chapter 1 generative grammar

7/29/2019 Chapter 1 Generative Grammar

1/13

CURRENT TRENDS IN LINGUISTIC THEORY.

CHAPTER I. AN OVERVIEW OF GENERATIVE GRAMMAR.

INTRODUCTION: Generative Grammar (Noam Chomsky) attempts togive response to the native speakers ability to produce language. The

Generative linguistic changes traditional linguistic (external) into natives

knowledge of language (internal): the internal principles that are

responsible for linguistic data of different languages. Its goal is to develop

an Universal Grammar (UG) which provides the tools to describe any

natural language. They think that human beings have a genetically

endowed language faculty that allows children to develop a grammar of

any natural language.

1. METHODOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS:

Language: intellectual activity that produce speech by mental tools and

Throughout mental structures. Language has to provide answers to:

o Particular phenomena;

o Learnability;

o Universality;

Linguistics: provides theories of Language. Andrew Radford: it must befully explicit and to be explicit, it must be formal.

Chomskys theory of the initial state of human language or UG, implies

that the study of any particular external language is an instance of such a

grammar.

Example:

a) Mary washes herself

b) John washes himself (These sentences are grammatical)

a) *Herself washes Mary;

b) *Himself washes John. (These sentences are not grammatical)

Any sentence has:

1) a complex hierarchical structure

2) the subject need to hierarchical dominate objects (syntactic

constraint).


2/13

The linguistic cannot gather the list of all the possible sentences. Some

linguistic evidence may serve us to analyse a language: why the native

speaker accepts some sentences and rejects some others. Independent

evidence should be found.

Example:

a) John wishes that Mary looks at herself in the mirror;

b) *Mary wishes that John looks at herself in the mirror;

Here we can conclude that anaphors (herself, himself) need to be coreferential with its

closest nominal antecedent.

a) * John wishes that Mary looks at herself in the mirror;

b) Mary wishes that John looks at herself in the mirror.

Here pronouns can corefer with its farthest antecedent, but not with its closest one.

The amount of principles of UG considered with respect to particular

evidence of a language constitute the grammar of that language; but not

all principles of UG appear in all grammars (language diversity) through

the notion of parameter setting. Languages do not differ with respect to

the computational system, but with respect to specific morphological

properties included in the lexicon of each particular language. We cannotspeak of different systems of rules to explain apparent contradictory data

in the variation of languages, but of a set of specific linguistic parameters

allowed by UG.

Language diversity should be understood in terms of parameters and

universal principles. We may speak of a derivational component equal

for all languages in which a language L sets a system of grammar allowed

by UG parameterized for that particular language, the syntax in a broad

sense (including phonology). Assuming that the syntax provides three

fundamental levels of representation: Deep structure Phonetic Form (PF) Logical Form (LF).

Each lexical unit in the lexicon contains a system of features according to

some phonetic and syntactic properties that determine its sound, meaning

and syntactic roles through more general principles parameterized for

each language.


3/13

2. COMPETENCE AND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION.

Linguistic competence:set of rules of the speakers knowledge, that allows

her to learn and produce language. It explains the ability to render

grammaticality judgements with respect to an unlimited number ofEnglish sentences; and the new strings of language according to English

grammar.

Universal competence : Grammatical rules innantes on the

languages.

Particular competence: specific rules sof one language in its

environment.

Performance: The opposite to competence. Conjunct of constraints tolimitate the use of language.

Ability to speak a language. It is based:

On the innate principles of UG;

On the exposure to a specific language.

With them as a basis, we develop a grammar of a language: the core

grammar of such a language:

TriggeringexperienceLanguage X

UG(with parameters)

Core grammarLanguage X

However, we would not expect a linguistic system to be a pure case.

Rather, all sorts of accidents of history would have contaminated the

system.

2.1 Insufficient external stimuli.The linguistic task is reduced to formalize the theory of a specific language.

For doing so, she needs to look at both UG and the particular grammar of

a language, so showing how the principles of UG are fixed for each

particular parameter. In the generative work, English is considered as part

of the obligatory subject parameters, whereas Spanish, Italian, etc.,

belong to the null subject parameter:

Pall looks at her because he loves her.(Pallla mira porque la quiere.) *Subject.


4/13

2.2 UG and parametersThe linguist needs also to explain how each language is acquired. The child

is never exposed to all possible sentences of her language; but to those

crucial examples which help her to fix her own language parameter. The

linguistics task is to identify those crucial examples, which actually triggerlanguage acquisition:

I like the boy who/that I see in that picture.

*I like the boy speaks Japanese. (The relative pronoun cannot be omittedwith subject relative clauses regardless the human antecedent).

Its to be assumed that the child will only hear grammatical sentences,

being always exposed to positive evidence. Therefore, the problem of

language acquisition is reduced to fixing parameters allowed by UG.In conclusion, it is proposed that UG is an innate, unconscious ability

present at birth, knowledge of grammar; and children have the ability to

accept these rules and apply then; and shes able to take on whichever

language it is exposed to, as all languages have common elements and are

intertranslatable.

SUMMARY: If we want to provide our theory of language with

explanatory adequacy we need to assume UG. By adopting linguistic

competence as the core grammar, language acquisition is the task to learnthose marked options that characterize a particular parameter.

1) We cannot count with all possible data of a particular language to

formalize a grammar. Besides, if we only pay attention to linguistic

performance, well sometimes obtain contradictory data caused from

other factors such as slips of the tongue, insecurity, nervousness, etc.;

2) Linguistic competence is unlimited and in principle we may learn any

particular language.

3) The speaker may produce new sentences, never heard before, and be

sure that such sentences are grammatical in the grammar of his language.


5/13

3. LEXICAL AND FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

SUBCATEGORIZATION AND CONSTITUENT STRUCTURE.

Lexicon: basis for all grammatical relations:

- It satisfies external constraints of the interface relation with other

levels of grammatical representation;

-The constituent structure and the subcategorization give account of the

organization of syntactic categories of the structure of semantic universe.

English lexicon: the lexical categories are N, A, V, P, A; we classify them by

means of its features; -Functional categories: conjunctions.

3.1 Syntactic and morphological evidence.

A word belongs to a grammatical category because it shares with other

words some properties, acting in a similar way in grammar:

N:share the plural form (suffix + S); it can be identified by the definite

article;

V:can bear morphological features when it is finite (progressive with ing suffix; to +V, as a non-finite).

Adj:the comparative with er suffix; can be modified by the adverb

very

Advs: some end in the suffix ly;

Prepositions:can be intensified by right,straight, etc.

Although the main focus of generative grammar was initially

transformational rules (deriving from complete sentences), during the

past 25 years the lexicon has increased its important role; so many

phenomena seem to be better explained by rules associated with lexical/a

set of lexical entries.


6/13

3.2 Lexical categories.

The relevant morphological evidence of l.c. comes from:

>Inflectional properties: some words may take or end in the same suffix;the two major categories of word with these distinctive properties are:

-N: number (sing/pl), in contrast with

-V: Tense (Pres/past), defective inflect. for person (-s) Pres

>Derivational properties: relate to the process by which a word can be

used to form a different kind of w. by adding another morpheme.

The other piece for specific categories is syntactic distribution:

>A precede N;

>Only V may follow modal V;

We can differentiate a finite present V from a nonfinite V taking the suffix

ing by virtue of the fact that only the latter may be combined with the

auxiliary be to form the progressive.

If UG is responsible for words to belong to one particular category,

irregular forms present a problem. In fact, the English child overegularize

stems and their regular forms (went, wented, wenting). All these irregular

forms will occur in the Child lexicon as marked lexical entries.

3.3 Constituent structure and subcategorization

In the first studies of the lexicon only four categories (N, V, A, P) could

project a particular structure, that is, have different projection levels in

terms of which a Specifier position(spec) and a Complement position

(cmp) could be

distinguished.Some years later, the constituent structure depicted for the lexical

category was extended to functional categories.

A complement (C)is a phrase that a lex.cat. takes or selects. Some V, for

ex., take specific Verb Phrases:

a) Diedcannot have any complements;

b) Relied (+ on)must have a Prepos. Phrase (PP) as a complement;

c)Dismembered + NP;

d)Talked +optional Cm +to and/or optional PP Cm with about, etc.,as the head;


7/13

These C selection requirements can be represented in subcategorization

frames:

Die,V, [_]

Rely, V [_PP [on]]

Dismember, V, [_NP]Talk, V, [_ (PP [to] (PP [about]]

_: the position of the lexical head.[]: Delimitate the phrase.(): Optional Complemet.

If a C with a particular head is subcategorized for, the head is listed as a

feature on the C (rely, talk).

Adjectives, nouns and prepositions also subcategorized for their

complements:

AP examples:- Blue/blue that Mary will wear;- Afraid (of);- Orthogonal (to);- Ambivalent (to Peter) about his feelings);- Certain (that);- Insistent (to his husband) (that theyll leave).

NP examples:- Team (of students);- Individual;- Book (about/to);- Generosity (+to);- Dislike (of)- Ambivalence (to P.) about his feelings);- Rumor (that hell be sacked);- Message (to) (about his).

PP examples- About [the meeting];

- Before [he resigned];- From [every part of the country];- [hurry] up.

We can generalize that the lex.cat. (N,V, A, P) in English:

> Subcategorize for their Cms;

> Precede their Cms in the phrase;

> Co-occur with other constituents.


8/13

Finally, head and phrases are not only parts of phrases:

NPscan be preceded by words or even phrases like: the, no, some, every,

Marys, my fathers;

APs, by degree words: very, extremely, rather, quite.

These items differ from Cms. because they precede the lexical category

and they are not subcategorized for. They are specifiers.

3.4 Functional categories.

Chomskyputs forward a similar constituent structure for functionalcategories such as I (=Inflection) and C (Complementizer), where

Inflectional Phrase (IP) replaces S. In this system, the more usual notation

is then XP, X and X instead of X2, X1 and X0:

C:Complementizers like that, for, if; its Specifier is the landing site for

wh-movement;

I:is the category of verbal inflection and, in E., of modal auxiliaries;

IP:the subject of the sentence.

Interestingly the functional projection Isubcategorizes for the lexical

categories. So, it is through subcategorization in the lexicon that

functional categories relate with lexical Categories. And this will be

projected in the syntax.

Finally, Chomskys proposal of functional categories such as CP and IP has

been followed by many other minor categories. And inflectional elements.

Abney, f.ex., proposes that determinersand degree elements(D and Deg)

are also heads in theX-theory:

Pollock, on the basis of languages like French (V is inflected for tense and

agreement features), proposes that the elements under I: Tense (TP) and

Agreement (AgrP) are realized as separate functional categories, each

heading their own projection: The hypothesis is that T subcategorizes for

AgrP as its Cm and Agr for Vp in this order.


9/13

Other proposed functional heads for the verbal system:

Tenny: Asp= aspectual markers of auxiliaries;

Pollock: Neg or Pol=negative and affirmative markers;

Ouhalla: -Mod=modal auxiliary; -Voice or Pass=passive morphology;

Chomsky:-Agr-S=Subject agreement;

-Agr-O=Object agreement;

For the nominal system, Hale & Keyser have a head for Case K (ase), above

D. Others like Ritter put forward a functional category NumP above NP.

Although those new heads seems to be a radical innovation, the existence

of functional categories has been always recognized. Different names of

the distinction between lex. And functional Heads are:

-Open class items/closed

-Content words/function

-Lexical formatives/grammatical formatives

-Major categories/minor categories

Almost all functional head proposed correspond to traditional grammar.

Each major part of speech (N,V,A) has its own characteristic properties:

PART OF SPEECH GRAMMATICAL CATEGORY

Ncase, definiteness, number, gender

Vmood, tense, polarity, aspect, voice

A degree

What is new is the way they project syntactically. In the case of NP, it has

changed the way they are analyzed:

>Classical analysis of NP. The determiner isnt a head of NP, but itsSpec (sister of N)

>Modern analysis of NP. The determiner is the head of NP, taking it

(NP) as its Complement.

The same difference is seen in the analysis of degree-elements, auxiliaries,

negation, and complementizers.

Functional heads arent therefore an exclusive peculiarity of the

generative view on syntactic structure, but a matter of general linguistic

concern.


10/13

3.4.1 English auxiliaries and infinitival to.

In traditional grammar, auxiliaries behave in a different manner that other

V, so they belong to a different category. They typically take a V

expression as Complement: have the semantic function of markinggrammatical properties associated with the relevant V: tense, aspect,

voice, mood, modality.

Following Radfors description of functional Categories. Examples of

auxiliaries that take V Complement in brackets are:

>Have=trad. considered a perfective auxiliary: He has/had [gone]

>Be= an imperfective/progressive auxiliary: She is/was [staying home]

>Do= a dummy auxiliary: he really does/did

>The modal auxiliary:You can/could [help]; I shall/should [say a lot]`

The main difference between auxiliaries and main Verb is that:

Auxiliaries undergo some syntactic processes:

-Inversion in questions

-They can be directly negated by a following not, (nt)

-They appear in sentence-final tags

-They must appear in short answers

Main V not undergo these processes.

4 THE SYNTAX OF CLAUSES.

a. Syntactic analysis of phrases and larger clauses, extending the x-bar

theory to them;

b. The internal structure of each constituent in the clause and all possible

Word-orders in all declarative, negative, and interrogative sentences;

c. Analysis of passives;

d. Reformulate notions: subject, O, IO in more refined syntactic analysis;

e. Provide a data-motivated, stepwise introduction to the main tenets of

the Government and Binding (GB) theory (Chomsky);


11/13

INTERPRETABLE AND UNINTERPRETABLE FEATURES.- According to

minimalism, phonetic, gramar and semantic properties of words can be

described in terms of sets of features. The Minimalist Program puts

forward a grammar with only two levels of representation: the Phonetic

Form (PF)and the Logical Form (LF)in whose representative nature eachcontains only phonetically or semantic interpretable features in turn, as

required by the UG constraint of Full Interpretation .

Other grammar features are uninterpretable (they cant be read off by the

PF or LF components; being exclusively responsible for certain syntactic

operations proper of the CS (computer system). But how do they enter

into CS?

1) Lexical items (phonetic, semantic, and grammatical features) are

selected by the lexicon;

2) Constituents are combined together in a pair wise fashion to form a

phrase structure tree by the process of merger.

3) After spell out, PF and LF operations are responsible for the process of

phonetic and semantic features. All uninterpretable features are invisible

now, for theyve been checked properly in the syntactic derivation.

The resulting model is:

Phrase formation = spell out =

Interpretable features, LF operation

PP operation, interpretable features.

Uninterpretable features include:

A. Number (sg/pl): plays an obvious role in the syntax of agreement;

B. Gender: in the syntax of reflexive anaphors,C. Person: syntax of S-V agreement;


12/13

D. Features which determine the morphological form of items:

a. The case features of pronouns;

b. The inflection features of V.

They do not include features which have nomorphological or sintaxis correlate;

Examples:

words such as calf, foal, kitten, etc, share the

feature [young], but its a purely semantic feature

which doesnt play any role in grammar, so is

not a grammatical feature.

Chomsky: interpretation features are relevant for LF and include

categorical [+V,+P,+A] and nominal phi-features (+fem, +sing); they

arent deleted after checked.

Non-interpretable features are deleted e involve the case features of NPs

and V and the phi-features of V. reasons for this distinction:

Some features remain visible after checking; cant be deleted.

Why the V-and N-f. of early Minimallism are changed by

categorical, Case and features?

Because the Extended Projection Principle effects (cl have structural

subjects) are accounted for by a strong D-feature in I (Chomsky), since

Minimalist trees dont project automatically a Specific position along with

the introduction of bare phrase structure and specifier IP must somehow

be present;

If Radfords principe of Full Interpretation is correct, and PF or LF

Representation contain only semantically interpretable f., then

uninterpretable features must be eliminated in derivation for the

derivation to converge at LF (by means of checking).

CHECKING OTHER GRAMMATICAL FEATURES.

- The Spec-Head relation is the primary means of expressing checking

relation in the MP.


13/13

Abneys DP-hypothesis for N: the MP

chapter 1 generative grammar

Documents