Post on 01-Apr-2015
Syntax
Lecture 2:Categories and Subcategorisation
Recap
• Last week we saw that there is just on general kind of structure, the instances of which differ only in that they have different lexical heads
• Lexical heads have idiosyncratic properties (such as syntactic category) which are projected into the phrase structure
• So phrases differ depending on how lexical heads differ in their syntactic properties
Differences in lexical heads
• So how syntactically different can lexical heads be?
• There are two way heads differ– They have different categories– They differ in what complements they select
How many different categories are there?
• If phrases differ depending on what the category of the head is, but there can be an unlimited number of categories, we don’t have a very restrictive theory
• So is there a restrictive theory of categories?
Observation: we don’t need many categories for description
• Most syntactic descriptions work with a relatively small number of different categories• Noun• Verb• Adjective• Adverb• Preposition• Pronoun
• Determiner• Particle• Subordinator• Coordinator• Auxiliary verb• Degree adverb
• In fact, some of these collapse into single categories
Collapsing categories: pronouns and determiners
• Many determiners work as pronouns– This book was banned This was banned– Some people are sad Some are sad– Few aeroplanes crash Few crash
• Some pronouns work as determiners– We humans– Them rocks (dialectal)– You lot
Collapsing categories: pronouns and determiners
• Those that cannot behave like the others are in complementary distribution with each other:– This map is wrong This is wrong– The map is wrong * The is wrong– * It map is wrong It is wrong
• This suggest they belong to the same category (like transitive and intransitive verbs)
Collapsing categories: subordinators and adverbs
• Some subordinating particles behave exactly like adverbs
• Obviously, he had gone• He, obviously, had gone• He had gone, obviously
• However, he had gone• He, however, had gone• He had gone, however
• They differ only in meaning – subordinating particles link sentences to other sentences
• But this is no reason to give them different syntactic categories
Collapsing categories: subordinators and adverbs
• Some subordinating particles don’t behave like adverbs
• Obviously, he had gone• He, obviously, had gone• He had gone, obviously
• ... that he had gone• * ... he that had gone• * ... he had gone that
• These are clearly of a different category• We call them Complementisers
Collapsing Categories: adverbs and adjectives
• Many adverbs and adjectives have the same root:– obvious: obviously fast: fast great: greatly
• This morphology is more like inflection than derivation– It is productive and semantically uniform• like: smile: smiled walk: walked• not like: give: gift grow: growth wear: ?
Collapsing Categories: adverbs and adjectives
• Adverbs and adjectives are in complementary distribution– Adverbs modify verbs, adjectives modify nouns– So we might see them as different subcategories
of a general category of ‘modifier’
• We refer to this category as A
Conclusion
• So it seems that the number of categories we need to describe language is very small
• Why is that?• Without a theory of categories, we can’t
explain this.
Different categories sometimes have things in common
• Verbs and prepositions take ‘bare’ objects:– visited London saw the man shot him– to London for the man with him
• Nouns and Adjectives take objects with ‘of’:– Picture of Mary growth of the trees– Fond of Mary mindful of the trees
Different categories sometimes have things in common
• Phrases headed by determiners and prepositions can appear in ‘cleft’ position:– It was the map that was wrong– It was on the street that I met him
• Phrases headed by verbs and adjectives cannot:– * it was drive the car that he could– * it was melted that the ice cream was
Different categories sometimes have things in common
• How can we explain these facts if categories are completely unconnected?
A theory of categories
• We know that all categories fall into one of two main types
• Functional• Determiners• Auxiliary verbs• Complementisers• Etc.
• Thematic• Nouns• Verbs• Adjectives/
adverbs• Etc.
A theory of categories
• This suggests a ‘binary feature’ analysis– (like distinctive features in phonology: ±voice,
±long)
• Suppose we assume a feature ±F– Functional categories are +F– Thematic categories are -F
A theory of categories
A theory of categories
• But this still isn’t very restrictive• One way to restrict the system is to assume
that all categories are defined by binary features
• This would also account for similarities between different categories– Distinct categories can share one or more features• (like different phonemes can be +voice)
A theory of categories
• Clearly we need more than one more feature as there are more than four categories needed
• But if we have too many features the number of categories they predict grows:– 1 feature = 2 categories– 2 features = 4 categories– 3 features = 8 categories– 4 features = 16 categories– 10 features = 1024 categories
A theory of categories• Suppose we suggest two extra features:– ±N (things which are ‘nounlike’)– ±V (things which are ‘verblike’)
• Assuming nouns and verbs to be opposites to each other we get:– Noun = [-F, +N, -V]– Verb = [-F, -N, +V]
• This is supported by the fact that nouns and verbs share very little in common
• The system also predicts 6 more possible categories
-F categories
• There are two more –F categories:– [-F, +N, +V]– [-F, -N, -V]
• The first seems appropriate for A– They modify both nouns and verbs– Adjectives are often used as nouns
• The good, the bad and the ugly– In some languages adjectives are used as verbs– Nouns and adjectives don’t take bare objects– Verbs and adjectives can’t appear in cleft position
-F categories
• [-F, -N, -V] seems appropriate for prepositions:– Prepositions have no morphological properties• They can’t be tensed• They can’t be plural
– Like verbs, they take bare objects (both are –N)– Like nouns, they head phrases which can be
clefted (they are both –V)
-F categories
• We predict the following possible categories
• We also predict that there are no other thematic categories
+F categories
• The theory predicts four functional categories• These are the functional equivalents to:– Nouns ([+F, +N, -V])– Verbs ([+F, -N, +V])– A ([+F, +N, +V])– Prepositions ([+F, -N, -V])
The functional noun equivalent
• The most obvious choice is the determiner– This is the functional category which plays a role
in the nominal system
• Determiner = [+F, +N, -V]
The functional verb equivalent
• Similarly, the choice is obvious: the auxiliary– These are functional verbs
• Auxiliary = [+F, -N, +V]
The functional A equivalent
• As determiners precede nouns and auxiliaries precede verbs, the degree adverb precedes adjectives and adverbs:– so tall so quickly– as stupid as accurately– too cold too frequently
• Degree adverbs (Deg) = [+F, +N, +V]
The functional preposition equivalent
• Prepositions introduce nominal arguments• Complementisers introduce clausal arguments• One complementiser is very much like a
preposition in that it appears to be able to be followed by a ‘bare object’– I was anxious [for him to pass the exam]
• Complementisers = [+F, -N, -V]
+F categories
• We predict the following possible categories
• We also predict that there are no other thematic categories
A theory of categories
Subcategories
• The subcategories of a category are determined by what follows them– E.g. Verbs can be transitive (i.e. they are followed
by an object) or intransitive (i.e. they are not followed by an object)
• In other words, subcategories are determined by what appears in the complement position
The complement of functional categories
• The functional categories do not usually have subcategories – they are almost always take the same complements– The complement of an auxiliary verb is always a
VP• may [VP win the race]
– The complement of a complementiser is always a sentence• that [he may win the race]
The complement of functional categories
– The complement of a degree adverb is always an AP• so [AP fond of chocolate]
– The complement of a determiner is usually an NP• The [NP man from Brazil]
– But some determiners can appear without a complement (e.g. pronouns)• him
The complements of thematic categories
• Thematic categories can take various types of complement and so have a number of subcategories
• Verbs can be followed by– A DP see [DP the news]
– A clause think [ that he saw the news]– A PP react [PP to the news]
– An AP feel [AP sorry]
– s
The complements of thematic categories
• Prepositions can have the same range of complements as verbs, except for clauses– DP to [DP the west]
– PP from [PP under the bed]
– AP (range) from [AP heavy] to [AP medium]
The complements of thematic categories
• Nouns can have the same complements as verbs, except for DPs– Clauses belief [that he can fly]– PP reaction [PP to the news]
– AP (his) feeling [AP ill]
The complements of thematic categories
• ‘A’s can take clausal and PP complements– Clause likely [that he will fail]– PP keen [PP on ice hockey]