Chapter 1: What Is a Theory of English Syntax about Syntactic - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Chapter 1: What Is a Theory of English Syntax about

Syntactic Constructions in English Kim and Michaelis (2020)

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 1 / 29

1

Linguistic and Syntactic Competence

2

Generative Grammars

3

How We Discover Descriptive Rules

4

Two different views of generative grammar Deductive Reasoning and the Nativist View Inductive Reasoning and the Constraint-Based View

5

Evidence That Grammar Is Construction-Based

6

Goals of This Book

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 2 / 29

Knowing a language?

When we say we know a language, what does it mean? It may mean that we know how to create natural (acceptable) English sentences, but not unnatural (unacceptable) ones. (1) a. We can’t pay for health care benefits like this, but you can. b. *We can’t keep affording health care benefits like this, but you can keep. (2) a. She swam. b. *She swam the passengers c. She swam the passengers to three nearby boats.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 3 / 29

Knowing a language? (cont’d)

One possible answer: English speakers have linguistic knowledge sufficient to distinguish between ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ sentences. This knowledge, often called linguistic competence, is the ability to speak a language.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 4 / 29

Several levels of linguistic competence

Linguistic competence involves several different levels of language structure. Phonetic and phonological competence: knowledge of the sounds of the language and their pronunciation variants. (3) a. pin vs. bin (two different phonemes /p/ and /b/) b. pin vs. spin (one phoneme /p/, but two allophones [ph] and [p]) Morphological competence: knowledge of rules for forming words (4) a. Swallows wintered beneath the lakes. b. She started googling and learning about him.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 5 / 29

Several levels of linguistic competence

Semantic competence: the ability to determine the meaning of a particular sentence from the words of the sentence and their manner

• f combination

(5) a. The dog chased the cat up a tree. b. The cat chased the dog up a tree. Pragmatic competence: the ability to interpret sentences flexibly, according to interactional context (6) a. Can you give me an aisle seat? (said in an airport check-in counter) b. Can you pass the maple syrup, please? (said at a dining table)

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 6 / 29

Syntactic competence and innateness issue

Syntactic competence: the ability to combine words into phrases that conform to the phrasal patterns of the language (our major interest in this course!) How children learn these patterns without explicit training? Innateness vs. learning through experience?

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 7 / 29

Linguistic competence: syntactic competence and rule-governed

Language is rule-governed. How many possible sentences can we form from five words? In theory, 5! (factorial) = 120. (7) a. The player kicked a ball. b. A player kicked the ball. c. The ball kicked a player. d. A ball kicked the player. e. The ball, a player kicked. f. ... But, out of 120 possible combinations, how many are grammatical? Only a limited number of them! (8) a. *Kicked the player the ball. b. *Player the ball kicked the. c. *The player a ball kicked.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 8 / 29

Linguistic competence: syntactic competence and rule-governed (cont’d)

(9) a. My parents decided to stay in the house they built. b. *My parents decided to stay in the house they built it. (10) a. I *(am) fond of that garden. b. He *(is) angry at the not guilty verdict.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 9 / 29

Linguistic competence: syntactic competence and expressivity

Expressivity (or creativity): Speakers can produce and understand an infinite number of new, grammatical sentences that the speaker has never spoken or heard before. (11) Forget intelligence or wisdom. A muscular physique might just be a more important attribute when it comes to judging a person’s leadership potential, according to a new study.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 10 / 29

Linguistic competence: syntactic competence and expressivity (cont’d)

The expressivity intrinsic to grammatical competence is unbounded (no upper limit). (12) a. The nation faced sanctions. b. The isolated nation faced sanctions. c. The isolated, corrupt nation faced sanctions. d. The isolated, corrupt, belligerent nation faced sanctions. e. . . . (13) a. Some sentences can go on. b. Some sentences can go on and on. c. Some sentences can go on and on and on. d. Some sentences can go on and on and on and on. e. . . .

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 11 / 29

Generative grammar

(14) Working hypothesis: All native speakers have grammatical competence that enables them to produce and understand an infinite number of grammatical sentences. (15) Generative grammar: An English generative grammar is one that can generate an infinite set of well-formed English sentences from a finite set of rules or principles that do not generate any of the non-well-formed sentences.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 12 / 29

Descriptive vs. prescriptive rules

Descriptive rules ‘describe’ implicit, hidden, or naturally occurring language patterns. Prescriptive rules dictate or ‘prescribe’ specific, socially accepted patterns of language. (16) a. Do not end a sentence with a preposition. b. Avoid split infinitives. c. Use who rather than that to introduce a relative clause that describes a human. (17) a. Who does she work with? b. Young people need to try to boldly go where no one has gone before. c. And she’s the person that puts together the master list of songs.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 13 / 29

Discovering descriptive rules

How can we find out the descriptive rules of English syntax – those that can generate all of the grammatical sentences, but none of the ungrammatical ones? Since these rules exist in speakers’ minds, we can discover the rules indirectly: we infer these latent rules from the observed data of a language.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 14 / 29

Basic steps in doing data-based empirical research

Step I: Collect and observe data. Step II: Make a hypothesis to cover the first set of data. Step III: Check the hypothesis using more data. Step IV: Revise the hypothesis if necessary.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 15 / 29

Step I: Observing data

(18) Data Set 1: evidence a. *The professor found some strong evidences of water on Mars. b. *The professor was hoping for a strong evidence. c. *The evidence that Jones found was more helpful than the one that Smith found. (19) Observation 1: a. evidence cannot be used in the plural. b. evidence cannot be used with the indefinite article a(n). c. evidence cannot be referred to by the pronoun one.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 16 / 29

Step I: Observing data (cont’d)

(20) Data Set 2: equipment a. *We had hoped to get three new equipments every month, but we only had enough money to get an equipment every two weeks. b. *This is a large truck which has an equipment to automatically bottle the wine. c. *The equipment we bought last year was more expensive than the one we bought this year. (21) Observation 2: a. evidence/equipment cannot be used in the plural. b. evidence/equipment cannot be used with the indefinite article a(n). c. evidence/equipment cannot be referred to by the pronoun one.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 17 / 29

Step I: Observing data (cont’d)

(22) Data Set 3: clue a. They hold vital clues to deciphering the history of the solar system. b. That would give us a good clue that something funny is going on. c. The clue that John got was more helpful than the one that Smith got. (23) Data Set 4: tool a. The word clouds are good tools for engaging in critical thinking. b. Trade can be a powerful tool for global growth. c. The tool that Jones got was more helpful than the one that Smith got. (24) Observation 3: a. clue/tool can be used in the plural. b. clue/tool can be used with the indefinite article a(n). c. clue/tool can be referred to by the pronoun one.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 18 / 29

Step II: Forming a hypothesis

(25) First Hypothesis: English has at least two groups of nouns, Group I (count nouns) and Group II (mass nouns), diagnosed by tests of plurality, the indefinite article, and the pronoun one.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 19 / 29

Step III: Checking the hypothesis

(26) a. much evidence, much equipment, much information, much advice b. *much clue, *much tool, *much armchair, *much bags (27) a. *many evidence, *many equipment, *many information, *many advice b. many clues, many tools, many suggestions, many armchairs (28) a. little evidence, little equipment, little advice, little information b. *little clue, *little tool, *little suggestion, *little armchair (29) a. *few evidence, *few equipment, *few furniture, *few advice, *few information b. few clues, few tools, few suggestions, few armchairs

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 20 / 29

Step III: Checking the hypothesis (cont’d)

(30) a. She makes very good cakes. b. The president was hoping for a good cake. c. The cake that Jones got was more delicious than the one that Smith got. (31) a. I like my full flavored dark, good beers. b. No one knows how to tell from a good beer to a bad one. (32) a. My pastor says I ate too much cake. b. The students drank too much beer last night. (33) a. We recommend that you eat less cake and pastry. b. People now drink less beer.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 21 / 29

Step IV: Revising the hypothesis

(34) Revised Hypothesis: There are at least three groups of nouns: Group 1 (count nouns), Group 2 (mass nouns), and Group 3 (count and mass nouns).

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 22 / 29

Inductive reasoning vs. deductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning derives broad generalizations from specific

• bservations. In inductive inference, we make data observations,

discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a

• theory. Data → Hypothesis.

Deductive reasoning is often adopted in hard sciences like physics. In deductive inference, we hold a theory and based on it we make a prediction of its consequences, going from the general (the theory) to the specific data. Hypothesis → Data.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 23 / 29

Chomskyan ‘transformational’ or ‘movement’ view vs. constraint-based view

The deductive reasoning has a close relation to the ‘transformational’

• r ‘movement’ view in which transformation or movement rules play

key roles in the grammatical architecture. This view has been the center of Chomsky’s theory. Inductive reasoning plays a key role in the development of the so-called constraint-based view. Different from the movement-based view, the constraint-based view, trying to figure out all the rules that result in acceptable sentences, allows anything that is not otherwise constrained.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 24 / 29

Deductive reasoning and Chomskyan nativist view

Innateness hypothesis (or nativist view) The nativist view “takes as a basic assumption that children are ‘hardwired’ with linguistic knowledge that gives them access to structural representations in the absence of experience”. ‘Universal grammar’ (UG) (or the ‘language faculty’) Autonomy of syntax (35) Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 25 / 29

Inductive reasoning and the constraint-based view

The constraint-based grammar simply enumerates all of the patterns that exist in a grammar, without attempting to derive one from another. The constraint-based view takes the central goal of syntactic theory to be precise and broad grammatical description of individual languages. Constraint-based grammars have become associated with data-driven models of language learning. The boundaries of the grammar are determined not by principles and structures of UG but rather by linguistic convention for form-function pairings.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 26 / 29

Inductive reasoning and the constraint-based view (cont’d)

Against the autonomy of syntax (36) a. Please, be prompt because it’s over at four o’clock. b. The more she learns about this case, the less sense it makes. No distinction between core and peripheral grammar (37) a. He can defend himself. b. My age has nothing to do with my knowledge of politics. (38) What is that fly doing in my soup? (39) a. What are you doing with my money, then? b. But what are you doing with those mashed potatoes on the table? c. What are you doing calling on a Friday night?

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 27 / 29

Evidence for construction-based grammar

In Chomskyan nativist view of grammar, words are seen as the sole vessels of meaning and constructions as the products of general rules that build up hierarchical structures in a ‘meaning blind’ fashion, much like mathematical operations. However, it is quite plausible to assume that we learn and recall grammatical constructions in much the same way that we learn and recall words. There is little evidence for a modular dissociation between a languages grammar and its lexicon (the inventory of words) (e.g., children’s language acquisition). Both words and constructions are patterns in the mind.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 28 / 29

Goals of this book

The constraint-based view takes the grammar to be “nothing but a set of constraints that structures are required to satisfy in order to be considered well-formed.” In this book we adopt the constraint-based grammars in describing the rules in English syntax, aiming to provide a formal, fully explicit account for all of the sentences which native speakers will accept as well-formed and grammatical. This task covers not only core but also peripheral (or even idiomatic) constructions in English.

Syntactic Constructions Chapter 1 29 / 29