Syntax - a multi-perspective introduction
- Space Dracula
- Lebom
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:10 pm
- Location: Austin fuckin Texas
- Contact:
At least one of my trees are hosted by Miekko there, whose server is his computer, and is thus prone to issues.finlay wrote:
Spack, two of your trees aren't loading.
Also, everyone's tree analyses for homework are correct, which means that you're clever and I explain things better than I think.
Also, adjectives are usually ignored in LFG in trees, because most LFGers think there's nothing interesting to be found there; rather, how the adjectives relate to the words functionally is of more interest. For example, adjectives in Warlpiri, as shown before, can be completely disconnected from their heads and still make sense. What use, then, are trees (and remember LFG trees are without movement) in describing it?
Nonetheless, adjectives in English in LFG are usually analyzed this way:
<Dudicon> i would but you're too fat to fit in my mouth!!
Then how do you account for the difference between "the little old man" (which contains "old man" as a sub-unit) and "the little, old man" (which doesn't)?Space Dracula wrote:Nonetheless, adjectives in English in LFG are usually analyzed this way:
[quote="Amaya"]Every now and then, the world tries to say something. I'm never quite sure whether or not to listen to it at times like that.[/quote]
- Space Dracula
- Lebom
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:10 pm
- Location: Austin fuckin Texas
- Contact:
I said usually. There I would personally put "old man" one level below "little", or even consider "old man" as a single word. But that's in using LFG.Nuntar wrote:Then how do you account for the difference between "the little old man" (which contains "old man" as a sub-unit) and "the little, old man" (which doesn't)?Space Dracula wrote:Nonetheless, adjectives in English in LFG are usually analyzed this way:
Eventually in this thread I'm giong to present my own ideas, that they may be brutally criticized, and I'd handle that problem in a much different way.
Last edited by Space Dracula on Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<Dudicon> i would but you're too fat to fit in my mouth!!
- Miekko
- Avisaru
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
- Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
- Contact:
That difference is accountable for like this:
[DP [D the] [NP [N' [AP [A little]] [N' [AP [A old]] [N man]]
[DP [D the] [NP [N' [AP [A' A[ little] [A' [A old]]]] [N man]]
, ehm, roughly, at least.
[DP [D the] [NP [N' [AP [A little]] [N' [AP [A old]] [N man]]
[DP [D the] [NP [N' [AP [A' A[ little] [A' [A old]]]] [N man]]
, ehm, roughly, at least.
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".
- Miekko
- Avisaru
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
- Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
- Contact:
We haven't described very exactly how to deal with adjective attributes, yet, but if you replaced the NPs's branches with a big triangles, it'd be entirely correct.skurai wrote:Question:
I am a begginer when it comes to syntax, so I was wondering if this is right?
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".
The "Aux" shouldn't be in there. There is no auxiliary for this.Miekko wrote:We haven't described very exactly how to deal with adjective attributes, yet, but if you replaced the NPs's branches with a big triangles, it'd be entirely correct.skurai wrote:Question:
I am a begginer when it comes to syntax, so I was wondering if this is right?
Also, the correct sentence is "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"; if you don't use "jumps" there's no "s" in the sentence.
There is if you're an X-bar-ist. It's just that it moves down to V and suffixes itself to the verb (affix lowering).finlay wrote:The "Aux" shouldn't be in there. There is no auxiliary for this.
[i]Linguistics will become a science when linguists begin standing on one another's shoulders instead of on one another's toes.[/i]
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
Thanks, I wasn't sure about the sentence so I just made something upfinlay wrote:The "Aux" shouldn't be in there. There is no auxiliary for this.Miekko wrote:We haven't described very exactly how to deal with adjective attributes, yet, but if you replaced the NPs's branches with a big triangles, it'd be entirely correct.skurai wrote:Question:
I am a begginer when it comes to syntax, so I was wondering if this is right?
Also, the correct sentence is "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"; if you don't use "jumps" there's no "s" in the sentence.
"An it harm none, do what thou wilt."
- Miekko
- Avisaru
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
- Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
- Contact:
At my current level of understanding, I'd be inclined to believe that the tense actually is outside the VP, and therefore is an AUX. However, orthodox X-bar would require the AUX to form it's own phrase around the VP, a phrase often called the TP (TAM-Phrase).Echobeats wrote:There is if you're an X-bar-ist. It's just that it moves down to V and suffixes itself to the verb (affix lowering).finlay wrote:The "Aux" shouldn't be in there. There is no auxiliary for this.
So, there should be a branch [S [NP ...] [TP [T' [T AUX]] [VP ...]
That is only under extended X-bar theory, though.
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".
Actually, TP would be where S is. In X-bar theory, S was replaced by IP was replaced by TP.Miekko wrote:At my current level of understanding, I'd be inclined to believe that the tense actually is outside the VP, and therefore is an AUX. However, orthodox X-bar would require the AUX to form it's own phrase around the VP, a phrase often called the TP (TAM-Phrase).Echobeats wrote:There is if you're an X-bar-ist. It's just that it moves down to V and suffixes itself to the verb (affix lowering).finlay wrote:The "Aux" shouldn't be in there. There is no auxiliary for this.
So, there should be a branch [S [NP ...] [TP [T' [T AUX]] [VP ...]
That is only under extended X-bar theory, though.
Tim.
[i]Linguistics will become a science when linguists begin standing on one another's shoulders instead of on one another's toes.[/i]
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
- Miekko
- Avisaru
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
- Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
- Contact:
I quite distinctly remember - and I have the notes to back it, at least - that I've been taught that TP does enclose the VP, but not the subject. OTOH, I can see a case be made for TP being further out, so ...
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".
Subjects are generated in Spec-VP, and in many languages raises to Spec-TP. When it doesn't, you get VSO word order (if you have V-to-T raising).Miekko wrote:I quite distinctly remember - and I have the notes to back it, at least - that I've been taught that TP does enclose the VP, but not the subject. OTOH, I can see a case be made for TP being further out, so ...
They don't cross. But you are allowed to move things around, if the movement is motivated.Salmoneus wrote:If you can't cross lines, what do you do when the lines cross?
Tim.
[i]Linguistics will become a science when linguists begin standing on one another's shoulders instead of on one another's toes.[/i]
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
Okay, I'm a bit confused now. In the particular Chomskyan system I'm somewhat familiar with (Government and Binding, Haegeman), you would have an IP (inflectional phrase) with the PAST in specifier-position. So is this TAM-phrase (Tense/Aspect/Mood) more or less equivalent?
And, if we step outside strict, binary X-bar for a while, then we could say that the PAST is actually at the AUX. Correct?
My problem with most of the traditional approaches to syntax I know of (granted: not that many) is that they ignore the fact that the information is coming in incrementally, rather than in whole sentences. That may well be due to the fact that I'm mostly interested in psycholinguistic stuff.
To be fair, some people have tried to apply the Chomskyan framework to actual processing. However, concepts like late closure and minimal attachment don't actually seem to be all that important in parsing. Also, it seems that semantic factors can play an early role in parsing, rather than it being based purely on some syntactic rules of thumb.
I will keep following this thread (as well as the very interesting cognitive linguistics thread); your work is appreciated .
And, if we step outside strict, binary X-bar for a while, then we could say that the PAST is actually at the AUX. Correct?
My problem with most of the traditional approaches to syntax I know of (granted: not that many) is that they ignore the fact that the information is coming in incrementally, rather than in whole sentences. That may well be due to the fact that I'm mostly interested in psycholinguistic stuff.
To be fair, some people have tried to apply the Chomskyan framework to actual processing. However, concepts like late closure and minimal attachment don't actually seem to be all that important in parsing. Also, it seems that semantic factors can play an early role in parsing, rather than it being based purely on some syntactic rules of thumb.
I will keep following this thread (as well as the very interesting cognitive linguistics thread); your work is appreciated .
No they don't. Are you familiar with the term "to be garden-pathed"? If not, I'll explain.Junes wrote:My problem with most of the traditional approaches to syntax I know of (granted: not that many) is that they ignore the fact that the information is coming in incrementally, rather than in whole sentences.
[i]Linguistics will become a science when linguists begin standing on one another's shoulders instead of on one another's toes.[/i]
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
But what about when they DO cross? Surely you can't claim that they actually used a different sentence just to avoid having evidence that conflicts with the arbitrary 'straight lines are good' theory of linguistics?
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Lines aren't present in people's speech. They're drawn by syntacticians. "You can't draw lines that cross" is one of the constraints of the theory.Salmoneus wrote:But what about when they DO cross? Surely you can't claim that they actually used a different sentence just to avoid having evidence that conflicts with the arbitrary 'straight lines are good' theory of linguistics?
[i]Linguistics will become a science when linguists begin standing on one another's shoulders instead of on one another's toes.[/i]
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
Yeah, I am. Okay, maybe that was a bit overstated. Of course, research has been done on parsing. That's not the point. However, I think that at least in early Chomskyan linguistic analysis, human performance was not the basis for the theory. The theory was developed on the basis of the analysis of whole sentences, and then it was applied to parsing. For instance, in trying to find evidence for transformations. Not necessarily wrong, of course, given the absence of empirical data at the time.Echobeats wrote:No they don't. Are you familiar with the term "to be garden-pathed"? If not, I'll explain.Junes wrote:My problem with most of the traditional approaches to syntax I know of (granted: not that many) is that they ignore the fact that the information is coming in incrementally, rather than in whole sentences.
I'm familiar with parsing models like the garden path model but I don't know to what amount they (or the empirical evidence) influence mainstream syntactic theory in linguistics (rather than psycholinguistics). Perhaps more than I thought?
My syntax teacher finally taught us trees yesterday.
She does weird things with various phrases like instead of using just NPs she'll use "DPs", for "determiner phrases", which dominate NPs... I challenged her about it yesterday and she said that it was the "correct" way and that some guy had written about it in 1987 or something, and collected evidence... apparently... such as how you can shorten "those pictures" to "those"...
I still think she's wrong; just wondering what your thoughts on this are...
She does weird things with various phrases like instead of using just NPs she'll use "DPs", for "determiner phrases", which dominate NPs... I challenged her about it yesterday and she said that it was the "correct" way and that some guy had written about it in 1987 or something, and collected evidence... apparently... such as how you can shorten "those pictures" to "those"...
I still think she's wrong; just wondering what your thoughts on this are...
- Miekko
- Avisaru
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
- Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
- Contact:
That is the variety I've been taught, and I agree with it.finlay wrote:My syntax teacher finally taught us trees yesterday.
She does weird things with various phrases like instead of using just NPs she'll use "DPs", for "determiner phrases", which dominate NPs... I challenged her about it yesterday and she said that it was the "correct" way and that some guy had written about it in 1987 or something, and collected evidence... apparently... such as how you can shorten "those pictures" to "those"...
I still think she's wrong; just wondering what your thoughts on this are...
The same variety has CPs (complementizer phrases) to dominate the entire clause, and TPs to dominate the VP.
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".
Even above main clauses?Miekko wrote:That is the variety I've been taught, and I agree with it.finlay wrote:My syntax teacher finally taught us trees yesterday.
She does weird things with various phrases like instead of using just NPs she'll use "DPs", for "determiner phrases", which dominate NPs... I challenged her about it yesterday and she said that it was the "correct" way and that some guy had written about it in 1987 or something, and collected evidence... apparently... such as how you can shorten "those pictures" to "those"...
I still think she's wrong; just wondering what your thoughts on this are...
The same variety has CPs (complementizer phrases) to dominate the entire clause, and TPs to dominate the VP.
I haven't yet got round to asking why Ds are no longer put in Spec-NP, but apparently there's some justification along the lines that Ds allow NPs to refer to things in the world as opposed to concepts. Hence the difference between "I shot the boar" and "I had boar for lunch". Though that still doesn't sound terribly convincing to me ? I may have got the details wrong. Or it may just be a weak theory, but I'm more inclined to think the former.
Please remind me to ask that ? I have a syntax supervision on Monday.
Yours, Tim.
[i]Linguistics will become a science when linguists begin standing on one another's shoulders instead of on one another's toes.[/i]
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
—Stephen R. Anderson
[i]Málin eru höfuðeinkenni þjóðanna.[/i]
—Séra Tómas Sæmundsson
Hmm.... yeah, I'm still not convinced. But fair enough...Miekko wrote:That is the variety I've been taught, and I agree with it.finlay wrote:My syntax teacher finally taught us trees yesterday.
She does weird things with various phrases like instead of using just NPs she'll use "DPs", for "determiner phrases", which dominate NPs... I challenged her about it yesterday and she said that it was the "correct" way and that some guy had written about it in 1987 or something, and collected evidence... apparently... such as how you can shorten "those pictures" to "those"...
I still think she's wrong; just wondering what your thoughts on this are...
The same variety has CPs (complementizer phrases) to dominate the entire clause, and TPs to dominate the VP.
Part of it is of course that I've read several different descriptions of syntax and/or linguistics over the years, especially on the ZBB, before I came here, and not one of them has mentioned these DPs. In fact the photocopied notes from textbooks that we get given use NP for everything....
And then the other thing that got to me was that "John" is supposed to be a full DP instead of a straight NP, with ? for a D, which just makes no sense. (type in [DP [D ?] [NP John]] to the tree maker)
Could someone post a link to a site that explains all the basic terminology - such as what a complementizer is - so that people with non-linguistics degree backgrounds can get the most out of it?
- "But this can be stopped."
- "No, I came all this way to show you this because nothing can be done. Because I like the way your pupils dilate in the presence of total planetary Armageddon.
Yes, it can be stopped."
- "No, I came all this way to show you this because nothing can be done. Because I like the way your pupils dilate in the presence of total planetary Armageddon.
Yes, it can be stopped."
- Miekko
- Avisaru
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:43 am
- Location: the turing machine doesn't stop here any more
- Contact:
I haven't found any such site; however, for now, knowing that a complementizer is a particle (or whatever) that introduces a clause or a subclause should be enough.Tengado wrote:Could someone post a link to a site that explains all the basic terminology - such as what a complementizer is - so that people with non-linguistics degree backgrounds can get the most out of it?
Some words we should explain:
mother node
A node in the tree that is above other nodes.
daughter node
a node that is below a mother node
sister node
a daughter node of the same mother node as another node.
these I should look up some more formal definitions of:
c-command
domination
< Cev> My people we use cars. I come from a very proud car culture-- every part of the car is used, nothing goes to waste. When my people first saw the car, generations ago, we called it šuŋka wakaŋ-- meaning "automated mobile".