Class 1a.Class 1a.

CAS LX 522CAS LX 522Syntax ISyntax I

Some things we knowSome things we know

Is this English?Is this English? Pat the book lifted.Pat the book lifted. Pat lifted the book.Pat lifted the book. Lifted Pat the book.Lifted Pat the book. Pat book the lifted.Pat book the lifted.

Why?Why?

Some things we knowSome things we know

Asterisks = don’t qualify as EnglishAsterisks = don’t qualify as English *Pat the book lifted.*Pat the book lifted. Pat lifted the book.Pat lifted the book. *Lifted Pat the book.*Lifted Pat the book. *Pat book the lifted.*Pat book the lifted.

Why? We know a Why? We know a grammargrammar of English, of English, a system differentiating grammatical a system differentiating grammatical from ungrammatical sentences.from ungrammatical sentences.

(Un)acceptability(Un)acceptability

*Big that under staple run the jump *Big that under staple run the jump swim.swim.

My toothbrush is pregnant again.My toothbrush is pregnant again.

As I knitted the sock fell to the floor.As I knitted the sock fell to the floor.

The rat the cat the dog chased caught The rat the cat the dog chased caught escaped adeptly.escaped adeptly.

Ambiguity and starsAmbiguity and stars

I sat by the bank.I sat by the bank.

How did John say Mary fixed the car?How did John say Mary fixed the car? With a wrench.With a wrench. In a high-pitched voice.In a high-pitched voice.

How did John ask if Mary fixed the How did John ask if Mary fixed the car?car? *With a wrench.*With a wrench. In a high-pitched voice.In a high-pitched voice.

Parentheses and Parentheses and optionalityoptionality

Pat (quickly) ran to the bank.Pat (quickly) ran to the bank. Pat ran to the bank.Pat ran to the bank. Pat quickly ran to the bank.Pat quickly ran to the bank.

Pat washed (*quickly) the asparagus.Pat washed (*quickly) the asparagus. Pat washed the asparagusPat washed the asparagus *Pat washed quickly the asparagus.*Pat washed quickly the asparagus.

The dish ran away with *(the) spoon.The dish ran away with *(the) spoon. The dish ran away with the spoon.The dish ran away with the spoon. *The dish ran away with spoon.*The dish ran away with spoon.

I saw (a/the/*quickly) book on the shelf.I saw (a/the/*quickly) book on the shelf. I saw a book on the shelf.I saw a book on the shelf. I saw the book on the shelf.I saw the book on the shelf. *I saw quickly book on the shelf.*I saw quickly book on the shelf.

Our knowledge is Our knowledge is surprisingly surprisingly complicatedcomplicated

1)1) Tony threw out the couch.Tony threw out the couch.

2)2) Tony threw the couch out.Tony threw the couch out.

Prepositions can go on Prepositions can go on either side of the object?either side of the object?

3)3) Tony stormed out the door.Tony stormed out the door.

4)4) * Tony stormed the door * Tony stormed the door out. out.

Our knowledge is Our knowledge is surprisingly complicatedsurprisingly complicated

5)5) What did Mary say Pat bought?What did Mary say Pat bought?

6)6) What did Mary say What did Mary say thatthat Pat bought? Pat bought?

Ok, Ok, thatthat is optional? is optional?

7)7) Who did Mary say bought coffee?Who did Mary say bought coffee?

8)8) *Who did Mary say *Who did Mary say thatthat bought bought coffee?coffee?

Our knowledge is Our knowledge is surprisingly complicatedsurprisingly complicated

9)9) Bill thinks Mary is a genius.Bill thinks Mary is a genius.10)10) Her mother thinks Mary is a genius.Her mother thinks Mary is a genius.11)11) She thinks Mary is a genius.She thinks Mary is a genius.

12)12) I asked Mary to buy I asked Mary to buy coffeecoffee..13)13) What did you ask Mary to buy?What did you ask Mary to buy?14)14) Who did you say bought coffee?Who did you say bought coffee?15)15) I borrowed the book I borrowed the book BillBill bought in DC. bought in DC.16)16) *Who did you borrow the book bought in *Who did you borrow the book bought in

DC?DC?

How do people know How do people know this?this?

AllAll native speakers of English know native speakers of English know this.this.

Little kids weren’t told these rules Little kids weren’t told these rules (or punished for violating them)…(or punished for violating them)… ““You can’t question a subject in a You can’t question a subject in a

complement embedded with complement embedded with thatthat”” ““You can’t use a proper name as an You can’t use a proper name as an

object if the subject is co-referential.”object if the subject is co-referential.”

Two questionsTwo questions

What do people know about their What do people know about their language?language? Including things we know Including things we know

“unconsciously”“unconsciously”

How do people come to know it?How do people come to know it? Tricky question for things that we don’t Tricky question for things that we don’t

know we know.know we know.

SystematicitySystematicity What people eventually end up with is a What people eventually end up with is a systemsystem

with which they can produce (and rate) with which they can produce (and rate) sentences. A sentences. A grammargrammar..

Even if you’ve never heard these before, you Even if you’ve never heard these before, you know which one is “English” and which one know which one is “English” and which one isn’t:isn’t:

17)17) Eight very lazy elephants drank brandy.Eight very lazy elephants drank brandy.

18)18) Eight elephants very lazy brandy drank.Eight elephants very lazy brandy drank.

Kids say Kids say wugswugs..

Positive and negative Positive and negative evidenceevidence

Adults know if a given sentence S is Adults know if a given sentence S is grammaticalgrammatical or or ungrammaticalungrammatical. This . This is part of the knowledge kids gain is part of the knowledge kids gain through language acquisition.through language acquisition.

Kids hear grammatical sentencesKids hear grammatical sentences((positive evidencepositive evidence))

Kids are not generally told which Kids are not generally told which sentences are ungrammaticalsentences are ungrammatical((no negativeno negative evidenceevidence))

Positive and negative Positive and negative evidenceevidence

One of the striking things about child One of the striking things about child language is how few language is how few errorserrors they actually they actually make.make.

For negative feedback to work, the kids have For negative feedback to work, the kids have to to makemake the errors (so that it can get the the errors (so that it can get the negative response).negative response).

But they don’t make the errors.But they don’t make the errors. (Kids do make errors, but not of the kind that one (Kids do make errors, but not of the kind that one

might expect if they were just trying to extract might expect if they were just trying to extract patterns from the language data they hear)patterns from the language data they hear)

Poverty of the stimulusPoverty of the stimulus What is the next number in this sequence?What is the next number in this sequence?

1, 2, 3, __1, 2, 3, __

How do you form a yes-no question?How do you form a yes-no question? Pat will leave.Pat will leave. Will Pat leave?Will Pat leave?

The book that you were reading was good.The book that you were reading was good. *Book the that you were reading was good?*Book the that you were reading was good? *Were the book that you reading was good?*Were the book that you reading was good? Was the book that you were reading good?Was the book that you were reading good?

The “Language instinct”The “Language instinct”

The linguistic capacity is part of being The linguistic capacity is part of being human.human.

Like having two arms, ten fingers, a Like having two arms, ten fingers, a vision system, humans have a language vision system, humans have a language faculty.faculty.

The language faculty (tightly) constrains The language faculty (tightly) constrains what kinds of languages a child can learn.what kinds of languages a child can learn.

=“=“Universal GrammarUniversal Grammar” (UG). ” (UG).

But languages differBut languages differ

English, French: English, French: Subject Verb ObjectSubject Verb Object ( (SVOSVO)) John ate an appleJohn ate an apple.. Pierre a mangé une pommePierre a mangé une pomme..

Japanese, Korean: Japanese, Korean: Subject Object VerbSubject Object Verb ((SOVSOV)) Taroo-wa ringo-o tabetaTaroo-wa ringo-o tabeta.. Chelswu-ka sakwa-lul mekesstaChelswu-ka sakwa-lul mekessta..

Irish, Arabic (Irish, Arabic (VSOVSO), Malagasy (), Malagasy (VOSVOS), …), …

But languages differBut languages differ

English: English: AdverbsAdverbs before before verbsverbs Mary Mary quicklyquickly eatseats an apple. an apple.

(also: Mary ate an apple quickly)(also: Mary ate an apple quickly) *Mary *Mary eatseats quicklyquickly an apple. an apple.

French: French: AdverbsAdverbs after after verbsverbs Geneviève Geneviève mangemange rapidementrapidement une pomme. une pomme. *Geneviève *Geneviève rapidementrapidement mangemange une une

pomme.pomme.

ParametersParameters

We can categorize languages in terms of their We can categorize languages in terms of their word order: word order: SVOSVO, , SOVSOV, , VSOVSO..

This is a This is a parameterparameter by which languages differ. by which languages differ. The dominant formal theory of first language The dominant formal theory of first language

acquisition holds that children have access to acquisition holds that children have access to a set of parameters by which languages can a set of parameters by which languages can differ; acquisition is the process of differ; acquisition is the process of settingsetting those parameters.those parameters.

What are the parameters?What are the parameters? What are the “universal” principles of What are the “universal” principles of

grammar?grammar?

The enterpriseThe enterprise

The data we will primarily be concerned with The data we will primarily be concerned with are are native speaker intuitionsnative speaker intuitions..

Native speakers, faced with a sentence S, Native speakers, faced with a sentence S, knowknow whether the sentence S is part of their whether the sentence S is part of their language or isn’t. These intuitions are highly language or isn’t. These intuitions are highly systematic.systematic.

We want to uncover the system (which is We want to uncover the system (which is unconscious knowledge) behind the intuitions unconscious knowledge) behind the intuitions of native speakers—their knowledge of of native speakers—their knowledge of language.language.

I-languageI-language We are studying the system behind We are studying the system behind one one

person’s person’s pattern of intuitions.pattern of intuitions. Speakers growing up in the same community Speakers growing up in the same community

have very similar knowledge, but language is have very similar knowledge, but language is an an individualindividual thing (“I-language”).thing (“I-language”). One doesn’t need to ask the Académie française One doesn’t need to ask the Académie française

whether whether Geneviève rapidement mange une pommeGeneviève rapidement mange une pomme is is a sentence of French. One knows.a sentence of French. One knows.

I-languages of a community is can be I-languages of a community is can be characterized, but it is characterized, but it is externalexternal to the speaker to the speaker (“E-language”), not any one person’s (“E-language”), not any one person’s knowledge, a generalization over many people’s knowledge, a generalization over many people’s I-languages.I-languages. For example, Parisian French.For example, Parisian French.

CompetenceCompetence We are also concerned with We are also concerned with what a what a

person knowsperson knows. What characterizes a . What characterizes a person’s language person’s language competencecompetence. We are . We are in general not concerned here with how in general not concerned here with how a person ends up a person ends up usingusing this knowledge this knowledge ((performanceperformance).). You still have your language competence You still have your language competence

when you are sleeping, in the absence of any when you are sleeping, in the absence of any performance. Being drunk doesn’t make one performance. Being drunk doesn’t make one think “bought some John coffee” is English, think “bought some John coffee” is English, though perhaps one might though perhaps one might saysay it. it.

Prescriptive rulesPrescriptive rules

Another thing we need to be cautious Another thing we need to be cautious of are of are prescriptive rulesprescriptive rules. Often . Often prescriptive rules of “good grammar” prescriptive rules of “good grammar” turn out to be impositions on our turn out to be impositions on our native grammar which run counter to native grammar which run counter to our native competence.our native competence.

After all, why did they need to be After all, why did they need to be rules in the first place?rules in the first place?

Prescriptive rulesPrescriptive rules Prepositions are things you don’t end a Prepositions are things you don’t end a

sentence with.sentence with. It is important to religiously avoid It is important to religiously avoid

splitting infinitives.splitting infinitives. Remember: Capitalize the first word Remember: Capitalize the first word

after a colon.after a colon. Don’t be so immodest as to say Don’t be so immodest as to say I and I and

John leftJohn left; say ; say John and I left John and I left instead.instead. ImpactImpact is not a verb. is not a verb. The book which you just bought is The book which you just bought is

offensive.offensive.

Prescriptive rulesPrescriptive rules

When making grammaticality judgments When making grammaticality judgments (or when asking others to make (or when asking others to make grammaticality judgments), we must do grammaticality judgments), we must do our best to factor out prescriptive rules our best to factor out prescriptive rules (learned explicitly, e.g., in school).(learned explicitly, e.g., in school). We’re not interested in studying the We’re not interested in studying the

prescriptive rules; we could just look them up, prescriptive rules; we could just look them up, and it isn’t likely to tell us anything deep and it isn’t likely to tell us anything deep about the makeup of the human mind. They’re about the makeup of the human mind. They’re really just a “secret handshake,” allowing really just a “secret handshake,” allowing educated people to detect one another.educated people to detect one another.

Syntax as scienceSyntax as science

Syntax, as practiced here, is a Syntax, as practiced here, is a scientificscientific enterprise. This means, in particular, enterprise. This means, in particular, approaching syntax using the scientific approaching syntax using the scientific method.method.

Step 1:Step 1: Gather observations (data) Gather observations (data) Step 2:Step 2: Make generalizations Make generalizations Step 3:Step 3: Form hypotheses Form hypotheses Step 4:Step 4: Test predictionsTest predictions made by these made by these

hypotheses, returning to step 1.hypotheses, returning to step 1.

Syntax as scienceSyntax as science This is pretty much the way other scientific This is pretty much the way other scientific

disciplines work… biology, chemistry, physics.disciplines work… biology, chemistry, physics. We may start out with a kind of “folk We may start out with a kind of “folk

understanding” of a field.understanding” of a field. For example, you push something and it moves. You For example, you push something and it moves. You

stop pushing, and it stops. The sun revolves around stop pushing, and it stops. The sun revolves around the earth from East to West, followed by the moon. the earth from East to West, followed by the moon. Water is a basic element, like fire. Whales are very Water is a basic element, like fire. Whales are very big fish, like dolphins, or tuna, but bigger.big fish, like dolphins, or tuna, but bigger.

Ockham’s RazorOckham’s Razor: posit as few concepts and : posit as few concepts and relations as we can get away with. A leaner relations as we can get away with. A leaner theory is a better theory. A more easily theory is a better theory. A more easily falsifiablefalsifiable theory is a better theory too. theory is a better theory too.

Levels of adequacyLevels of adequacy

If our hypotheses can predict the If our hypotheses can predict the existence of the grammatical existence of the grammatical sentences in a corpus (a set of sentences in a corpus (a set of grammatical sentences), it is grammatical sentences), it is observationally adequateobservationally adequate. .

If our hypotheses can predict the If our hypotheses can predict the native-speaker intuitions about native-speaker intuitions about which sentences are grammatical which sentences are grammatical and which are ungrammatical, it is and which are ungrammatical, it is descriptively adequatedescriptively adequate..

Levels of adequacyLevels of adequacy If we can take a descriptively adequate set of If we can take a descriptively adequate set of

hypotheses one step further and account not hypotheses one step further and account not only for the native speaker judgments but only for the native speaker judgments but also for how children come to have these also for how children come to have these judgments, our hypotheses are judgments, our hypotheses are explanatorily explanatorily adequateadequate..

It’s this last level that we are hoping to It’s this last level that we are hoping to achieve.achieve. Basic principlesBasic principles Parameters of variationParameters of variation How to set the parameters from child’s inputHow to set the parameters from child’s input

Infinite use of finite Infinite use of finite meansmeans

English has an infinite number of sentences. Any English has an infinite number of sentences. Any natural language does.natural language does. John said that English has an infinite number of sentences.John said that English has an infinite number of sentences. Mary said that John said that English has an infinite number of sentences.Mary said that John said that English has an infinite number of sentences. Pat said that Mary said that John said that English has an infinite number of sentences.Pat said that Mary said that John said that English has an infinite number of sentences. Tracy said that Pat said that Mary said that John said that English has an infinite number of sentences.Tracy said that Pat said that Mary said that John said that English has an infinite number of sentences. Chris said that Tracy said that Pat said that Mary said that John said that English has an infinite number of sentences.Chris said that Tracy said that Pat said that Mary said that John said that English has an infinite number of sentences.

If S is a sentence and N is a name,If S is a sentence and N is a name,N said that SN said that S is also a sentence. is also a sentence. S S N said that S N said that S

Some of the earliest work in grammatical theory was Some of the earliest work in grammatical theory was done by trying to state rules of this form, the goal done by trying to state rules of this form, the goal being to being to generategenerate the sentences of a language. the sentences of a language.

Of the past and the Of the past and the futurefuture

Serious scientific study of sentence Serious scientific study of sentence structure of this kind generally began structure of this kind generally began in the 50’s, driven to a great extent in the 50’s, driven to a great extent by the work of Noam Chomsky.by the work of Noam Chomsky.

It’s now half a century later, and we It’s now half a century later, and we have learned a have learned a lotlot about how syntax about how syntax works.works.

Of the past and the Of the past and the futurefuture

Progress was incremental, and often Progress was incremental, and often required revising our assumptions about required revising our assumptions about how sentences are really put together.how sentences are really put together.

Data was examined, generalizations Data was examined, generalizations were arrived at, hypotheses were were arrived at, hypotheses were formed, predictions were tested—and formed, predictions were tested—and often led to revisions of the often led to revisions of the generalizations and the hypotheses, and generalizations and the hypotheses, and so forth.so forth.

Of the past and the Of the past and the futurefuture

Two goals of the class:Two goals of the class: Think like a syntactician.Think like a syntactician. Be able to read (relatively recent) books, Be able to read (relatively recent) books,

articles, etc. about syntax.articles, etc. about syntax.

It’s not really enough to just know It’s not really enough to just know what what people concluded, we need to people concluded, we need to understand understand why why they concluded what they concluded what they did.they did.

Some milestonesSome milestones Until about the mid-70’s, Until about the mid-70’s, phrase structure phrase structure

rulesrules..S S NP VP NP VP VP VP V (NP) V (NP)

Mid-70’s, Mid-70’s, X-Bar TheoryX-Bar Theory (a generalization (a generalization about what are possible PSRs).about what are possible PSRs).

In the 80’s, a fairly significant shift to In the 80’s, a fairly significant shift to Government and Binding TheoryGovernment and Binding Theory (viewing (viewing grammar a little less like a computer grammar a little less like a computer program). Very productive.program). Very productive.

In the 90’s, another shift to In the 90’s, another shift to the Minimalist the Minimalist ProgramProgram (an attempt at simplification, as well (an attempt at simplification, as well as a change in philosophy).as a change in philosophy).