Syntactic Structures

1. Introduction
• About syntax
• About the ‘linguistic level’

1. Introduction
• About syntax:
• Syntax is the study of the principles and processes by which
sentences are constructed in particular languages.
• Syntactic investigation of a given language has as its goal the
construction of a grammar that can be viewed as a device of
some sort for producing the sentences of the language under
analysis.
• More generally, linguists must be concerned with the problem of
determining the fundamental underlying properties of successful
grammars.

1. Introduction
• About the ‘linguistic level’ (1)
• The ultimate outcome of these investigations should be a theory
of linguistic structure in which the descriptive devices utilized in
particular grammars are presented and studied abstractly, with
no specific reference to particular languages.
• One function of this theory is to provide a general method for
selecting a grammar for each language, given a corpus of
sentences of this language.
• The central notion in linguistic theory is that of "linguistic level."

1. Introduction
• About the ‘linguistic level’ (2)
• A linguistic level, such as phonemics, morphology, phrase
structure, is essentially a set of descriptive devices that are made
available for the construction of grammars; it constitutes a
certain method for representing utterances.
• We can determine the adequacy of a linguistic theory by
developing rigorously and precisely the form of grammar
corresponding to the set of levels contained within this theory,
and then investigating the possibility of constructing simple and
revealing grammars of this form for natural languages.

2. The Independence of Grammar
• A language
• The aim with language and its grammar
• Grammaticalness
• The basis of the identification grammatical vs. ungrammatical

• A language
• I will consider a language to be a set (finite or infinite) of
sentences, each finite in length and constructed out of a finite set
of elements.
• All natural languages in their spoken or written form are languages
in this sense, since each natural language has a finite number of
phonemes (or letters in its alphabet) and each sentence is
representable as a finite sequence of these phonemes (or letters),
though there are infinitely many sentences.
• Similarly, the set of 'sentences' of some formalized system of
mathematics can be considered a language.

• The aim with language and its grammar
• The fundamental aim in the linguistic analysis of a language L is to
separate the grammatical sequences which are the sentences of L
from the ungrammatical sequences which are not sentences of L
and to study the structure of the grammatical sequences.
• The grammar of L will thus be a device that generates all of the
grammatical sequences of L and none of the ungrammatical
ones.
• One way to test the adequacy of a grammar proposed for L is to
determine whether or not the sequences that it generates are
actually grammatical, i.e., acceptable to a native speaker, etc.

• Grammaticalness (1)
• We can take certain steps towards providing a behavioral criterion
for grammaticalness so that this test of adequacy can be carried
out.
• For the purposes of this discussion, however, suppose that we
assume intuitive knowledge of the grammatical sentences of
English and ask what sort of grammar will be able to do the job of
producing these in some effective and illuminating way.
• We thus face a familiar task of explication of some intuitive
concept — in this case, the concept "grammatical in English," and
more generally, the concept "grammatical."

• Grammaticalness (2)
• In order to set the aims of grammar significantly it is sufficient to
assume a partial knowledge of sentences and non-sentences.
• Each grammar is related to the corpus of sentences in the
language it describes in a way fixed in advance for all grammars by
a given linguistic theory.
• We then have a very strong test of adequacy for a linguistic theory
that attemps to give a general explanation for the notion
"grammatical sentence" in terms of "observed sentence." and for
the set of grammars constructed in accordance with such a theory.

• The basis of the identification grammatical vs. ungrammatical (1)
• First, it is obvious that the set of grammatical sentences cannot be
identified with any particular corpus or utterances obtained by the
linguist in his field work.
• Any grammar of a language will project the finite and somewhat
accidental corpus of observed utterances to a set (presumably
infinite) of grammatical utterances.
• In this respect, a grammar mirrors the behavior of the speaker who, on the
basis of a finite and accidental experience with language, can produce or
understand an indefinite number of new sentences. Indeed, any explication of
the notion "grammatical in L" (i.e., any characterization of "grammatical in L"
in terms of "observed utterance of L") can be thought of as offering an
explanation for this fundamental aspect of linguistic behavior.

• Second, the notion "grammatical" cannot be identified with
"meaningful" or "significant" in any semantic sense.
• Sentences (1) and (2) are equally nonsensical, but any speaker of
English will recognize that only the former is grammatical.
(1) Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
(2) Furiously sleep ideas green colorless.

• Similarly, there is no semantic reason to prefer (3) to (5) or (4) to
(6), but only (3) and (4) are grammatical sentences of English.
• Such examples suggest that any search for a semantically based
definition of "grammaticalness" will be futile.
(3) have you a book on modern music?
(4) the book seems interesting.
(5) read you a book on modern music?
(6) the child seems sleeping.

• Third, the notion "grammatical in English" cannot be identified in
any way with the notion "high order of statistical approximation to
English."
• It is fair to assume that neither sentence (1) nor (2) (nor indeed
any part of these sentences) has ever occurred in an English
discourse. Hence, in any statistical model for grammaticalness,
these sentences will be ruled out on identical grounds as equally
‘remote' from English. Yet (1), though nonsensical, is grammatical,
while (2) is not.

• Evidently, one's ability to produce and recognize grammatical
utterances is not based on notions of statistical approximation and
the like.
• If we rank the sequences of a given length in order of statistical
approximation to English, we will find both grammatical and
ungrammatical sequences scattered throughout the list; there
appears to be no particular relation between order of
approximation and grammaticalness.

3. An Elementary Linguistic Theory
• The levels of representation
• A linguistic machine
• Syntax? Structure dependence
• The levels of representation

• The levels of representation (1)
• Assuming the set of grammatical sentences of English to be given,
we now ask what sort of device can produce this set (equivalently,
what sort of theory gives an adequate account of the structure of
this set of utterances).
• We can think of each sentence of this set as a sequence of
phonemes of finite length.
• A language is an enormously involved system, and it is quite
obvious that any attempt to present directly the set of
grammatical phoneme sequences would lead to a grammar so
complex that it would be practically useless.

• For this reason (among others), linguistic description proceeds in
terms of a system of "levels of representations."
• Instead of stating the phonemic structure of sentences directly,
the linguist sets up such 'higher level' elements as morphemes,
and states separately the morphemic structure of sentences and
the phonemic structure of morphemes.
• It can easily be seen that the joint description of these two levels
will be much simpler than a direct description of the phonemic
structure of sentences.

• Let us now consider various ways of describing the morphemic
structure of sentences.
• We ask what sort of grammar is necessary to generate all the
sequences of morphemes (or words) that constitute grammatical
English sentences, and only these.
• One requirement that a grammar must certainly meet is that it be
finite. Hence the grammar cannot simply be a list of all morpheme
(or word) sequences, since there are infinitely many of these.

• A linguistic machine (1)
• A familiar communication theoretic model for language suggests a
way out of this difficulty.
• Suppose that we have a machine that can be in any one of a finite
number of different internal states, and suppose that this machine
switches from one state to another by producing a certain symbol
(let us say, an English word).
• One of these states is an initial state; another is a final state.
Suppose that the machine begins in the initial state, runs through
a sequence of states (producing a word with each transition), and
ends in the final state.

• Then we call the sequence of words that has been produced a
"sentence".
• Each such machine thus defines a certain language; namely, the
set of sentences that can be produced in this way.
• Any language that can be produced by a machine of this sort we
call a finite state language; and we can call the machine itself a
finite state grammar.
• A finite state grammar can be represented graphically in the form
of a "state diagram".

• For example, the grammar that produces just the two sentences
"the man comes" and "the men come" can be represented by the
following state diagram:

• We can extend this grammar to produce an infinite number of sentences
by adding closed loops. Thus the finite grammar of the subpart of English
containing the above sentences in addition to "the old man comes", "the
old old man comes", .... "the old men come", "the old old men come", ...,
can be represented by the following state diagram:

• Given a state diagram, we produce a sentence by tracing a path
from the initial point on the left to the final point on the right,
always proceeding in the direction of the arrows.
• Having reached a certain point in the diagram, we can proceed
along any path leading from this point, whether or not this path
has been traversed before in constructing the sentence in
question.
• Each node in such a diagram thus corresponds to a state of the
machine.

• We can allow transition from one state to another in several ways,
and we can have any number of closed loops of any length.
• To complete this elementary communication theoretic model for
language, we assign a probability to each transition from state to
state.

• This conception of language is an extremely powerful and general
one.
• If we can adopt it, we can view the speaker as being essentially a
machine of the type considered.
• In producing a sentence, the speaker begins in the initial state,
produces the first word of the sentence, thereby switching into a
second state which limits the choice of the second word, etc.

• Each state through which he passes represents the grammatical
restrictions that limit the choice of the next word at this point in
the utterance.

• Syntax? Structure dependence (1)
• A language is defined by giving its 'alphabet’ (i.e., the finite set of
symbols out of which its sentences are constructed) and its
grammatical sentences.
• Before investigating English directly, let us consider several
languages whose alphabets contain just the letters a, b, and whose
sentences are as defined in (10i-iii):

• (10) (i) ab, aabb. aaabbb, ..., and in general, all sentences
consisting of n occurrences of a followed by n occurrences of b
and only these;
• (ii) aa, bb, abba, baab, aaaa, bbhb, aabbaa, abbbba, ..., and in
general, all sentences consisting of a string X followed by the
'mirror image' of X (i.e., X in reverse), and only these;
• (iii) aa, bb, abab, baba, aaaa, bhbb, aabaab, abbabb, .... and in
general, all sentences consisting of a string X of a's and b's
followed by the identical string X, and only these.

• It is clear that there are subparts of English with the basic form of
(10i) and (10ii). Let S1, S2, S3, ... be declarative sentences in
English. Then we can have such English sentences as:
• (10) (i) lf S1, then S2.
• (ii) Either S3, or S4.
• (iii) The man who said that S5, is arriving today.

• In (11i), we cannot have "or" in place of "then"; in (11ii), we
cannot have "then" in place of "or"; in (11iii). we cannot have
"are" instead of "is".
• In each of these cases there is a dependency between words on
opposite sides of the comma (i.e., "if"-"then", "either"-"or",
"man"-"is").

• A finite state grammar is the simplest type of grammar which, with
a finite amount of apparatus, can generate an infinite number of
sentences.
• We have seen that such a limited linguistic theory is not adequate;
we are forced to search for some more powerful type of grammar
and some more "abstract" form of linguistic theory.
• The notion of "linguistic level of representation" put forth at the
outset of this section must be modified and elaborated.

• At least one linguistic level cannot have this simple structure.
• That is, on some level, it will not be the case that each sentence is
represented simply as a finite sequence of elements of some sort,
generated from left to right by some simple device.
• Alternatively, we must give up the hope of finding n finite set of
levels, ordered from high to low, so constructed that we can generate
all utterances by stating the permitted sequences of highest level
elements, the constituency of each highest level element in terms of
elements of the second level, etc., finally stating the phonemic
constituency of elements of the next-to-lowest level.

• We proposed that levels be established in this way in order to
simplify the description of the set of grammatical phoneme
sequences.
• If a language can be described in an elementary, left-to-right manner
in terms of a single level (i.e., if it is a finite state language) then this
description may indeed be simplified by construction of such higher
levels; but to generate non-finite state languages such as English we
need fundamentally different methods, and a more general concept
of "linguistic level".

Bonus track: Teoría estándar (SS y Aspects)

Bonus track: Rección y ligamiento

Bonus track: Programa Minimalista (-ish)

4. Phrase structure
• Parsing
• Derivation
• Generalization
• About the constituent analysis
• Morphophonemics

4. Phrase structure
• Parsing
• Customarily, linguistic description on the syntactic level is
formulated in terms of constituent analysis (parsing). We
now ask what form of grammar is presupposed by
description of this sort.
• We find that the new form of grammar is essentially more
powerful than the finite state model rejected above, and
that the associated concept of "linguistic level" is different
in fundamental respects.

4. Phrase structure
• Derivation (1)

4. Phrase structure
• Derivation (2)

4. Phrase structure
• Generalization
• One generalization of (13) is clearly necessary. We must be able to limit
application of a rule to a certain context. Thus T can be rewritten a if the
following noun is singular, but not if it is plural; similarly. Verb can be
rewritten "hits" if the preceding noun is man, but not if it is men. In general, if
we wish to limit the rewriting of X as Y to the context Z - W, we can state in
the grammar the rule

4. Phrase structure
• About constituent analysis
• We can now describe more generally the form of grammar associated with
the theory of linguistic structure based upon constituent analysis.
• Each such grammar is defined by a finite set E of initial strings and a finite set
F of "instruction formulas' of the form X  Y interpreted: "rewrite X as Y."
Though X need not be a single symbol, only a single symbol of X can be
rewritten in forming Y.
• Given the grammar [E, F], we define a derivation as a finite sequence of
strings, beginning with an initial string of I , and with each string in the
sequence being derived from the preceding string by application of one of the
instruction formulas of F.

4. Phrase structure
• Morphophonemics

5. Limitations of phrase structure
• ----------------------------
• ----------------------------
• ----------------------------
• ----------------------------
• ----------------------------
• ----------------------------

6. On the goals of linguistic theory
• Two principles
• General theory (linguistic structure) and particular grammars?
• Conclusions

• Two principles
• External conditions of adequacy: the sentences generated will be have to be
acceptable to the native speaker.
• Condition of generality on grammars: we require than the grammar of a given
language be constructed in accordance with a specific theory of linguistic
structure in which the terms used (‘phoneme’, ‘phrase’) are defined
independently of any particular grammar.

• General theory (linguistic structure) and particular grammars?
• Strongest requirement (discovery procedure): The theory must provide a
practical and mechanical method for actually constructing the grammar, given
a corpus of utterances.
• Weaker requirement (decision procedure) would be that the theory must
provide a practical and mechanical method for determining whether or not a
grammar proposed for a given corpus is, in fact, the best grammar of the
language from which this corpus is drawn.
• An even weaker requirement (evaluation procedure) would be that given a
corpus and given two proposed grammars G1 and G2, the theory must tell us
which is the better grammar of the language from which the corpus is drawn.

• Conclusions
• Work on syntactic analysis is yet premature, and yet it is absurd to state
principle sentence construction in terms of phonemes or morphemes.
• The description of sentence structure by constituent analysis would be
unsuccessful, if pushed beyond certain limits.
• Only the development of the still more abstract level of transformations can
prepare the way for the development of simpler and more adequate tecnique
of constituent analysis.
• The notion of syntactic theory must await the solution of problems of
phonology and morphology.

Syntactic Structures

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Syntactic Structures

Recently uploaded

In this document

Syntactic Structures