Theory Of Syntax Research Articles

Language Crafted: A Linguistic Theory of Poetic Syntax

Acknowledgments ONE A Theory of Poetic Syntax TWO The Technical Analysis of a Literary Text THREE The Aesthetic Dimension FOUR The Task of Interpretation FIVE Conclusion Theoretical and Pedagogical Notes Bibliography Index of Topics Index of Authors Index of Syntactic Rules and Constraints

An Encyclopedia of Aux: A Study in Crosslinguistic Equivalence

This significant contribution to the generative theory of syntax confronts a fundamental question inherent in the study of universals of grammar: How can claims of universality be empirically verified? This book puts the question of the similarity of categories across the grammars of particular languages on a substantive empirical basis by providing a principled method of cross-linguistic comparison; a method based on equivalence classes of language-particular properties relative to a universally applicable definition. While the critical issue is general to a consideration of any syntactic category, the framework proposed is applied specifically to a category called AUX. A considerable body of evidence is introduced both for the framework and for the category through the detailed examination of a number of languages--Lummi, Egyptian Arabic, Japanese, Luiseno, German, and English.The book presents a unified exposition and statement rather than an anthology of the authors' various views on the topic of the category AUX. The major portion of the book was written by Dr. Steele.

Strong generative capacity, weak generative capacity, and modern linguistic theories

What makes a language a natural language? A longstanding tradition in generative grammar holds that a language is natural just in case it is learnable under a constellation of auxiliary assumptions about input evidence available to children. Yet another approach seeks some key mathematical property that distinguishes the natural languages from all possible symbol-systems. With some exceptions for example, Chomsky's demonstration that a complete characterization of our grammatical knowledge lies beyond the power of finite state languages the mathematical approach has not provided clear-cut results. For example, for a variety of reasons we cannot say that the predicate is context-free characterizes all and only the natural languages. Still another use of mathematical analysis in linguistics has been to diagnose a proposed grammatical formalism as too powerful (allowing too many grammars or languages) rather than as too weak. Such a diagnosis was supposed by some to follow from Peters and Ritchie's demonstration that the theory of transformational grammar as described in Chomsky's Aspects of the Theory of Syntax could specify grammars to generate any recursively enumerable set. For some this demonstration marked a watershed in the formal analysis transformational grammar. One general reaction (not prompted by the Peters and Ritchie result alone) was to turn to other theories of grammar designed to explicitly avoid the problems of a theory that could specify an arbitrary Turing machine computation. The proposals for generalized phrase structure grammar (GPSG) and lexical-functional grammar (LFG) have explicitly emphasized this point. GPSG aims for grammars that generate context-free languages (though there is some recent wavering on this point; see Pullum 1984); LFG, for languages that are at worst context-sensitive. Whatever the merits of the arguments for this restriction in terms of weak generative capacity and they are far from obvious, as discussed at length in Berwick and Weinberg (1983) one point remains: the switch was prompted by criticism of the nearly two-decades old Aspects theory. Much has changed in transformational grammar in twenty years. Modern transformational grammars no longer contain swarms of individual rules such as Passive, Raising, or Dative. The modern government-binding (GB) theory does not reconstruct a deep structure, does not contain powerful deletion rules, and has introduced a whole host of new constraints. Given these sweeping changes, it would seem appropriate, then, to re-examine the Peters and Ritchie result, and compare the power of the newer GB-style theories to these other current linguistic theories. That is the aim of this paper. The basic points to be made are these:

Modifier-head or function-argument relations in phrase structure?: The evidence of some word order universals

This paper compares the predictions made by two competing general models of phrase structure for cross-language word order patterns. The first general model is categorial grammar, in which constituents contract ‘function-argument’ relations. The second is exemplified by theories such as the X-bar theory in which constituents are either heads of phrase or (various types of) modifiers of these, and hence in which the ‘modifier-head’ relation holds. It is the general differences between these two types of relations which will concern us, for they result in partially different structural groupings being assigned to the same surface constituents, and in very different node labellings. In particular ‘they embody different claims about the kinds of syntagmatic relations that hold between constituents. Functionargument relations are primarily semantically motivated, and the syntactic rules of phrasal construction are assumed to mirror these isomorphically. Modifier-head relations are typically syntactically motivated, within the context of autonomous theories of syntax. The set of word order data to be used is taken from Hawkins (1983). The question we shall address is: how well does one or the other theory succeed in describing and explaining these universal word order data? There are, of course, numerous exemplars of each of these models. Compare, for example, the categorial grammars of Ajdukiewicz (1935), Montague (1974), Vennemann (1976, 198 l), Vennemann and Harlow (1977), Keenan (1979), Keenan and Faltz (1978), Flynn (1982). Modifier-head

Performance structures: A psycholinguistic and linguistic appraisal

Two lines of research—one in psycholinguistics and one in linguistics—are combined to deal with a long-standing problem in both fields: why the “performance structures” of sentences (structures based on experimental data, such as pausing and parsing values) are not fully accountable for by linguistic theories of phrase structure. Two psycholinguistic algorithms that have been used to predict these structures are described and their limitations are examined. A third algorithm, based on the prosodic structures of sentences is then proposed and shown to be a far better predictor of performance structures. It is argued that the experimental data reflect aspects of the linguistic cognitive capacity, and that, in turn, linguistic theory can offer an illuminating account of the data. The prosodic model is shown to have a wider domain of application than temporal organization per se, accounting for parsing judgments as well as pausing performance, and reflecting aspects of syntactic and semantic structure as well as purely prosodic structure. Finally, the algorithm is discussed in light of language processing.

Interactive modal meaning as the mental basis of syntax

In a previous paper (1), a new computer system for the nonverbal representation of word and sentence meaning was described as the basis for an hypothesis that verbal meaning may occur in the brain in the form of interassociated modal percepts or their neuronal correlates. The discussion was principally on the semantics of the system, but reference was made to a complementary syntactic technique that is also based upon the use of modal codes. (See Table 1 for list of the modalities). In describing here the fundamentals of that syntactic system, it is suggested that, as with modal meaning, the principles of interactive modal syntax might also be usefully applied to the understanding of the cerebral mechanisms of some language processes and their dysfunctions. In particular, the hypothesis is proposed that the mental representation of syntax is fundamentally nonverbal, and that syntax and grammar, far from being different from semantics are based on interassociated modal representations of meaning and use.

APL syntax and semantics

This paper presents a working model of APL syntax and semantics that incorporates explicit representations of functions, operators, and syntax, thus providing a basis for the clear and explicit statement of extended facilities in the language, as well as a tool for experimentation upon them. Use of the model is illustrated in the treatment of the syntax of operators, and in the discussion of a number of new or recently-proposed facilities including indirect assignment, the operators axis, derivative, inverse, and til, and the functions link, and from . The entire model is included in an appendix.

‘Play it again Sam’: Some notes on the productivity of repetition in popular music

Repetition, as a component of musical structure in popular songs, has long played an important part in ‘popular common-sense’ definitions, and criticisms, of the music. ‘It's monotonous’; ‘it's all the same’; ‘it's predictable’: such reactions have probably filtered down from the discussions of mass culture theorists. From this point of view, repetition (within a song) can be assimilated to the same category as what Adorno termed standardisation (as between songs). Of course, the significance of the role played by such techniques in the operations of the music industry – their efficacy in helping to define and hold markets, to channel types of consumption, to pre-form response and to make listening easy – can hardly be denied; it is, however, equally difficult to reduce the function of repetition simply to an analysis of the ‘political economy’ of popular music production and its ideological effects. Despite Adorno's critical assault (see Adorno 1941), despite later twists to the theory by, for instance, Fredric Jameson (1981), who argues that rather than being a negative quality of mass culture, repetition is simply a fundamental characteristic of all cultural production under contemporary capitalism, the question of repetition refuses to go away. Why do listeners find interest and pleasure in hearing the same thing over again? To be able to answer this question, which has troubled not only mass cultural theory but also traditional philosophical aesthetics, as well as more recent approaches such as psychoanalysis and information theory, would tell us more about the nature of popular music, and hence, mutatis mutandis, about music in general, than almost anything else. We must start by locating repetition within an overall theory of musical syntax.

Interactive modal meaning as the mental basis of syntax

In a previous paper (1), a new computer system for the nonverbal representation of word and sentence meaning was described as the basis for an hypothesis that verbal meaning may occur in the brain in the form of interassociated modal percepts or their neuronal correlates. The discussion was principally on the semantics of the system, but reference was made to a complementary syntactic technique that is also based upon the use of modal codes. (See Table 1 for list of the modalities). In describing here the fundamentals of that syntactic system, it is suggested that, as with modal meaning, the principles of interactive modal syntax might also be usefully applied to the understanding of the cerebral mechanisms of some language processes and their dysfunctions. In particular, the hypothesis is proposed that the mental representation of syntax is fundamentally nonverbal, and that syntax and grammar, far from being different from semantics are based on interassociated modal representations of meaning and use.

Predication: Old and New

Resumen

Coherence, Cohesion, and Writing Quality

A question of continuing interest to researchers in writing is what internal characteristics distinguish essays ranked high and low in overall quality. Empirical research at the college level has for the most part taken two approaches to this question, examining errors1 and syntactic features2 while generally ignoring the features of texts that extend across sentence boundaries.3 Neither the error approach nor the syntactic approach has been entirely satisfactory. For example, Elaine Maimon and Barbara Nodine's sentence-combining experiment suggests that, as is true when other skills and processes are learned, certain kinds of errors accompany certain stages in learning to write.4 Because the sources of error in written discourse are often complex and difficult to trace, researchers can conclude little more than what is obvious: low-rated papers usually contain far more errors than high-rated papers. With regard to syntax, Ann Gebhard found that with few exceptions the syntactic features of highand low-rated essays written by college students are not clearly differentiated. Indeed, research in writing quality based on conventions of written English and on theories of syntax, particularly transformational grammar, has not provided specific directions for the teaching of writing. Such results come as no surprise in light of much current research in written discourse. This research-published in such fields as linguistics, cybernetics, anthropology, psychology, and artificial intelligence-addresses questions, concerned with extended discourse rather than with individual sentences, questions about how humans produce and understand discourse units often referred to as texts.5 One such effort that has attracted the attention of researchers in writing is M. A. K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan's Cohesion in English.6 Although Halliday and Hasan do not propose a theory of text structure or examine how humans produce texts, they do attempt to define the concept of text. To them a text is a semantic unit, the parts of

Right-hemisphere speech representation and comprehension of syntax after left cerebral injury

Comprehension of language and visuo-spatial abilities were studied in 12 surgical patients with left cerebral lesions and right-hemisphere speech representation verified by sodium amobarbital tests. When left-hemisphere symptoms preceded the acquisition of speech, impaired understanding of syntactically complex sentences was associated with an early, but not late, onset of convulsive seizures. Other behavioral measures did not show a similar effect of age at seizure onset. Sparing or loss of comprehension could not be related to any aspects of the neurological histories in cases with right-hemisphere speech acquired before the onset of left-hemisphere symptoms. Factors which may have influenced the development of right-hemisphere language comprehension are discussed.

Functional Syntax in Medieval Europe

Summary In contrast to the fairly fully developed theories of phonological and morphological description achieved by classical antiquity, no general theory of syntax (sentence structure) was presented in the works of the classical grammarians such as Apollonius Dyscolus and Priscian, but rather a voluminous and detailed discussion of individual constructions in which words of different classes were involved. The creation and exposition of a general theory of sentence structure was a central part of the work of the late mediaeval speculative grammarians, and their identification of supposition (grammatical subject) and opposition (grammatical predicate) and the relation of compositio between them, together with other syntactic relations and the general relation of dependentia, provided a framework for the syntactic analysis of all the basic sentence patterns of Latin (and, by implication, of other languages). Though their system of syntactic analysis was not maintained by their successors, several key terms and concepts in syntax today are direct inheritances from mediaeval speculative grammar.

Recent advances in automatic speech recognition

The paper reviews the work done in speech recognition and understanding, mostly in the years 1976–1977. The attention is focussed on problems of system organization, use and representation of syntax and semantics, control strategies, lexical classification, extraction and emission of hypotheses about acoustic, phonetic and phonemic features.

Some Trends in Norwegian Linguistics 1800–1850

Summary The first Norwegian university was founded in 1811; in 1814 Norway became independent from Denmark. These two factors were decisive for the establishment of a linguistic milieu in Norway and for the development of linguistics in that country during the 19th century. Three scholars of very different backgrounds and interests dominated Norwegian linguistics in the first half of the 19th century: One, Christopher Holmboe (1796–1882) was a pupil of A. I. Silvestre de Sacy in Paris and from 1825 on Professor of Oriental Languages at the University of Oslo (Christiania). The main bulk of his linguistic production lay within comparative Indo-European philology, but in some minor works he also made interesting observations on various non-Indo-European languages and on topics within general linguistics. The second, Ludvig Caesar Martin Aubert (1807–87), became professor of Latin in 1840. Besides writing important works concerning Latin syntax and general syntactic theory, he introduced comparative Indo-European linguistics to Norway in a series of lectures from 1843 on. His sober and critical attitude concerning language study made him much more influential than Holmboe, whose somewhat oldfashioned preconceptions made him an outsider on the scientific (though not on the organizational) level of the discipline. The third figure was Ivar Aasen (1813–96), who never held a university position, but who as the founder of landsmål (nynorsk), the initiator of Norwegian dialectology, and the author of the first grammar of modern Norwegian had a tremendous impact both on Norvegian linguistics and on the socio-cultural development of Norway in the 19th and 20th century. The paper attempts to depict the intellectual background and the relations between these three men, their relationship to previous and contemporary European linguistics, to some basic trends of Norwegian society of their time as well as to the subsequent development of Norvegian linguistics.

Arguments for a Non-Transformational Grammar

For the past decade, the dominant transformational theory of syntax has produced the most interesting insights into syntactic properties. Over the same period another systemic grammar, has been developed very quietly as an alternative to the transformational model. In this work Richard A. Hudson outlines theory, which is derived from systemic grammar, and offers empirical reasons for preferring it to any version of transformational The goal of daughter-dependency theory is the same as that of Chomskyan transformational grammar to generate syntactic structures for all (and only) syntactically well-formed sentences that would relate to both the phonological and the semantic structures of the sentences. However, unlike transformational grammars, those based on daughter-dependency theory generate a single syntactic structure for each sentence. This structure incorporates all the kinds of information that are spread, in a transformational grammar, over to a series of structures (deep, surface, and intermediate). Instead of the combination of phrase-structure rules and transformations found in transformational grammars, daughter-dependency grammars contain rules with the following functions: classification, dependency-marking, or ordering. Hudson's strong arguments for a non-transformational grammar stress the capacity of daughter-dependency theory to reflect the facts of language structure and to capture generalizations that transformational models miss. An important attraction of Hudson's theory is that the syntax is more concrete, with no abstract underlying elements. In the appendixes, the author outlines a partial grammar for English and a small lexicon and distinguishes his theory from standard dependency theory. Hudson's provocative thesis is supported by his thorough knowledge of transformational grammar.

Lord Monboddo and the Theory of Syntax in the Late Eighteenth Century

L'originalite de Monboddo consiste en sa prise de conscience que les formes semantiques du langage ne sont pas que de simples reflexions de formes conceptuelles. Pour lui, le langage est non seulement artificiel dans son stade present (et non naturel comme le supposaient Condillac et Smith), mais encore que les structures syntactiques du langage sont creees pour incarner des distinctions conceptuelles qui ne leur sont pas identiques. Il isole syntaxe et psychologie et ouvre la voie a une distinction entre theorie du langage et theorie de l'intelligence (ou des idees).

New Directions in Theories of Language Acquisition

Nativistic explanations, which posit innate rather than environmental influences on development, characterize many theories of language acquisition. Marilyn H. Edmonds offers some reasons for this bias and discusses the deficiencies of nativism as an explanatory principle. She reviews and critiques existing theories of syntax and highlights the trend toward a semantic description of linguistic development. Combining this semantic emphasis with a Piagetian framework, Edmonds argues that a satisfactory account of language acquisition will not emerge until this process is viewed within a larger developmental perspective.

Demythologizing the Impersonal "Se" in Spanish

In such a case subject seems to be defined on purely semantic grounds. Chomsky (Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1965) showed that grammatical functions, such as subject, can be best expressed indirectly by the rewriting rules of the base phrase marker which provide the deep structure of sentences, so that subject is a syntactic function defined as [NP,S] (NP under S). If we adhere to Chomsky's definition of subject, then it is easy to show that se is not a subject, because it does not behave syntactically like one. Some evidence to this effect is provided by Negative Particle Placement which in Spanish places the negative particle directly in front of the verb and its clitics (if any are present). One such example is: 2. Juan no habla mucho. John doesn't talk a lot. 3. *Se no habla mucho. 4. No se habla mucho. One doesn't talk a lot.

Did a (Kuhnian) Scientific Revolution Occur in Linguistics?

It has become commonplace to claim that a scientific revolution has taken place in linguistics as a result of Noam Chomsky's contributions to the theories of syntax, linguistic metatheory and the philosophy of mind. Although the label ‘revolutionary’ was applied to these developments almost from the start (cf., [19], p. 375), the cliche has also been encouraged by the appearance of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in the early sixties at about the same time that the theory of transformational-generative grammar (hereafter abbreviated TG) was consolidating its position as the dominant school of linguistics and attracting the attention of the wider intellectual and scientific community. Because of this coincidence of currency, it was perhaps inevitable that many of those who were aware of the developments which had been taking place in linguistics would find themselves reading Chomsky's revolution into the pages of Kuhn's book.