1 / 32

Descriptive grammar of English [syntax & morphology]

IFA UAM. Descriptive grammar of English [syntax & morphology]. dr Piotr Cegłowski Office hours: Fri 12.00 – 13.00, room 321A cpiotr@ifa.amu.edu.pl. Course requirements:. attendance [1 absence per semester allowed] regular assignment review

jethro
Télécharger la présentation

Descriptive grammar of English [syntax & morphology]

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IFA UAM Descriptive grammar of English [syntax & morphology] dr Piotr Cegłowski Office hours: Fri 12.00 – 13.00, room 321A cpiotr@ifa.amu.edu.pl

  2. Course requirements: • attendance [1 absence per semester allowed] • regular assignment review • due submission of the research paper • positive evaluation of the final examination

  3. Course contents – Semester One • MEETING 1: Preliminaries Course description. The Nature of L – the Generativist View. Language as a generative procedure. Autonomy of syntax. Prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar. loose ends: more on the generativist theory of language acquisition • MEETING 2: Words. Focus on Form Grammatical categories. Methods of classification. Morphology – basic notions and processes in word generation. loose ends: more on linguistic typology; basic terminology • MEETING 3: Words (II). Grammatical categories examined. Nominal categories; distinctive features, nominal inflection. Verbal categories; distinctive features, verbal inflection. Adjectives; distinctive features, adjectival inflection. Adverbs; distinctive features, adverbial inflection. loose ends (not that loose, actually): sentence decomposition and labelled bracketing • MEETING 4: Phrase structure. Constituency. A constituent; (more or less) tentative definitions, auxiliary notions. Constituency tests – fully reliable?? loose ends: more on representation (binary branching) • MEETING 5: The structure of NP / VP. Nominal and verbal structure / complementation in detail. loose ends: A note on nominal modifiers • MEETING 6: Clause structure. Parts of sentence; Subjects and subjecthood. Predicates and predicators. Objects vs. adjuncts. loose ends: Tense as a separate projection & VISH / PISH. • MEETING 7: Clause structure: complex clause. Nominal, Relative, Adverbial Clauses; a function-based typology. loose ends: More on Transformational Grammars (ST-EST-REST) • MEETING 8: The transformational component (a pre-Move α approach) Organization of grammar. The mechanics of DS – SS transformations. Affix-hopping. Passive. Wh-questions. loose ends: strict cyclicity • MEETING 9: The transformational component (II). Equi-NP deletion vs. Raising.

  4. Course contents – Semester Two • MEETING 10: Phrase Structure revisited – X’ Theory Constituency once again: looking for intermediate categories (X’). Evidence from nominal and verbal projections. IP and CP. loose ends: VP-Shell Hypothesis (Larson 1988) • MEETING 11: Phrase geometry Basic structural relations: c(onstituent)-command, m(aximal)-command. Government and agreement. loose ends: Linear Correspondence Axiom (Kayne 1994) • MEETING 12:θ-Theory Predicates and the distribution of thematic roles. Different realizations of arguments. Evidence for VISH/PISH. loose ends: more examples • MEETING 13/14: Case and Movement Abstract vs. inflected Case. Structural Case: NOMINATIVE and ACCUSATIVE. Inherent Case: Genitive and Dative (di-transitive verbs?). Caseless subjects: PRO loose ends: Case and subjecthood • MEETING 15/16: More on Move α Typology of movement: A-movement vs. A’-movement. Trace theory. Restraints on movement. loose ends: parasitic gaps • MEETING 17: Binding Typology of NPs with respect to binding properties: pronouns, anaphors, r(eferential) expressions. Conditions for binding – defining binding domains (BD) loose ends: no loose ends here • MEETING 18: Beyond Government and Binding – the Minimalist perspective Evidence against DS and SS. The Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1993/95). loose ends: representation vs. derivation in generative grammar

  5. Bibliography: Textbook • Wardhaugh, R. 1995. Understanding English Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. • Haegeman, L. 1991. Introduction to the Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Additional bibliography • Aarts, B. 1998. English Syntax and Argumentation. Macmillan Ltd. • Burton-Roberts, N. Analysing Sentences. 1986. An Introduction to English Syntax. New York: Longman. • Guasti, M. 2002. Language Acquisition. The Growth of Grammar. MIT. • Kaznowski, A. -- Mioduszewska, E. 1983.Exercises in English Structural and Transformational Syntax. Warszawa,:PWN. • Morenberg, M. Doing Grammar.1997, Oxford University Press • Tajsner, P. Lectures on Structure and Derivation. 2002 Wyd. Poznańskie • Trask, R.L. 1993. A Dictionary of Grammatical terms in Linguistics. • Ouhalla, J. 1999. Introducing Transformational Grammar. London: Arnold. • Quirk, R. – S. Greenbaum – G. Leech – J. Svartvik. 1972.A Grammar of Contemporary English.London: Longman • Quirk, Randolph -- Sidney Greenbaum, A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. 1990, Longman • Witkoś, J. 2004. Movement Rules. Foundations of GB Syntax of English. Poznań: Wyd. Poznańskie

  6. IFA LECTURE 1 The Nature of Language and Language Study

  7. LECTURE 1 – TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. The Nature of L(anguage) 1.1 Definitions of L 1.2 The Generativist View on L 1.2.1 Generativist Assumptions 1.2.2 The Generativist Definition of L 1.2.2.1 Early Generativist Procedures 1.2.2.2 Ordering of All Obligatory rules 1.2.3 I-Language vs. E-Language / Competence vs. Performance 1.2.3.1 Competence as (informally) the knowledge of L 1.2.4 Autonomy of Syntax [AUTOSYN] 1.2.4.1 Autonomy of Syntax – The Criteria 1.2.5 Defining Grammar as FHl – A Comprehensive Summary 1.2.6 Modules of Grammar 1.3 Gramar as the Object of Study 1.3.1 Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Grammar 1.3.1.1 Prescriptivism vs. Descriptivism – Selected Examples LOOSE ENDS: Remarks on Language Acquisition A. Non-adult L: Selected Examples B. The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition C. The Innateness Hypothesis: Where does teh knowledge of L come from? D. Language Pathology: SLI (severe Language Impairment) – genetic dysphasia References

  8. home 1. The Nature of L(anguage) 1.1 Definitions of L: • „Language can be roughly defined as an arbitrary system of signs which is manifested inverbal behaviour and which is used in the society for communication. (Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 1993:11) • „Language [is] a particular social practice in which people engage, [a practice that is] learned from others and is constituted by rules which it is part of social custom to follow” (Dummett 1986) • „To know a language is to [have a learned ability to engage in social practices that can be exercised by speaking, understanding, talking to oneself, etc.] (Kenny 1984: 138, quoted after Chomsky 2000:50) • What do these definitions underline? • language as a human-specific property (shared only by the human species) • the communicative function of language (thoughts, ideas, emotions, experience, cultural aspects, etc.) • Language as a social phenomenon( thus, we speak of various languages, i.e. Polish, English, Swahili, etc.)

  9. home 1.2 The Generativist View on L In particular, we can ask how good the design is. How close does the languagecome to what a super-engineer would construct, given the conditions that the language faculty must satisfy? […] We might think of these as “legibility conditions”, in the sense that other systems must be able to “read” the expressions of the language and use them as “instructions” for thought and action (Chomsky 2000:9). Language as a system: • *Every Tom gives flowers to mother’s his girlfriend. • Johni helps himselfi/ him *i • John doesn’t know if Bill actually helped himi/kor not. • John cleaned the bike in the garden shed. VP VP VP NP NP PP NP PP clean the bike in the garden shed clean the bike in the garden shed

  10. home 1.2.1 Generativist Assumptions A „Martian” perspective: What do all human languages have in common? • „[FHL] is a „species property” varying little among humans and without significant analogue anywhere” (Chomsky 2000:3) • FHL is rule-governed (it is based on a system of rules that underlie speakers’ knowledge) • FHL is characterised by discrete infinity (there is no longest sentence) A biological perspective: L as an organ; where is it situated? • FHL is analogous to other biological systems, e.g. visual system, immune system, etc. (definable in terms of location, size, weight) • Broca (1861)-Wernicke (1874) Model: the modules responsible for speech production / comprehension are, respectively, the frontal region of neocortex and the posterior area of the cortex • FHL is a module of the mind / brain (Fodor 1983 vs. Chomsky 1984): an input-output system, doubly dissociable • FHLis genetically encoded (doesn’t evolve entirely as a result of learning processes, compare: face recognition module, walking, breathing)

  11. home 1.2.2 The Generativist definition of L FHL- „the generative procedure that forms structural descriptions (SDs), each a complex of phonetic, semantic, and structural properties” (Chomsky 2000: 26) • {take, LI} belongs to L(exicon) • phonetic features [theik] • semantic features <Agent, Patient> • structural features [ _ NP] atomic structure of NaCL FHL ∞ outputs Lexicon

  12. home 1.2.2.1 Early Generativist Procedures • Phrase Structure Grammar (Chomsky 1957) • Transformational Grammars (Chomsky 1965) • Principles and Parameters (Chomsky 1981) S • Affix-Hopping • Reflexive NP AUX VP Past V NP Mary -ed hurt Mary [+ REFL] 1. SS: Mary hurt herself DS: MAry –ed hurt the girl

  13. home 1.2.2.2 Ordering of All (Obligatory)Rules

  14. home (2) Whom do we know who is unfair? Deep Structure: [S2 [­PreS Q] [NP we ] [T PRES] [VP know [NP[NP[DET wh some] one] [S1 [NP who] [T PRES] [VP be [AP unfair]]]]]] Relative Clause Formation: [S2 [­PreS Q] [NP we ] [T PRES] [VP know [NP who [S1 [NP who] [T PRES] [VP be [AP unfair]]]]]] Question Formation: [S2 [PreS [NP who [S1 [NP who] [T PRES] [VP be unfair]]]] [NP we ] [T PRES] [VP know]] Extraposition from NP: [S2 [PreS [NP who]] [NP we ] [T PRES] [VP know] [S1 [NP who] [T PRES] [VP be unfair]]] S-A Inversion: [S2 [PreS [NP who]] [T PRES] [NP we ] [VP know] [S1 [NP who] [T PRES] [VP be unfair]]] Do-Support: [S2 [PreS [NP who]] [T PRES do] [NP we ] [VP know] [S1 [NP who] [T PRES] [VP be unfair]]] Affix-Hopping: [S2 [PreS [NP who]] [T do PRES] [NP we ] [VP know] [S1 [NP who] [VP be PRES unfair]]] Surface Structure:Whom do we know who is unfair OR: Deep Structure: [S2 [­PreS Q] [NP we ] [T PRES] [VP know [NP[NP[DET wh some] one] [S1 [NP who] [T PRES] [VP be [AP unfair]]]]]] Relative Clause Formation: [S2 [­PreS Q] [NP we ] [T PRES] [VP know [NP who [S1 [NP who] [T PRES] [VP be [AP unfair]]]]]] Extraposition from NP: (optional) no change, S1 is at the end anyway Question Formation: [S2 [PreS [NP who [S1 [NP who] [T PRES] [VP be unfair]]]] [NP we ] [T PRES] [VP know]] S-A Inversion: [S2 [PreS [NP who [S1 [NP who] [T PRES] [VP be unfair]]]] [T PRES][NP we ] [VP know]] Do- Support: [S2 [PreS [NP who [S1 [NP who] [T PRES] [VP be unfair]]]] [T PRES do][NP we ] [VP know]] Affix-Hopping: [S2 [PreS [NP who [S1 [NP who] [VP be PRES unfair]]]] [T do PRES][NP we ] [VP know]] Surface Structure: Whom, who is unfair, do we know?

  15. SPEAKER’S COMPETENCE a generative procedure, based on a finite system of interacting rules, internalized partially genetically encoded idealized(focused on ideal state of L) SPEAKER’S PERFORMANCE actual linguistic behaviour performed by the speaker in a particular situation external reality (psychology, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, etc.) finite / constrained by time, memory span, etc. home 1.2.3 I-language vs. E-language / Competence vs. Performance • I-LANGUAGE (Chomsky 2000:27) • a property of the brain • a relatively stable element of transitory states of language faculty • includes instructions for interface systems (conceptual-intentional, articulatory – perceptual) • E-LANGUAGE • „The totality of utterances that can be made in a given speech community” (Bloomfield 1933) • potentially infinite • En entity in their own right (?)

  16. home CONCLUSIONS:I-language vs. E-language / Competence vs. Performance • competence underlies the human faculty of language • I-language (mental / biological phenomenon) ≠ competence (technical term for knowledge) • performance is parasitic on competence • E-language (non-definable) ≠ performance (actual linguistic behaviour)

  17. home 1.2.3.1 Competence as (informally) the knowledge of L • Phonological: The preacher opened the container loudly. *The preacher opened the container loudly. • Morphological: fold – folded vs. *hold – holded re[institutionalize] vs. re[fall] down • Syntactic I put out the cigarette. / I put the cigarette out. I put it out. / *I put out it I listened to the lecture. / *I listened the lecture to. I listened to it. / *I listened it to. • Semantic I We believed John was here but in fact he wasn’t. ?/* We realized Peter was here but in fact he wasnt. • Pragmatic What are you doing here? (~ surprised but nice) What are you doing here (~ rude, impatient)

  18. home 1.2.4 Autonomy of Syntax [AUTOSYN] „Colourless green ideas sleep furiously” • form and meaning can be effectively dissociated, • human cognition embodies a system whose primitive elements are nonsemantic and nondiscourse-derived • syntactic principles are determined by system-internal principles of combination • no reference to system-external factors We are forced to conclude that grammar is autonomous and independent of meaning (Chomsky 1957:17) Generative linguistics […] begins with the assumption that syntax is autonomous. It is not an empirical question within generative linguistics as to whether semantics, communicative function, etc. might play a necessary role in stating syntactic generalizations: that possibility is ruled out a priori (Lakoff 1991: 53-54)

  19. home 1.2.4.1 Autonomy of Syntax – the criteria

  20. home • ARBITRARINESS: at least some elements of syntax are arbitrary (5) a. Many arrows did not hit the target. [many > not] b. The tatget was not hit by many arrows [not > many] (6) a. He is likely to be late. b. *He is probable to be late. (7) a. Jack is not sufficiently educated. b. Jack isn’ t *enough educated / educated enough. • SYSTEMATICITY: the arbitrary elements participate in a system (8) Johni likes himselfi /himk/*i. • SELF-CONTAINEDNESS: a. strong version (Chomsky 1957, 1965) b. parametrized version (there are links between syntax and semantics, see: P&P) kick, LI c-sel.:[ _ NP] s-sel.:<A,P/Th>

  21. home 1.2.5 Defining Gammar as FHL – A Comprehensive Summary 1. What is grammar? 2. How is it structured? 3. Where is it „stored”? 4. Why do we need it? 5. What are its components? • a finite system of interacting rules which enables speakers to construct an infinite number of sentences • mental generative procedure, psychological entity, the property of mind / brain (Chomsky 2001) • genetically encoded • provides characterization for the language it describes (i.e. allows to distinguish the strings of words which are sentences of the language in question from those which are not) • mediates between sound and meaning [AP - CI]

  22. home 1.2.6 Modules of Grammar • Theta Theory: a module concerned with well-formedness of predicate-argument relations (9) a. *John opened the basket the hammer. b. John opened the basket with a hammer. (10) a. AGENT open THEME INSTRUMENT open <A,T> b. AGENT open THEME with INSTRUMENT open <A,T>, with <INSTRUMENT> • X-bar Theory: a module concerned with internal structure and organization of grammar • Case Theory: a module dealing with certain properties of Noun Phrases and largely determining their distribution (11) a. Italy beat France in the finals. B. *Was beaten France in the finals.

  23. home • Binding Theory: a module preoccupied with structural conditions imposed on rules of coreference (12) Mary said Bettyi was proud of herselfi / herk/i (13) Maryi was proud of her*i/k / herselfi • Bounding Theory: a module dealing with displacement of phrases from their base positions and nature of movement (14) ?Which car did John know how to fix? (15) */?How did John know which car to fix? • Government Theory: a module concerned, among others, with the relationship between a displaced category and its base position

  24. home 1.3 Grammar as the Object of Study

  25. PRESCRIPTIVISM prescriptive grammar: a set of theoretical rules defining the state of language as it should be DESCRIPTIVISM descriptive grammar: the model of grammar concerned with the language which is used by the speakers, i.e. focused on the actual language use home 1.3.1 Prescriptive vs. Descriptive Grammar

  26. home 1.3.1.1 Descriptivism vs. Prescriptivism: Selected Examples (14) a. [Which book]i did Bill refer to ti? b. [To which Book] did Bill refer ti? [preposition stranding vs. Pied-piping] (15) The mission of the USS enterprise is to boldly go where no man has ever been before. (16) I’m right, ain’t I? (17) Hopefully, the weather will clear up tomorrow. (hopefully is not a sentence adverb) (18) It’s me who gets the blame for everything. (19) Nobody said nothing (double negation) (20) Those kind of people get on my nerves. (sing. NP) (21) If I was you, I would resign. (were)

  27. home Loose ends: Remarks on Language Acquisition http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo Chomsky's Theory that Language Is Largely Innate and Not Learned. BBC. June 21, 1998. • Skinner, B. 1957. Verbal Behaviour • linguistic compentence is based on repetition and habit forming • analogy as an acquisition strategy • Chomsky’s 1967 response: A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior • language as an effortless process • no explicit teaching • positive evidence • no negative evidence • cross-linguistic analogies in language acquisition

  28. home A. Non-adult L - Selected Examples: (22) Adult: I don’t think you write with a pencil on that, Ada. Adam: What you write with? Adult: You write with some crayons. Adam: Why d(o) you carry it by de handle? (Guasti 2002:3) (23) C(hild): Nobody don’t like me. M(other): No, say „nobody likes me”. C: Nobody don’t like me. (eight repetitions of this dialogue) M: No, listen carefully; say „Nobody likes me” C: Oh, nobody don’t likes me. (McNeill 1966: 69) (24) a. Who do you wanna see? b. *Who do you wanna come? (Guasti 2002:3)

  29. home B. The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition [poverty of stimulus] • children come to have a very rich linguistic knowledge that encompasses a potentially infinite number of sentences, although they hear a finite number of sentences • the data children draw upon consists of positive evidence (sentences that are acceptable in the language they are exposed to [e.g. motherese]) • children are not told which sentences are ill formed or which interpretations sentences cannot have in their language • although children make “errors”, they do not make certain errors that would be expected if they generalized from linguistic output [see: (24)]. (Guasti 2002: 5)

  30. home C. The Innateness Hypothesis: Where does the knowledge of L come from? There is a debate on how rich the genetic makeup supporting human linguistic ability is. [Generativist] researchers (…) assume that inborm human knowledge is richly structured and must consist of constraints. It is very unlikely that this constraints are learned because they hold universally. It would be very curious that all langauges conform to these constraints if this crosslinguistic similarity were not dictated by our mind/brain (Guasti 2002: 17). Linguistic Exposure [triggering experience] ParameterLS setting Universal Grammar [initial state, S0] PrinciplesLu Sn [adult competence]

  31. home D: Language PathologySLI (Severe Language Impairment); genetic dysphasia • no nonlinguistic deficits, • no brain lesions, • no abnormally low IQ, • no negative influence of environmental factors, etc. • transmitted genetically over generations. • The KE case: FOXP2 (Enard et al. 2002)? The fact that these close interactions between the impaired and theunimpaired members of the family [KE] means that the impaired subjects are receiving constant linguistic input from the speakers who do not have any linguistic impairment and yet (…) they are never able to construct a normal grammar. The fact that they were all raised in the same neighborhood insures that they all have the same dialect of English, therefore the differences in their performance cannot be attributed to a difference in dialect (Gopnik 1994: 1).

  32. home References: • Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. • Chomsky, N. 1967. A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior. In Jakobovits, L. – M. Miron (eds.) • Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. • Chomsky, N. 1984. Modular Approaches to the Study of Mind. San Diego, San Diego State University Press. • Chomsky, Noam – Howard Lasnik. 1993. „The Theory of Principles and Parameters”. in:Jacobs, J – A. von Stechow – W. Sternefeld – T. Wennemann (eds.). Reprinted in: Chomsky (1995) 13 – 127. • Chomsky, N. 2000. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge, CUP. • Enard et al., 2002. „Molecular Evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language“. Nature 418, 869-872 • Fodor, J. 1983. The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology, MIT Press. • Greenberg, J. 1963. Universals of Language. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. • Gopnik,M. – M. Crago. 1991. „Familiar segregation and developmental language disorder.” Cognition 39: 1-50. • Hockett, Ch. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan. • Jakobovits, L. – M. Miron (eds.). 1967. Readings in the Psychology of Language, Prentice-Hall, • Lieberman, P. 2002. Human Language and Our Reptilian Brain. The Subcortical Bases of Speech, Syntax and Thought. Cambridge, London, Mass: Harvard University Press. • Lighfoot, D. 2000. “Plato’s Problem, UG and the Language Organ.” UMWPL 9: 154-171 • Newmeyer, F. J. 1995. Language form and language function. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. • Skinner, B. 1957. Verbal behaviour. • Smith, N. 1999. Ideas and Ideals. Cambridge: CUP. HOME ASSIGNMENT:http://www.chomsky.info/audionvideo.htmLanguage and Mind Revisited: The Biolinguistic Turn. Hitchcock Lectures. March 19, 2002.Biolinguistic Explorations. World of Ideas. February 19, 2006. Software requirements: realalternative codec [browse: ~ download]

More Related