What makes phrase structure special?

Anders HolmbergCRiLLS

The object of enquiry: Grammar The grammar of a language L: The set of

categories, rules, and principles which relate sound to meaning in L

Speech sound Meaning

The grammar is a component of human cognition: part innate/invariant across the species,part culture/subject to variation/learnt through experience

Grammar

Minimal phrase structureChomsky (1995, 2001, 2005): What does it take, minimally, for a

cognitive system to be able to relate linguistic sound to meaning, the way grammars do?

There must be words (morphemes). There must be an operation which combines words. Anything else?

The Minimalist thesis: What is minimally required for a system to be able to relate linguistic sound to meaning is all there is.

More cautiously put: To propose anything in addition to the components which are minimally required you need to have very strong evidence.

The operation MergeThe Lexicon contains: car, new, my, in, ...

The operation Merge selects car and new and merges them:

It selects my and merges it with the constructed tree

It selects in and merges it with the constructed tree.

in my

new car

Is this it?

We

went to Scotland in my new car

Phrase structure: A hierarchic construct derived by merging words with words, and words with phrases, and phrases with phrases.

If Merge is always binary, then the derived structure will always be binary branching.

Is this it?

We

went to Scotland in my new

carStructural relations: SisterhoodDominance/containmentC-commandHow is it different from any other hierarchic system

derived by combining primitive units into successively larger units?

One more property: endocentricity (headedness)

Every phrase (every combination of two or more words) has a head , which is one of the merged words.

When a merges with b, either a or b is the head of the derived phrase.

a

a b

One more property: endocentricity (headedness)

Every phrase (every combination of two or more words) has a head , which is one of the merged words.

When a merges with b, either a or b is the head of the derived phrase.

b

a b

One more property: endocentricity (headedness)

It’s crucial for semantic interpretation: song Birdsong is a kind of song.

bird song

bird A songbird is a kind of bird.

song bird

One more property: endocentricity (headedness)

It’s crucial for structure building: The operation Merge is dependent on headedness.

to

go to Scotland

Go is a directional verb, which must combine with an expression signifying direction.

To is a preposition signifying direction. Scotland is a proper name signifying a place.Go can merge with to Scotland because to is the head of the

phrase.

One more property: endocentricity (headedness)

Headedness determines word order:Combine the noun song and the noun bird.If song is the head birdsong.If bird is the head songbird.

English:In complex words: the head follows the non-head.In phrases: the head precedes the non-head to Scotlandgo to Scotlandproud of Scotland

In more traditional notationPP

P NP

to Scotland

Not the case that Merge always derives a phrase.

N N N

bird song

Headedness Asymmetry Phrase structure (and word structure) in natural

language is typically asymmetric, in that phrases (and complex words) have a head.

A strong hypothesis: It’s always asymmetric.

Possible counterexample: Coordination.

John and Mary

Other hierarchic systems There are many hierarchic systems.

But most of them are not endocentric.

A family tree:

Ella

Inger Bodil

Nina Anders Mona Maria

Structural relations similar to those of phrase structure,But there are no heads.

A structural relation typical of natural language: c-command

Or even unique to natural language?

C-command: A node a c-commands its sister node b,and every node contained in b (= dominated by b).

a b

c d

a c-commands b, c, and d,b c-commands a,c and d do not c-command a.

A structural relation typical of natural language: c-command

There can be no syntactic relation between two nodes which are not in a c-command relation.

John admires himself (OK because

John c- commands

himself)

(Not OK,

because JohnJohn’s mother admires himself does not c-

command himself)

A structural relation typical of natural language: c-command

mother

John’s mother admires herself

In the sentenceJohn’s mother admires herself.the reflexive pronoun refers back to John’s mother,

which does c-command herself, and has the required feminine feature, because mother is the head.

Why can there be no syntactic relations between two nodes which are not in a c-command relation?

Limitations on computational power of the human linguistic processor.

Grammatical relations are always local. Many grammatical relations can only hold between sisters. More ‘long-distance’ relations are subject to the c-command

condition.

The family tree: c-command has no special significance

Ella

Inger Bodil

Nina Anders Mona Maria

Project NimTerrace (1983, 1987)

Utterances from Cecile, age 20 months

1.Eva stamp balloon. (= Eva stamped on a balloon)

2.Eva balloon bang.3.Eva stamp balloon bang.4.Lady kind. Help us.5.Ants bite you. (Here, she’s copying adults

saying ‘Ants might bite you.’)6.Something bite you.7.Nick tickle you. (= Nick tickled me.)8.Nina bounce trampoline. (= Nina bounced on

the trampoline)9.Cecile shopping Gran. (= I’m [playing at] going

shopping with Gran)

S NP VP

V NP

Eva stamp

balloon Something bite you Nick tickle you Nina bounce

trampoline

A more controversial claim: c-command determines linear order

Hierarchy doesn’t inherently have linear order.

= a b b a

=

a b c c b a

A more controversial claim: c-command determines linear order

The Linear Correspondence Axiom (Kayne 1994):If a node a asymmetrically c-commands a node b,

then a precedes b.

a b = b a c ... c ... a > b >

c

A more controversial claim: c-command determines linear orderIt means that the compound birdsong can’t

have the structure

bird song

But rather

bird song Ø

Minimal phrase structureChomsky: What does it take, minimally, for a cognitive

system to be able to relate linguistic sound to meaning, the way grammars of natural language do?

There must be words/morphemes, There must be an operation which combines words

and derived phrases, and assigns one of the merged items the status of head.

ReferencesChomsky, N. 1995. The minimalist program. MIT Press.Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (ed.). Ken

Hale: a life in language. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 1-53. Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry

36: 1-22.Hornstein, Norbert. 2009. A theory of syntax: Minimal operations and

UG. Oxford: Blackwell.Hornstein, Norbert & Paul Pietroski. 2009. Basic operations. Minimal

syntax-semantics. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 8, 113-139.Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax, Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.Terrace, Herbert. 1983. Apes who “talk”: Language or projection of

language by their teachers? In Language in primates. Perspectives and implications, ed. by J. de Luce and H.T.Wilder. New York: Springer.

Terrace, Herbert. 1987. Nim. A chimpanzee who learned sign language. New York: Columbia University Press.