Week 1
Central tenets of generative syntax:
Grammar as the mental knowledge of speakers:
We will define a mental grammar.
Basic rules are similar in all languages:
We will define a universal grammar that holds for all human languages.
Grammar as mental knowledge:
But what are the grammatical sentences of English?
Is there a comprehensive list?
Sentences are potentially infinite in number.
With no list available, we ask native English speakers about the grammaticality of
sentences.
What rules are similar in languages?
All languages combine a noun modifier and the noun in one constituent.
Syntactic structure:
Constituents make up a hierarchal organization: syntactic structure
The hierarchal structure is the only thing syntactic rules can ‘see’ (refer to).
How to represent syntactic structure?
We want structural representations to show:
Hierarchical relations between syntactic items
(Which parts belong together: the constituency of the sentence)
Functional relations between the parts
(Head, complement, modifier/adjunct adverbial)
Generative syntax used to have re-writing rules in its early days:
S NP (Aux) VP
NP (Det) (AP) N (PP)
PP P NP
Phrase markers: c-command
X c-commands Y only if the first branching node that dominates X dominates Y.
A node does not c-command itself.
A node does not c-command anything that it dominates.
Syntactic categories:
o Nouns, adjectives, adverbs verbs, prepositions
o Auxiliaries, determiners, complementizers
Syntactic categories are defined based on their syntactic distribution and
morphological shape:
o Distribution: the syntactic environments the word can be found in
o Morphological shape: the kinds of morphemes the word can combine with
Constituency tests:
, Constituency tests identify which parts of the sentence belong together:
o Replacement with a pronoun (he, she, it, then, there)
o Replacement with one(s)
o Replacement with do so
o Movement/topicalization (placement in front of the sentence)
o Coordination with a similar element
Week 2
Phrase structure and constituency:
NPs last year:
A complement is a sister to the head.
Modifiers are sister to NOM.
Determiners are immediately dominated by NP.
Levels in the NP:
N’: “N-bar”
NP phrasal-level
DET N’ intermediate-level
ART N head-level
the tulip
Intermediate level in the NP: evidence
One-replacement:
o I like that student of History and you like this one.
o *I like that student of history and you like this one of Economy.
o I like this summary of the facts and not that one.
o *I like this summary of the facts and not that one of the argument.
One necessarily replaces the noun and its complement.
One replaces something that is bigger than a noun, but smaller than an entire noun
phrase.
This is the intermediate constituent N’.
One replaces an N’.
Three levels in the NP:
, NP
DET one
DEM N PP
that student of History
I like this blue Dutch tulip and you like that red Turkish one.
o Since one replaces the N’ level, the noun (without complement) must form an
N’ level as well.
I like this blue Dutch tulip and you like that red one.
o Since one replaces the N’ level, the noun and a modifier must form an N’ level
as well.
I like this blue Dutch tulip and you like that one.
o Since one replaces the N’ level, the noun and more modifiers must form an N’
level as well.
NP
one
one
DET AP AP one
DEM A A N
this blue Dutch tulip
The structure of NPs:
The complement is the sister of the head.
The modifiers are sisters to N’.
Determiners are immediately dominated by NP.
Prepositional phrases last year:
PPs were introduced with just two levels.
There is evidence for an intermediate level in PPs as well.
PPs with three levels:
, Replacement by so:
o Jill was utterly in love.
o Jill was [PP: utterly in love] and Tim was only [PP: partly so].
PP
AdvP so
utterly P NP
in love
So replaces something that is bigger than a preposition, but smaller than an entire PP.
This is the intermediate constituent P’:
PP
AdvP P’
right
P’ Conj P’
P NP and P NP
above the line under the signature
Coordination:
o This was [PP: right above the line and under the signature].
Adjective phrases last year:
APs were introduced with just two levels.
There is evidence for an intermediate level in APs as well.
APs with three levels:
Replacement by so:
o Harry was very fond of snakes.
o Harry was [AP: very fond of snakes], and Ron was [AP: less so].
So replaces something that is bigger than an adjective, but smaller than an entire adjective
phrase. This is the intermediate constituent A’.
AP
AdvP so = A’
very A PP
fond of snakes
Coordination:
o Harry was [AP: very fond of snakes and afraid of lions].
VPs with three levels:
Central tenets of generative syntax:
Grammar as the mental knowledge of speakers:
We will define a mental grammar.
Basic rules are similar in all languages:
We will define a universal grammar that holds for all human languages.
Grammar as mental knowledge:
But what are the grammatical sentences of English?
Is there a comprehensive list?
Sentences are potentially infinite in number.
With no list available, we ask native English speakers about the grammaticality of
sentences.
What rules are similar in languages?
All languages combine a noun modifier and the noun in one constituent.
Syntactic structure:
Constituents make up a hierarchal organization: syntactic structure
The hierarchal structure is the only thing syntactic rules can ‘see’ (refer to).
How to represent syntactic structure?
We want structural representations to show:
Hierarchical relations between syntactic items
(Which parts belong together: the constituency of the sentence)
Functional relations between the parts
(Head, complement, modifier/adjunct adverbial)
Generative syntax used to have re-writing rules in its early days:
S NP (Aux) VP
NP (Det) (AP) N (PP)
PP P NP
Phrase markers: c-command
X c-commands Y only if the first branching node that dominates X dominates Y.
A node does not c-command itself.
A node does not c-command anything that it dominates.
Syntactic categories:
o Nouns, adjectives, adverbs verbs, prepositions
o Auxiliaries, determiners, complementizers
Syntactic categories are defined based on their syntactic distribution and
morphological shape:
o Distribution: the syntactic environments the word can be found in
o Morphological shape: the kinds of morphemes the word can combine with
Constituency tests:
, Constituency tests identify which parts of the sentence belong together:
o Replacement with a pronoun (he, she, it, then, there)
o Replacement with one(s)
o Replacement with do so
o Movement/topicalization (placement in front of the sentence)
o Coordination with a similar element
Week 2
Phrase structure and constituency:
NPs last year:
A complement is a sister to the head.
Modifiers are sister to NOM.
Determiners are immediately dominated by NP.
Levels in the NP:
N’: “N-bar”
NP phrasal-level
DET N’ intermediate-level
ART N head-level
the tulip
Intermediate level in the NP: evidence
One-replacement:
o I like that student of History and you like this one.
o *I like that student of history and you like this one of Economy.
o I like this summary of the facts and not that one.
o *I like this summary of the facts and not that one of the argument.
One necessarily replaces the noun and its complement.
One replaces something that is bigger than a noun, but smaller than an entire noun
phrase.
This is the intermediate constituent N’.
One replaces an N’.
Three levels in the NP:
, NP
DET one
DEM N PP
that student of History
I like this blue Dutch tulip and you like that red Turkish one.
o Since one replaces the N’ level, the noun (without complement) must form an
N’ level as well.
I like this blue Dutch tulip and you like that red one.
o Since one replaces the N’ level, the noun and a modifier must form an N’ level
as well.
I like this blue Dutch tulip and you like that one.
o Since one replaces the N’ level, the noun and more modifiers must form an N’
level as well.
NP
one
one
DET AP AP one
DEM A A N
this blue Dutch tulip
The structure of NPs:
The complement is the sister of the head.
The modifiers are sisters to N’.
Determiners are immediately dominated by NP.
Prepositional phrases last year:
PPs were introduced with just two levels.
There is evidence for an intermediate level in PPs as well.
PPs with three levels:
, Replacement by so:
o Jill was utterly in love.
o Jill was [PP: utterly in love] and Tim was only [PP: partly so].
PP
AdvP so
utterly P NP
in love
So replaces something that is bigger than a preposition, but smaller than an entire PP.
This is the intermediate constituent P’:
PP
AdvP P’
right
P’ Conj P’
P NP and P NP
above the line under the signature
Coordination:
o This was [PP: right above the line and under the signature].
Adjective phrases last year:
APs were introduced with just two levels.
There is evidence for an intermediate level in APs as well.
APs with three levels:
Replacement by so:
o Harry was very fond of snakes.
o Harry was [AP: very fond of snakes], and Ron was [AP: less so].
So replaces something that is bigger than an adjective, but smaller than an entire adjective
phrase. This is the intermediate constituent A’.
AP
AdvP so = A’
very A PP
fond of snakes
Coordination:
o Harry was [AP: very fond of snakes and afraid of lions].
VPs with three levels:
