective are not 24 always clearly recognized in languages, and instead of prepositions some languages have postpositions. 2.2.3. Heads and modifiers A third sort of function presented by the tree diagram is head and modifier. Except for S, each word-group of the sentence is made up of ahead and its modifiers. The head of a phrase is the word necessary for the phrase, which gives the phrase its name: the noun of an NP, the verb of a VP, and the preposition of a PP. The other words are the modifiers (or specifiers and modifiers) of the head. Even when you combine two words of the same category, as in an English noun compound like car phone or light switch, one is the head and the other a modifier. Thus a car phone is a phone and not a car, and a light switch is a switch and not a light. 2.3. Word order Word order is the temporal or linear sequence of words of the sentence. Word order is expressed in the tree diagram by the linear, left-to-right, arrangement of words on the page, which parallels the temporal order of these elements in speech. In languages other than English, word order may often be different even when groupings and functions are the same. This is so, for example, in the following noun phrases of Spanish, 25 which, like their English translation, consist of a determiner (possessive pronoun), an adjective, and a noun: a. Spanish: nuestro barrio hermoso our neighborhood pretty. Our pretty neighborhood. In some languages there may be a lot of freedom of word order for the main constituents subject, verb, and direct object or other complement of the verb. Arabic is such a language, as seen in the following sentences, all three of which mean „The girl saw a house' (recall that [?] is a glottal stop). a.ra?t –lbintu baytan saw the girl a house b. ?albintu baytan ra?at the girl a house saw c. baytan ra?at -lbintu house saw the girl Word order freedom is made possible here by the noun suffixes /-u/ and /-an/, which mark the nouns as subject and object, so their function is apparent without fixed word order, as in English subject-verb-object. The different versions of the sentence would be especially appropriate in different contexts of discourse in which background information would be early in 26 the sentence and foreground and/or contrastive information would be late. Thus the first example is appropriate where the context has established that 'somebody saw something', and the second that „the girl did something'. 3. Recursion in syntax It was emphasized above that the length of a sentence, like the number of sentences, is unbounded: no matter how long a sentence gets, it is always possible to add more words to it. The main reason for this unboundedness of sentence length is that aspect of the creativity of language known as recursion. The recursiveness of syntax concerns the expansion of phrases by the expansion of phrases, including of their own types, within themselves. For example, there can be: a. Sentences within sentences, such as: [I said [I know]s]s [I know [I said [I know]s]s]s [ [I said it]s and [I believe it]s]s b. Noun phrases within noun phrases, such as: [three coins in [the fountain]Np]Np [ [dear hearts]NP and [gentle people]Np]Np c. Verb phrases within verb phrases, such as: [likes to [play games]vp]vp [[stop completely]vp and [look both ways]vp]vp , 27  d. Prepositional phrases within noun phrases within prepositional phrases, such as: [for [a vacation [in [the month [of May]pp]Np]PP]NP]PP [to [my family [in Texas]pp]NP]PP Recursion of prepositibnal phrases -and people's amusement with this –is illustrated by the concluding words of along, well- known song about things at the bottom of the sea: a frog on a log in a hole in the bottom of the sea. In another example of such recursion, a well-known traditional poem, a sentence is included in a noun phrase and within the sentence is another noun phrase which includes another sentence, etc., so the sentences goes on and on. Coordination is a sort of recursion according to which groups like sentence, noun phrase, verb phrase, and prepositional phrase may be expanded as a pair of such phrases joined by a coordinating conjunction such as and or or. In English, for example, there are: a. Coordinated sentences: Birds fly and fish swim. Stop or I'll shoot. b. Coordinated noun phrases: birds and bees, a fly and a flea. c. Coordinated verb phrases: sink or swim, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition 28  d. Coordinated prepositional phrases: by hook or by crook, on the beaches and in the towns. e. Coordinated adjective phrases: used but wearable, completely false and probably libelous 4. Abstractness of syntax Not only are the sentences of languages an unbounded number, but the constituents and functions of sentences are not ordinarily concretely marked -not in speaking by pauses or other signals of pronunciation, nor in writing by punctuation. In this sense, syntax is characterized by abstractness. Nevertheless, syntactic groupings and functions must be real, since users of There may language give concrete evidence that their knowledge of syntax concerns constituents and functions, and not just knowledge of words and how to order words in sentences. 4.1. Knowledge of constituents. There are three kinds of evidence for groups and their constituents: replacement, movement, and grouping ambiguity. 4.1.1. Replacement Replacement concerns the fact that a group may ordinarily be replaced by a single word. In English, for example: a. A sentence may be replaced by a noun or pronoun: I said I liked it. I said nothing. 29  I said I liked it. I said so. Koalas eat eucalyptus leaves. This is true but.. b. A noun phrase may be replaced by a pronoun: Your cat hissed at me. It hissed at me. I‟ll take this one. I'll take yours. c. A verb phrase may be replaced by a form of the verb do. Who hissed at you? -Your cat did. d. A prepositional phrase may be replaced by an adverb: I waited at the corner of Grand River and Cedar. I waited there. You finally arrived after midnight. You arrived then. Put them by the door. Put them here. Such replacements are evidence for groupings, and for functions as well. That is, a clause is replaced by a noun, which is evidence that the clause functions as a noun. Verb phrases, of course, are replaced by verbs (in English, by forms of do). Perhaps not all phrases can be replaced, but certainly no nonphrases can be replaced. For example, in I waited at the corner of Grand River and Cedar you can not replace waited at the, or corner of Grand, or River and, and these are certainly not phrases. 4.1.2. Movement 30  There may be movement of phrases, in the sense that these may appear in different versions of a sentence. That is, if we think of one of the sentences as basic and the others as derived from this, then we will think of the phrase as having moved from the basic to the derived position. For example: a. local farmers sell vegetables at the city market on Saturday b. It is local farmers that sell vegetables at the city market on Saturday. c. It is vegetables that local farmers sell at the city market on Saturday. d. It is at the city market that local farmers sell vegetables on Saturday. e. It is on Saturday that local farmers sell vegetables at the city market. Sentence b shows that local farmers, an NP , is a phrase in sentence (a); sentence (c) shows the same for vegetables (a phrase of one word); (d) shows that at the city market , a PP, is a group; and (e) shows the same for on Saturday. Again the test may not work for every phrase, but it will never work for a non-phrase, as the following sentences show. The asterisk which precedes these sentences is to show that they seem impossible, or ungrammatical. 31  f. *It is stop at that city buses most major intersections until midnight. g. *It is intersections until midnight that city buses stop at most major. 4.1.3. Grouping ambiguity Ambiguity is when a word, phrase, or sentence has two distinct meanings. There are ambiguous words, like wind and [rod], for example: wind can be pronounced [wInd] or [waynd], and [rod] can be spelled road or rode. Grouping ambiguity is when the same string of words may have two meanings based upon different possible groupings of the words. Grouping ambiguity is a third sort evidence for groupings in syntactic structure. One example is nutritious food and drink. See the following tree diagrams for each of these meanings, in figure 1.2. NP Aj N N C N Nutritious food and drink 32  NP NP C N Aj N Nutritious food and drink According to 2a, food and drink are grouped and nutritious modifies both, but according to 2b nutritious modifies (is grouped with) only food. Our ability to recognize such ambiguities in a string of words may be understood as our awareness of the different possibilities for grouping in syntactic structure. 4.2. Knowledge of functions We acquire our knowledge of abstract functions as a necessary part of learning our language, long before we go to school. This knowledge is revealed in various ways. For example, speakers of English show knowledge of: a. subjects, by making present tense verbs, and the be- verb in the past, agree with the subject, saying, for example, robins are...but a robin is…, and city buses were...but a city bus was... b. head and modifier, when we say the weather in the 33 mountains is...(is is singular, like weather, the head of this phrase) and not the weather in the mountains are… (are is plural, like mountains, not weather). c. parts of speech, by using determiners with nouns and not with verbs, and auxiliary verbs with verbs and not with nouns, saying the robin, and not the go, and might go but not might robin. Our knowledge of functions is sometimes apparent in our recognition of function ambiguity. These are cases in which an ambiguity is based not on an ambiguous word (lexical ambiguity) or an ambiguous grouping of words (grouping ambiguity), but strictly on an ambiguity of function. In such a case there are two meanings but word groups and , in a sense, word meanings are the same in both- the two meanings are distinct only by the function, or grammatical function, of some word. For example, the following sentences are functionally ambiguous. a. I need a criminal lawyer. b. Visiting professors can be boring. c. I like ice cream more than you. In (a) the needed lawyer may be a specialist in criminal law, or a lawyer who is criminal. In (b) the mentioned professors can be understood as either the subject or object of visiting: the 34 professors visit or get visited (and in either case this is boring). In (c) the ambiguity results from thinking of you as either the subject or object of like: I like ice cream more than you (subject of like) like ice cream, or I like it more than I like you (object of like). 35  EXAMPLES AND PRACTICE 1. Unboundedness of syntax. Sentence length is unbounded because words can always be added to a sentence. Take the sentence: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog. Words can be added almost anywhere in the sentence. a. Then the quick brown fox... b. The very quick brown fox... c. The quick dark brown fox... d. The quick brown bat-eared fox jumped... e. The quick brown fox easily jumped over... PRACTICE (a) List a word or words which can be added to the following sentence at the numbered places, and (b) do the same with another sentence of at least seven words, which you compose. January1 was2 the3 coldest4 month5 since6 1916. 2. Three types of ambiguity. There are three types of linguistic ambiguity: a. Lexical ambiguity occurs when a word has different meanings. In We met at the bank, bank might be the land at the side of a river or a financial institution. 36  b. Grouping ambiguity occurs when words may have different groupings. In They served expensive wine and cheese, expensive could be grouped just with wine, [[expensive wine] and cheese], or wine and cheese could be grouped, so that expensive modifies both, [expensive [wine and cheese]]. c. Function ambiguity is a bit trickier. It occurs when a word or phrase has different functions but not different meanings or different groupings. In Visiting professors can be boring, professors could be doing the visiting (in grammatical terms, professors is the subject of the verb visit), or professors could be getting visited (in grammatical terms, professors is the object of the verb visit). Note that professor has the same meaning in both cases, and the groupings are the same. Lexical ambiguity depends entirely on the quite different meanings of a word. Grouping ambiguity depends on how the words are grouped. Function ambiguity depends, like lexical ambiguity, on a particular word, but on the word's different grammatical functions, not its lexical meaning. All three cases show that we have abstract knowledge -of meanings not reflected in audible or visible form. Practice Each of the following 11 sentences is ambiguous. Figure out the ambiguity of each sentence and explain this, if more briefly than in the examples above, as lexical, grouping, or 37 functional ambiguity. There are at least two ambiguities of each type; some might be explained in two ways. 1. This pen is empty 2. Are the chickens ready to eat? 3. Do you want to try on that dress in the window? 4. This old car needs new brakes and antifreeze. S. Riddle: what gets wetter the more it dries? (Answer: a towel.) 6. Don't sit on those glasses! 7. I understand money matters. 8. They read books. 9. I know clever people like you. 10. The dog looked at the snake longer than the cat. 11. Mom's home cooking. Example 3. Meaningfulness of groupings. The meaningfulness of different word groupings can be shown by parentheses. Compare the following pairs of phrases, with basically the same sort of word composition but different groupings, as shown by the parentheses: a. see (whales) (from cruise ships) b. see (whales (from Alaska) ) 38  c. adult (language learning). d. (foreign language) learning In (a) from cruise ships is a group, a prepositional phrase. It is not about the whales but about the seeing, so this prepositional phrase is grouped apart from whales. In (b), however, with newborn calves IS about whales, so this prepositional phrase IS grouped together with whales. The phrase (c) is about 'language learning by adults, and language learning is a group apart from adult. The phrase (d), however, is about the learning of 'foreign languages', so foreign language is a group apart from learning PRACTICE Insert at least one pair of parentheses in each of the following phrases to show the likely contrast of meaning and of grouping between the pairs 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, and 9-10. 1.write a paper on the revolution 2. write a paper on the weekend 3.old or new movies 4.books or new movies 5.Chicago Welfare Department 6. Child Welfare Department 7. single parent family 8.single migrant family 39  9. garage door opener 10.electric can opener Example 4.Recursion. Recall the eight types of recursion exemplified in section 3, above: a. Sentences within sentences. b. Noun phrases within noun phrases c. Verb phrases within verb phrases d. Prepositional phrases within prepositional phrases e. Coordinated sentences f. Coordinated noun phrases g. Coordinated verb phrases h. Coordinated prepositional phrases Practice In the following sentences identify cases of each of these sorts of recursion (a)-(h). Notice that one type may be within another. Each sentence exemplifies at least two types, and each type is exemplified in two sentences. 1. Fiona goes to church and ears out every Sunday, and Ray does too. 2. We met them on the ferry to the island. 40  3. They say they always try to see a movie Friday evening. 4. It seems we never see them on the train or at the station. 5. We see them on the boardwalk and in cafes near the harbor. 6. I believe they never eat anything but beer and pretzels. 7. They like going to bed early and they hate getting up late. 8. We left early and arrived before dark, and so did they. Example 5. Replacement and movement of phrases. It was mentioned above (§§4.1.1-2) that two tests which provide evidence that a group of words is a phrase, or unit of syntactic structure, are replacement and movement. In the sentence These children love anything chocolate, we can make three replacements: a. They love anything chocolate. b. They love it. c. They do. 41  They replaces the subject noun phrase these children; It replaces the direct object noun phrase anything chocolate, and do replaces the verb phrase love anything chocolate. Movement is a somewhat less reliable test than replacement, but take the sentence These children play with matches, which can be paraphrased: d. It is these children who play with matches. e. It is matches that these children play with. f. Play with matches is what these children do. Practice Identify as many phrases as you can in the following sentences, by performing the replacement or movement tests on them, as in (a)-(f), above. 1. Children who play with matches need lessons in fire safety. 2. Fire safety lessons may not work for all such children. 3. These children may need lessons of a different sort. Example 6. Grouping ambiguity. Another test of phrasehood is grouping ambiguity (§4.1.3). Sentences 1 and 2 below are 42 ambiguous. They each have two interpretations depending on how words are grouped into meaningful phrases. 1. I know a cafe in the theater district near the metro station. a. Near the metro station is about the theater district. (It is grouped with the theater district.) b. Near the metro station is about a cafe. (It is grouped with a cafe.) 2. Oh, that‟s just a crazy economist's idea. a. Crazy is about economist. b. Crazy is about idea PRACTICE Similarly explain the grouping ambiguity in sentences 3- 9. 3. They admitted that we had attended only with reluctance. 4. We watched a video of European automobile races. 5. Let‟s have chocolate cake and ice cream. 6. The Dean wants to eliminate sex and race bias in student organizations. 7. They ought to compete against more competitive teams. 43  8. We discovered that they lost the election by chance. 9. She fed her dog meat. 44  THE CHARACTERIZATION OF GRAMMATICAL RELATIONS This part presents a discussion of the related linguistic literature of the following issues: grammatical relations, semantic roles and their correlation. This correlation represents a significant facet of the syntactic- semantic interface which has occupied many linguists. The first item to be examined is grammatical relations like subject, direct object, indirect object and object of preposition as in (1) The boy ran SUBJ (2) The boy ate an apple SUBJ DO (3) The boy gave Tom an apple SUBJ INDIR. OBJ DO (4) The boy gave an apple to Tom SUBJ DO OBJ.of PREP Definitions of grammatical relations Hurford (1994) defines the subject of a sentence as The noun or noun phrase that typically (but not in all cases) refers to the doer of the action expressed by a transitive verb in an active sentence or to the main person or thing involved in the event 45  or state expressed by an intransitive verb. (1994: 226) This definition is viable to the subject in (1) and (2). Hurford further notes that with transitive verbs not involving actions as in (5) He saw a snake The subject is assigned to the NP that is in a parallel position of the subject of transitive action verbs. This implies that the choice of the subject is primarily a structural matter. Thus when the meaning associated with the subject is not conformed to its typical sense as in the aforementioned definition, then the determinant factor becomes the structural position as in (5). On the other hand, Hurford identifies the direct object as “The noun phrase which expresses the recipient, or patient, or „undergoer‟ of that action, the person or thing most clearly affected by the action” (1994: 66). In fact, This definition is similar to that of the subject in that they specify the typical uses of each of them. Consequently, this definition is applicable to the direct object in (2)- (4). Hurford assumes that if the direct object occurs with verbs not indicating actions, then its presence will be dependent on the structural position it occupies. Thus in (6) He remembered the right way 46  The NP the way is specified as the direct object because it is located in an analogous position to that of the direct object of an action verb. It is quite natural of definitions to cover the prototypical senses of a certain term as is evident in the previous section. However, a more intense and profound account is needed to reveal the major linguistic approaches towards the study of grammatical relations. Therefore, the following section is intended to scrutinise how this topic is handled in some prominent syntactic theories. Universal Grammar Universal Grammar, often abbreviated as UG, is a core concept in linguistic theory. It was first proposed by Noam Chomsky in the 1950s and is based on the observation that certain properties of languages appear to be innate to human beings, regardless of the specific language they speak. Definition Universal Grammar: A set of linguistic principles and constraints that are hypothesized to form an innate basis for the structure of any natural language. 47  One of the primary motivations for the development of the theory of Universal Grammar is to account for the ease and speed with which young children learn languages. Chomsky's hypothesis proposes that all human languages share a common underlying structure, which is built on innate principles. The Universal Grammar theory is based on several key principles. Some of these principles include: The existence of innate linguistic knowledge in all humans The presence of shared linguistic structures across languages The ability to acquire language without explicit teaching or feedback Under the UG framework, languages are considered to be composed of different levels, with each level containing specific rules and principles that govern the structure and use of the 48 language. Within this framework, Chomsky distinguishes between Competence: Internalized linguistic knowledge possessed by an individual. Performance: An individual's actual use of language in speech or writing. Chomsky's theory of Universal Grammar also introduces the idea of a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) within the human brain. This LAD is believed to be responsible for understanding the structure of a language and applying its underlying principles. It is hypothesized that the LAD allows children to effortlessly and rapidly acquire language skills in their early years. 49 Characteristics of Universal Grammar According to the Universal Grammar theory, there are several key characteristics that all languages share. Some of these shared traits include: 1. Structure-dependence: Grammatical rules apply consistently based on the structure of the language, not on the specific words used. 2. Recursion: The ability to create potentially infinite sentences or phrases through the nesting of clauses or phrases within other clauses or phrases. 3. Modularity: Different components of linguistic competence function independently but are interconnected. These components include syntax, semantics, and phonology. 4. Displacement: The capacity for humans to refer to objects, events, and concepts that are not present in the immediate environment. 50 Universal Grammar is a critical concept in the understanding of what makes human language unique. Its principles suggest the existence of an innate linguistic ability that allows the rapid acquisition of language, and highlights the shared underlying structure across different languages. An example of recursion in language: “The cat, which was chased by the dog, quickly climbed the tree.” This sentence demonstrates the embedding of one clause inside another, resulting in a more complex structure. Examples of Universal Grammar in English Language Syntax is the arrangement of words and phrases to create wellformed sentences in a language. It is one of the key areas where Universal Grammar can be observed when examining the English language. The following examples show some 51 common syntactic structures that support the theory of Universal Grammar: 1. Word order: In English, the typical word order follows a subject-verb-object (SVO) pattern. This structure is essential for conveying meaning and understanding sentences. For example: "The cat chased the mouse." 2. Phrase structure: The formation of sentences using verb phrases (VP), noun phrases (NP), adjective phrases (AdjP), and prepositional phrases (PP) demonstrate a common structure shared across languages. For instance, within a simple sentence like "The happy dog played in the park," there are different phrase structures acting together, such as NP "The happy dog" and PP "in the park." 3. Agreement: In English, subjects and verbs must agree in number (singular or plural). For example, in the sentence 52  "The students are reading books," there is agreement between the plural subject "students" and the plural verb "are." 4. Negation: The existence of linguistic devices to express negativity is a common feature across languages. In English, we can use auxiliary verbs combined with "not" or contractions like "don't" and "can't" to convey negation. For example, "She does not like pizza" or "They can't swim." 5. Questions: English questions, like many other languages, usually follow a specific structure to differentiate from declarative sentences. For instance, changing the word order and using auxiliary verbs, such as "Is the cat sleeping?" and "Where did you go?" These examples demonstrate some common syntactic structures in the English language that suggest the existence of shared principles within the Universal Grammar framework. 53 Universal grammar theory application in real-life situations The Universal Grammar theory can help explain various phenomena in real-life language situations. In particular, it offers insights into language acquisition, the ease of language learning, and the understanding of linguistic diversity. Here are some practical implications of the theory: 1. Language acquisition in children: The innate linguistic knowledge provided by Universal Grammar makes it easier for children to learn their native language, as they can rapidly grasp the shared principles and underlying structures that govern its use. For example, by the age of 3, most children can form relatively complex sentences without any explicit teaching. 2. Second language learning: The theory of Universal Grammar implies that learning a second language should be relatively effortless, given the shared linguistic principles. In reality, factors such as age, language 54  exposure, and innate language ability can influence the ease of learning a second language, but the underlying structures identified in Universal Grammar can serve as a foundation for language learning. 3. Syntactic transfer: When learning a second language, speakers may transfer syntactic structures from their first language to the new language. This transfer can be explained by the Universal Grammar principles, as the shared structure across languages allows for easier understanding and assimilation. 4. Language typology and diversity: While individual languages may differ in certain aspects, underlying similarities, as postulated by Universal Grammar, allow linguists to create categories and group languages based on shared commonalities. One example is the classification of languages into SVO, SOV, and other word order categories. 55  5. Linguistic analysis and research: The study of Universal Grammar helps linguists understand the core aspects of human languages and how they are structured. This, in turn, can inform research in various fields, such as psycholinguistics, language education, and computational linguistics, among others. Overall, the Universal Grammar theory has numerous applications in real-life situations and serves as a foundational concept in understanding the intricacies of human language. Its focus on innate principles and shared structures among languages highlights the remarkable human ability to learn and communicate through different languages with ease and precision. Significance of understanding Universal Grammar principles Understanding the principles of Universal Grammar can help us appreciate the remarkable ability humans have for language 56 development, communication, and learning. Some key benefits of understanding Universal Grammar principles include: Insights into language acquisition: By examining the role of innate linguistic knowledge in language learning, linguists can better comprehend the mechanisms at play during the early stages of language development in children. Support for language education: By identifying and focusing on the shared linguistic structures across languages, language educators can develop more effective teaching strategies and curricula that cater to learners' innate linguistic abilities. Application in language assessment: Understanding Universal Grammar principles can inform the development of language assessment tools that take into account the commonalities between languages, offering more reliable and valid evaluations of language 57  proficiency. Study of language diversity: The presence of Universal Grammar principles in various languages can help linguists gain insights into the common features and variations across languages, aiding in the study of linguistic typology and the understanding of language evolution. Informing computational linguistics: Having a grasp on Universal Grammar principles allows artificial intelligence and natural language processing researchers to develop computational models that better comprehend and process human language, improving machine translation, speech recognition, and other language- related technologies. In summary, the Universal Grammar theory plays a significant role in the study of language acquisition and has numerous 58 practical implications for language learning, teaching, and research. By understanding the innate linguistic capabilities of humans and the underlying structures that govern languages, we can better appreciate the intricate and complex world of human language and communication. 59 Criticisms and drawbacks of Universal grammar principles Despite its many contributions to linguistics, the theory of Universal Grammar has faced a number of criticisms and drawbacks over the years. Some of the key criticisms include: The nature of innate linguistic knowledge: One primary concern among critics is the question of whether linguistic knowledge is truly innate or whether it is learned over time through exposure to language input. Some argue that children may learn language using general cognitive abilities rather than through an innate language acquisition device, thus challenging the core assumption of Universal Grammar. The poverty of the stimulus argument: Chomsky's poverty of the stimulus argument, which suggests that children acquire language based on innate principles and not just linguistic input, has been criticized for its lack of empirical evidence. Critics argue that the role of input could be more significant in language acquisition than Chomsky initially proposed. Insufficient explanation for language change and development: 60  Critics argue that Universal Grammar does not provide an adequate explanation for language change and development, as it is primarily concerned with the shared innate principles of language. Predictive limitations: Another criticism is that the Universal Grammar theory has limited predictive power in terms of how languages should look or behave, especially given the immense diversity of languages worldwide. Alternative approaches to language acquisition: There are several competing theories of language acquisition, such as usage- based models and connectionism, which offer alternative explanations for language development. Critics of Universal Grammar argue that these alternative theories provide more comprehensive and empirically substantiated accounts of language acquisition. Despite these criticisms and limitations, Universal Grammar has undeniably provided valuable insights into the study of language acquisition and the understanding of shared linguistic principles. As with any scientific theory, ongoing research and dialogue help refine and improve our understanding of language and the underlying mechanisms governing human communication. 61  Transformational Generative Grammar This section is devoted to the discussion of the treatment of grammatical relations within the framework of one of the most influential syntactic theories. This is the transformational generative grammar theory as developed by Chomsky (1957, 1965). But prior to proceeding with our discussion, it would be advantageous to shed some light on the rationale behind this theory. Chomsky‟s stance is that human linguistic capacities are explained in terms of grammars. The characterization of these grammars is based on what is thought to be universal properties comprising formal and discrete rules. The main function of these rules is the representation of structural descriptions. Newmeyer (1996) confines the term generative grammarians to those individuals supporting Chomsky‟s principles (1957, 1965). It should be borne in mind that the autonomy of syntax is one of the main tenets of formal grammatical theories in general, and of generative transformational grammar in particular (Newmeyer 1998). According to this premise, syntax is a self- contained system and that it does not require any other disciplines, for instance, semantics for the identification and characterization of syntactic categories and structures. The roots of this conception i.e. the autonomy of syntax, trace back to 62 Bloomfield who states that “ meaning is the weak point of language study” (1933: 140). Consequently, structuralist linguists proclaim that syntactic forms should be described independently of the meanings associated with these forms. Generative transformational grammar, at its early stages, retains these views vividly. Thus Chomsky notes that “ we are forced to conclude that grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning” (1957: 17). He further assumes that grammatical categories like subject and object cannot be explained via semantic notions. The main motive behind dealing with grammar from this perspective lies in Chomsky‟s willingness to make language observe, in a similar fashion, the laws of natural sciences. For instance, physics and biology attempt to determine the class of physical and biological laws and processes. Similarly, linguistics should follow the same line of argument by the provision of precise formalised grammars. Following from this point, a grammar should display structural systems i.e. systems with formal defined elements interrelated by an internal algebra. Cook and Newson (1996) observe that some people are misguided by the term generative and equate it with „productive‟. Instead it means formal and explicit because Chomsky himself notes that by generative grammar “we mean that it is sufficiently explicit to determine how sentences of the language are in fact characterised by grammar” (1980: 220). 63 Chomsky, during the early stages of his theory, endorses the premise of the centrality of syntax and that the incorporation of semantic aspects in the analysis and description of syntactic processes is irrelevant. He states For the moment, I see no reason to modify the view that although, obviously, semantic considerations are relevant to the construction of general linguistic theory, there is, at present, no way to show that semantic considerations play a role in the choice of the syntactic or phonological component of a grammar. (1965: 226) This brief introductory theoretical background is intended to serve two purposes. The first is to set the stage for the subsequent discussion of the nature of the treatment of grammatical relations within some syntactic theories. The second is pertinent to the explication of some of the principles against which cognitive grammar theory, within which this study is conducted, operates. Syntactic Structures (1957) In this theory, Chomsky reckons that grammar comprises three levels of analysis: phrase structure rules, transformational rules, and morphophonemic rules. Phrase structure rules are 64 rewrite rules that operate on an initial string S (sentence) to produce a terminal string. These rules are further subdivided into branching rules and lexical rules. The former introduces single category symbols like NP and VP while the latter inserts lexical items in the terminal string in place of category symbols. The following figure exemplifies how phrase structure rules would be realised 65  (7) S The boy ate an apple (1) S NP + VP (2) VP V + NP Branching rules (3) NP Det + N (4) V eat (5)Det the, an Lexical rules (6)N boy, apple Figure. 1 Transformational rules operate on the terminal strings and their underlying structures brought about by the phrase structure rules. Their main function is the production of sentences through the deletion, addition or substitution of elements in underlying or deep structures. Transformational rules are either obligatory or optional. If the former type is employed (like verb agreement), there will be kernel sentences. Alternatively, the use of the latter set (e.g. the passive), there will be derived sentences. Finally, morphophonemic rules are applied to both kernel and derived sentences to produce their phonemic representation. From the previous account, we conclude that grammatical relations are identified in terms of dominance. Thus the subject refers to the NP that is immediately dominated by S while the direct object specifies 66 the NP that is directly dominated by V. The study of linguistic meaning is excluded from this model and the main component is syntax. This theory has been modified in the second version of Chomsky‟s generative grammar as shown below. 67  The standard theory (1965) Like syntactic structures, the standard theory regards syntax as the central component. There are two other components; the semantic and the phonological. The syntactic component is subdivided into a- a base grammatical component responsible for generating a deep structure of a sentence, and b- a transformational component which converts a deep structure into a surface structure. The semantic component interprets the meaning of the deep structure. The phonological component assigns a phonetic representation to the surface structure. According to Chomsky, every sentence is based on the deep structure which is syntactic in nature. The prominence accorded to syntax over the other components lies in that it “ must specify, for each sentence a deep structure that determines its semantic interpretation, and a surface structure that determines its phonetic interpretation” (Chomsky 1965: 16). It is true that the introduction of the semantic component is the major contribution of this theory. However, its function is limited to interpreting the meaning of deep structures. This raises the question of why surface structures should be deprived of semantic interpretation. Can any one suppose that there would be grammatical structures devoid of meaning merely because they are surface structures? Similarly, why should the phonological component be confined to phonetic representation 68 of surface structures? Does this imply that deep structures do not receive phonetic representation? The point to be made here is that this distinction is impractical and unnecessary. Returning to the centrality and autonomy of syntax, it is noted that this principle is quite obvious in the characterization of grammatical relations. Thus the subject and the direct object retain their identification in terms of dominance as explained earlier. The following tree diagram illustrates and substantiates the notion of dominance. It represents the syntactic configuration of this sentence (8) The cat chased the mouse S NP VP Det N V NP The cat chased the mouse Det N Figure. 2 It should be admitted that Chomsky‟s conception of sentence structure as being represented by a tree diagram is greatly influential. It is still adopted and applied to the 69 identification of grammatical relations by many linguists like Bas (1997: 64) and Hudson (2000: 89-90). Chomsky holds the stance that the main objective of a linguistic theory is to propose and develop an account of linguistic universals. However, the tree diagram above presents a concrete evidence of the fallibility of these assumptions regarding syntactic representations. Thus a language like Arabic has the VSO order and the direct object is not directly dominated by V. To clarify this point, let us consider this sentence (9) ?akala -lwaladu -lxubza ate the boy the bread The boy ate the bread Which would have the following tree diagram S V NP NP Det N Det N ate the boy the bread Figure. 3 70  This confirms that the universal characterization of grammatical relations in terms of purely syntactic accounts is incorrect. This is due to the fact that languages differ considerably in their word order and case marking. Thus some languages like Arabic, German, Polish and Russian are inflected for case while others like, for instance, English and French normally are not. The incorporation of semantic roles like agent and patient into the analysis of sentences is employed by Chomsky in his theory known as Government and Binding (1981). The following section examines how this theory deals with grammatical relations and their correlation with semantic roles. Government and Binding (1981) In this theory which is a variant of generative grammar (Culicover 1997) Chomsky continues to identify grammatical relations in terms of dominance or government. The concept of government specifies an abstract syntactic relationship between a governor and the element it governs. Thus, for instance, the verb governs its object NP as in (10) Kate likes Sam Similarly, a preposition governs its NP in a prepositional phrase as in (11) The postman gave a letter to Sam 71  But what does govern the subject? The answer is that it is the element „inflection‟. This element is either [+ inflection] as in tensed sentences or [- inflection] as in infinitival sentences. It may include the element agreement AGR as in verb agreement with the subject in the present tense as in (12) He plays tennis θ (theta) roles and movement. Semantic roles or, to use Chomsky‟s term, θ- roles are introduced in government and binding. These roles are assigned to arguments in the argument structure. Each θ- role is determined by the lexical properties of the predicate with which arguments occur. Closely related to θ- roles is the θ- criterion which states that every NP must be assigned a θ- role. This represents the syntactic- semantic interface between the syntactic constituents of a sentence and its thematic argument structure. Thus in (13) The dog bit the boy The agent θ-role is assigned to the subject and the patient θ- role is assigned to the direct object. Culicover (1997) notes that the θ- role assigned to any subject is termed an external role as it is external to the VP. By contrast, the θ- roles assigned to the direct object are internal roles as they are included within the VP. 72  The distinction between deep structure and surface structure is sustained in this theory. The deep structure is the level prior to the movement of any of its constituents while the surface structure is produced after the movement takes place. The term movement could be considered as the equivalent of transformations in the previous theories (1957, 1965). Some Basic syntactic concepts Rewrite rules and some terminology We will start by looking at some general principles that determine the basic structure of phrases and sentences. The perspective we will present claims that these principles are simple because there are a very small number of them that apply to all structures. In fact this theory claims there to be at most three different rules which determine the nature of all structures in a language. These can be stated as follows: (1) a X' → X YP b XP → YP X' c Xn → Xn, Y/YP Rewrite rules tell us how structures of various kinds decompose into their constituent parts. The rules in (1) are like these, only far more general. The generality is achieved through the use of category variables, X and Y, which stand for any 73 possible category (nouns, verbs, prepositions, determiners, etc.). Thus these rules tell us how phrases in general are structured, not how particular VPs, PPs or DPs are. The third rule in (1) introduces a position into the phrase called the adjunct. Given that we have yet to introduce these elements we will put off discussion of this rule until section 1.3. where we will give a fuller account of both adjuncts and the adjunction rule. The first rule (1a) is called the complement rule, as it introduces the structural position for the complement (the YP of this rule). The structure it defines is given below: (2) X' X YP There are several things to note about this structure. First there are two immediate constituents of the X' (pronounced "X bar"): X, which is called the head of the phrase and the complement YP. The complement, which, as its label suggests is a phrase of any possible category, follows the head. This is a fact 74 about English and in other languages the complement may precede the head. Whether it precedes or follows the complement, the head is the central element of the phrase and is a word of the same category as the X'. Thus, if the head is an adjective, the X' will be an A' and if the head is a complementiser the X' will be a C'. Here are some structures that conform to this pattern: (3) V' V PP speak to me 75  N' N PP king of Spain P' P DP on the right D' 76  D NP the shame of it Note that, although these are constituents of different types, they all have a very similar pattern: the head is on the left and the complement is on the right. This is exactly what the X- bar rules were proposed to account for. It is clearly the case that there are cross-categorial generalisations to be made and if constituents were described by the rewrite rules of the kind given in chapter 2, where for each type of constituent there is a specific rule, it would be impossible to capture obvious similarities between phrases. The rule in (1b) is the specifier rule, as it introduces a structural position called the specifier (the YP of this rule). The structure it defines is as below: 77 (4) XP YP X' Again there are several things to note about this structure. Once more, there are two immediate constituents of the phrase. The specifier, a phrase of any category, precedes the X', the constituent just discussed containing the head and the complement. Again the ordering of these two constituents is language dependent: specifiers precede X's in English, but this is not necessarily so in all languages. Specifiers are a little more difficult to exemplify than complements due to complications that we have yet to discuss. However, the following are fairly straightforward cases: (5) DP DP D' 78  the king’s every wish VP DP V' the bubbles rise to the surface The specifier of the DP is the possessor and this precedes the D' constituted of the determiner and its complement. The VP in (5) is exemplified in the following sentence: (6) we watched [the bubbles rise to the surface] This VP has many things in common with a clause and indeed it looks very much like one. We will discuss the difference between the two in a subsequent chapter. The important point to note is that the theme argument of the verb (the argument undergoing the process described by the verb - in this case, the bubbles) occupies the specifier position of the VP as defined by the rule in (1b). 79  Note that the X' and the phrase share the same categorial status (X) and so if X' is P' XP will be PP, etc. As X' is the same category as the head, it follows that the whole phrase will be of the same category as the head. In this way, the head of the phrase determines the phrase's category. The property of sharing category between the head, the X' and the phrase is called projection. We say that the head projects its categorial status to the X' and ultimately to the XP. If we put the two parts of the structure together, we can more clearly see how projection works: (7) VP DP V' The children V PP fall over The line of projection proceeds from the head, via the X' to the phrase thus ensuring that phrases and heads match. 80  The meaning of the 'bar' can be seen in terms of the notion of projection. We can imagine a phrase as a threefloored building, with a ground floor, a first floor and a top floor. On the ground floor we have the head, which is not built on top of anything -it is an unprojected element. Often heads are called zero level projections, to indicate that they are not projected from anything. This can be represented as X0. Above the head, we have the X', the first projection of the head. The bar then indicates the projection level of the constituent: X' is one projection level above X0. On the top floor we have the phrase, XP. This is the highest level projected from the head and hence it is called the maximal projection. Another way of representing the maximal projection is X'', an X with two bars (pronounced 'X double bar'), with the bars again representing the projection level. It seems that all phrases project to two levels and so we will not entertain the possibility of X''', or X'''', etc. Typically we will maintain the custom of representing the maximal projection as XP. Endocentricity An obvious consequence of the notion of projection is that we will never get a phrase of one category with a head of another. While this might seem a slightly perverse situation to want to prevent in the first place (why would verb phrases be headed by 81 anything other than a verb?), it is certainly a logical possibility that there could be phrases of category X which do not contain a word of category X. For example the traditional view that preposition phrases can function adverbially could be captured under the following assumption: (8) AP → P DP In other words, a preposition phrase which behaves as an adverbial phrase is an adverb phrase headed by the preposition. Clearly this is something that would not be allowed by the Xbar rules in (1). Evidence favours the X-bar perspective and there is no reason to believe that just because something functions adverbially it is categorially the same as an adverb. For example, even when PPs are used adverbially, they still have different distributions to AP: (9) a we met [AP secretly] we met [PP in secret] b we [AP secretly] met *we [PP in secret] met As we see in (9), a PP modifier of a verb must follow it, while an AP modifier may precede or follow it, even if the two modifiers have virtually the same interpretation. Thus a phrase 82 headed by a preposition has a different categorial status to one headed by an adverb, supporting the X-bar claim that phrases have heads of the appropriate kind. Moreover, the X-bar rules in (1) rule out another possibility if we assume that these are the only rules determining structure. While it might not make much sense to have a phrase with a head of a different category, the idea of a phrase that simply lacks a head is not so absurd. There is a traditional distinction made between endocentric and exocentric language elements. An endocentric phrase gets its properties from an element that it contains and hence this element can function by itself as the whole phrase. For example: (10) a I saw [three blind mice] b I saw [mice] An exocentric phrase on the other hand contains no element that can have the same function as the whole phrase and so appears to have properties that are independent from the elements it contains. A standard example is: (11) a we saw him [in the park] b *we saw him [in] c *we saw him [the park] 83  The issue is rather complex. The traditional view mixes category and function in a way that is perhaps not helpful. The point is, however, that the X-bar rules in (1) claim that, categorially, all phrases are endocentric: in other words, all phrases have heads which determine their categorial nature. There is one grammatical construction that seems at first to stand outside the X-bar system precisely in that it lacks a head: the clause. Certainly from a functional perspective the clause contains no element that could replace the whole construction: neither the subject nor the VP can function as clauses by themselves: (12) a [Susan] [shot Sam] b [Susan] c [shot Sam] The examples in (12) all have very different natures, even categorially. It might be argued that sometimes VPs can act as clauses: (13) g e t o u t ! 84  However, such expressions have a special status and there is more to them than appears at the surface. The sentence in (13) is an imperative construction in which there appears to be no subject. However it is fairly clear that there is a definite subject understood in this sentence: you! An imperative cannot be interpreted as a command given to some third person and must be interpreted as directed towards the addressee. The question is then, what is the status of the subject of such sentences: are they only' understood', present at some semantic level or are they merely 'unpronounced' though present at the grammatical level? There is reason to believe that language makes much use of unpronounced elements that are nonetheless present grammatically and we will see many examples of such things in the following pages. One argument to support the assumption of an unpronounced subject in (13) comes from observations concerning the behaviour of reflexive pronouns such as himself. Unlike other pronouns, reflexives must refer to something else in the same sentence: (14) a Sue said Fred fancies himself b Sue said Fred fancies her In (14a) himself can only be interpreted as referring to Fred and cannot, for example, be taken to mean someone else 85 not mentioned in the sentence. Compare this to the behaviour of her in (14b). In this case the pronoun may either be taken as referring to Sue or to some other woman. We can say therefore that reflexive pronouns must have grammatical antecedents: some element present in the sentence which provides the reflexive with its reference. With this in mind, consider the following observations (15) a Pete ate the pie by himself b Pete ate the pie by itself )16) a eat the pie by yourself! b Pete ate c *Pete ate by itself As we see from (15), a by phrase containing a reflexive is interpreted to mean 'unaccompanied'. In (15a), the reflexive refers to Pete and so it means that he was unaccompanied in eating the pie. In contrast, in (15b) the reflexive refers to the pie and so it means that the pie was unaccompanied (by ice cream for example) when Pete ate it. (16a) is grammatical even though there is no apparent antecedent for the reflexive. It is not 86 surprising that the reflexive should be yourself however, as, as we have said, the understood subject of an imperative is you. Yet we cannot simply say that the antecedent 'being understood' is enough to satisfy the requirements of the reflexive as (16c) is ungrammatical. In this case the object is absent, though it is clearly understood that something was eaten in (16b). But this understanding is not enough to license the use of the reflexive in this case. So we conclude that the missing subject in (16a) is different from the missing object in (16c) and in particular that the missing subject has a more definite presence than the missing object. This would be so if the missing subject were present as an unpronounced grammatical entity while the missing object is absent grammatically and present only at the semantic level. In conclusion then, while imperatives might look like VP clauses which lack subjects, they are in fact full clauses with unpronounced subjects. If the VP cannot be argued to function as a clause, one might try to argue that clauses and subjects have certain things in common. For example, a clause can act as a subject: (17) [that ice cream production has again slumped] is bad news for the jelly industry 87  But this does not show that subjects are functional equivalent to clauses but quite the opposite: clauses may be functionally equivalent to subjects under certain circumstances. Therefore it would appear that clauses are exocentric constructions, having no heads, and as such stand outside of the X-bar system. Later in this book, we will challenge this traditional conclusion and claim that clauses do indeed have heads, though the head is neither the subject nor the VP. From this perspective, X-bar theory is a completely general theory applying to all constructions of the language and given that Xbar theory consists of just three rules it does indeed seem that Ilanguage principles are a lot simpler than observation of Elanguage phenomena would tend to suggest. Heads and Complements But if the structural rules of the grammar are themselves so general as to not make reference to categories how do categorial features come to be in structures? One would have thought that if all the grammar is constructed from are rules that tell us how phrases are shaped in general, then there should only be one kind of phrase: an XP. To see how categorial information gets into structure we must look more closely at heads and the notion of projection. We have seen how heads project their properties to the X' and thence 88 to XP, the question we must ask therefore is where do heads get their properties from? The main point to realise is that the head is a word position and words are inserted into head positions from the lexicon. In chapter 1 we spent quite some time reviewing the lexical properties of words, including their categorial properties. These, we concluded, are specified for every lexical item in terms of categorial features ([±F, ±N, ±V]). If we now propose that a head's categorial features are projected from the lexical element that occupies the head position we can see that phrases of different categories are the result of different lexical elements being inserted into head positions. One way to envisage this is to think of X-bar rules as building a general X-bar structure devoid of categorial properties. So we might start with the following: (18) XP YP X' X YP 89  XP YP X' V YP fall We then populate this structure by inserting words into it from the lexicon and these bring along with them their categorial features. Suppose we insert the verb fall into the head position, as this is categorised [-F, -N, +V] (i.e. verb) these will project to the head position: These features then project to the X': (20) XP YP V' 90  V YP fall And finally they end up on the maximal projection: ) 21) XP YP V' V YP fall In this way we can see that categorial features are actually projected into structures from the lexicon. This makes a lot of sense given that categorial properties are to a large extent idiosyncratic to the words involved in an expression and are not easily predicted without knowing what words a sentence is constructed from. Things which are predictable, such as that all phrases have heads which may be flanked by a specifier to its left and a complement to its right, are what are expressed by the 91 X-bar rules. Thus we have a major split between idiosyncratic properties, which rightly belong in the lexicon, and general and predictable properties which rightly belong in the grammar. The structure in (21) is still incomplete however and we must now consider how to complete it. Let us concentrate firstly on the complement position. At the moment this is expressed by the general phrase symbol YP. This tells us that only a phrasal element can sit here, but it does not tell us what category that phrase must be. Yet, it is clear that we cannot insert a complement of just any category into this position: (22) a fell [PP off the shelf] b *fell [DP the cliff] c *fell [VP jumped over the cliff] This restriction clearly does not come from the X-bar rules as these state that complements can be of any category, which in general is absolutely true. But in specific cases, there must be specific complements. Again it is properties of heads which determine this. Recall that part of the lexical entry for a word concerns its subcategorisation. The subcategorisation frame of a lexical element tells us what kind of complement there can be. For fall, for instance, it is specified that the complement is prepositional: 92  )23) fall category: [–F, – N +V] Θ-grid: subcat: prepositional Thus through the notion of subcategorisation, the head imposes restrictions on the complement position, allowing only elements of a certain category to occupy this position: (24) VP YP V' V PP fall As we know that the complement must be prepositional, we also know by the general principles of X-bar theory that only a preposition could be inserted into the head position of this phrase and the lexical properties of this head will, in turn, impose restrictions on what can appear in its complement position: (25) VP 93  YP V' V PP fall P' P DP off the shelf In this structure, off is inserted into the head position of the PP complement of the verb and as this preposition selects for a DP complement (as most of them do), only a determiner could be inserted into the head position of this phrase. The determiner would then impose restrictions on its complement, ensuring this to be an NP and hence only a noun could be inserted into the head of the determiner's complement. Obviously, this could continue indefinitely, but in this case the process stops at this point as the noun subcategorises for no complement. Specifiers 94  So far we have been concerned with heads and their complements. In this section we turn to specifiers. As we said above the specifier position is a little more complex than the complement for reasons which we will turn to in section 2. In general we will find that specifiers are occupied by certain arguments of a predicate or by elements with a certain specified property which relates to the head. This second class of specifiers can only be discussed after a good deal more of the grammar has been established, so we will put these to one side for the moment. The argument specifiers tend to be subjects, though again this statement will need much qualification as we proceed. One class of verb for which this is most straightforward are those which have theme subjects: )26) a a letter arrived b the ship sank c Garry is in the garden Simplifying somewhat, we might claim that these arguments sit in the specifier of the VP: VP 95  DP V' a letter V arrived VP DP V' the ship V sank VP DP V' Garry V PP is in the garden 96  These arguments are nearly always DPs and so, unlike the complement they do not seem to be restricted differently by different heads in terms of their category. This is reflected in the lexical entries of the relevant heads in the fact that subcategorised elements are always complements and subjects are never subcategorised for. Of course, there are restrictions placed on these specifier arguments from the predicate, but of a more semantic nature. The verb assigns a Θ-role to these arguments and so the argument must be semantically compatible with the Θ-role it has to bear. For example: 97  (28) the complete works of Shakespeare arrived The most natural interpretation for this sentence would be to interpret the subject the complete works of Shakespeare as a book or set of manuscripts, i.e. something concrete rather than the artistic pieces of work themselves. Only if one was speaking about arriving in a metaphorical sense could one claim that one of Shakespeare's plays had 'arrived' after he had written it. This is different from the situation facing complements where there are both semantic and categorial restrictions placed on them. For example consider the following difference: (29) a Arthur asked what the time was Arthur asked the time b Wonder woman wondered what the time was *Wonder woman wondered the time The verbs ask and wonder both have questions as their complements, but only with ask can this question be expressed by a DP like the time. Thus there are extra restrictions imposed on complements which go beyond the requirement that they be compatible with the Θ-role that is assigned to them. In short, specifiers are more generally restricted than complements as 98 they tend to be a uniform category for different heads and merely have to be compatible with the meaning of the head. 99  Adjuncts It is now time to turn to the third rule in (1), which we repeat here: (30) Xn → Xn, Y/YP This is different from the previous two rules in a number of ways. First, the previous rules specified the possible constituents of the various specific projections of the head: complements are immediate constituents of X' and specifiers are immediate constituents of XP. The adjunction rule in (30) is more general as it states the possible constituents of an Xn, that is, an X with any number of bars. In other words, Xn stands for XP (=X''), X' or X (=X0). The adjunct itself is defined either as a word (Y) or as a phrase (YP) and we will see that which of these is relevant depends on the status of Xn: if Xn is a word, then the adjunct is a word, if not then the adjunct is a phrase. Note that the two elements on the right of the rewrite arrow are separated by a comma. This is missing from the complement and specifier rule. The significance of the comma is to indicate that the order between the adjunct and the Xn is not determined by the rule. We have seen that in English the complement follows the head and the specifier precedes it. Adjuncts, on the other hand, it will be seen, may precede or 100 follow the head depending on other conditions, which we will detail when looking at specific instances of adjunction. The final thing to note is that the adjunction rule is recursive: the same symbol appears on the left and the right of the rewrite arrow. Thus the rule tells us that an element of type Xn can be made up of two elements, one of which is an adjunct and the other is another Xn. Of course, this Xn may also contain another Xn, and so on indefinitely. In this way, any number of adjuncts may be added to a structure. 101  Adjunction to X-bar Let us take an example to demonstrate how this might work. We know that an adjectival phrase can be used to modify a noun, as in: (31) a smart student b vicious dog c serious mistake It is clear that the noun is the head of this construction as it can act as the complement of a determiner and determiners take nominal complements, not adjectival ones: (32) a the [NP serious error] b the [NP error] c *the [AP serious] The bracketed elements in (32a) and (b) have the same distribution and hence we can conclude they have the same categorial status. As this phrase in (32b) contains only a noun, we conclude that it is an NP. In (32c) however, the phrase following the determiner contains only an adjective and is ungrammatical. This clearly has a different distribution to the other two phrases, indicating that the adjective in (32a) is not the head of this phrase. 102  It is also possible to conclude that the adjective is not a complement of the head n