Ling 290a Fall 2013
Heads 1 Zwiy 1985 (1) “It is reasonable to be suspicious of notions with as chequered a history as ‘head’ on the grounds that it developed in the days before formal theories of syntactic structure were available, as a rather metaphorical and vague way of referring to notions which we may now be able to define more economically and insightful of other, more primitive notions…Worse still, a traditional term may be used to refer to a multiplicity of notions which are more or less closely related to the (vague) traditional concept, but which are in fact independent of each other. Arnold Zwicky has argued that this is in fact what has happened with the term ‘head.”’ (Hudson 1987, p. 109-110)
1.1 Baground (2) Righthand Head Rule (RHR) Williams 1982 “We define the head of a morphologically complex word to be the righthand member of that word.” a. . . b. . . c. . .
.instruct. ion. .re. instruct. .re. . .
.educate. ion. (3) Percolation (e.g. Kiparsky 1982) “All word formation is endocentric…the category of a derived word is always non-distinct from the category of its head, in English usually the rightmost constituent.”
(4) ‘Percolation’ = ‘Head feature convention’ in GPSG, hence, is morphology just like syntax?
(5) Zwicky: a. Is there a single notion of head that unifies syntax and morphology? b. Is there even a single useful notion of head in either?
1.2 Zwiy’s analysis¹ (6) a. e semantic argument e constituent whose meaning has the status of ‘argument’ in relation to some ‘functor.’ b. e determinant of concord e constituent with which some other fellow-constituent must agree. c. e morphosyntactic locus e constituent on which any inflection which are relevant to the mother are located. d. e subcategorizand e constituent which is subcategorized with respect to its sisters, in the familiar sense. e. e governor e constituent which determines the morphosyntactic form of some sister. f. e distributionally equivalent constituent e constituent whose distribution is similar to that of the mother. g. e obligatory constituent e constituent which has to be present if the mother is to be categorized as it is. h. e ruler (of dependency theory) e word on which other words ‘depend.’
(7) e six constructions which Zwicky discusses a. V+NP (control those penguins) b. P+NP (toward those penguins) c. NP+VP (we control those penguins) d. Det+N (those penguins) e. Aux+VP (must control those penguins) f. Comp+S (that we control those penguins) ¹e discussion bellow borrows heavily from Hudson’s summary.
1 of 4 Ling 290a Heads Fall 2013 Jenks
(8) Hudson’s representation of Zwicky’s analysis:
V+NP P+NP NP+VP Det+N Aux+VP Comp+S Semantic functior: (V) (P) (VP) (Det) (Aux) (Comp) (A) Semantic argument * * * * * * (B) Determinant of concord (*) . * * . . (C) Morphosyntactic locus = = = * = * (D) Subcategorizand = . . = . = (E) Governor = = = . = = (F) Distributional equivalent = . . * * * (G) Obligatory = = = * * * (H) Ruler = . . * * =
(9) e discrepancies: a. the row for ‘(A) Semantic argument’ b. the row for ‘(B) Determinant of concord’ c. the column for ‘Det+N’ d. the column for ‘Aux+VP’ e. the column for ‘Comp+S’
(10) Some assumptions…(from Zwicky, p. 10) a. “e most parsimonious solution to the problem of selecting heads in syntax is to employ, if possible, a notion that already figures in the grammar – the semantic argument, the semantic functor, or the morphosyntactic locus.” b. “I take it as a rock-boom, incontestable requirement on the selection of heads for the purposes of this principle that Det+N should belong to an N-type category (that N should be the head) and that V+NP should belong to a V-type category (that V should be its head). But N is the semantic argument in the first case, V the semantic functor in the second.” c. “I would also want to maintain …that for the purposes of the Head Feature Convention NP+VP should belong to a VP-type category, and that Comp+S should belong to an S-type category.” d. “In contrast, the morphosyntactic locus fits these requirements perfectly…the morphosyntactic locus should be identifies as the head in syntactic percolation.”
2 Hudson 1987 “e logic of Zwicky’s argument is impeccable…e doubts arise not from his logic, but from his assumptions about how various types of structure should be analyzed.” (p. 110) 2.1 e problem with arguments (11) Zwicky’s discussion of arguments: (p. 4) “We could take the head/modifier distinction to be at root semantic: in a combination X+Y, X is the ‘semantic head’ if, speaking very crudely, X+Y describes a kind of thing described by X.”
(12) a. control those penguins = a kind of controlling b. we control those penguins = a kind of controlling c. jam sandwich = a kind of sandwich d. those penguins = a kind of penguins
(13) Zwicky suggests “semantic heads are semantic arguments”, i.e., that “semantic arguments” are a formalization of the notion a kind of
(14) What problems does this lead to?
(15) “It is because of the specially close relation between ‘kind o’ and functors that I included the notion ‘semantic functor’ as a ‘head-like’ notion in addition to those which Zwicky gives.”
2.2 Concord (16) a. Zwicky: Concord is determined by the semantic argument.
2 of 4 Ling 290a Heads Fall 2013 Jenks
b. Hudson: One of the two constituents determines concord; this consituent is the one whose features are mean- ingful. c. “If this is so, it can be seen that the direction of concord determination has nothing at all to do with the notion ‘head’, pace Zwicky.” (p. 117).
(17) Hudson’s first revision of Zwicky’s analysis:
V+NP P+NP NP+VP Det+N Aux+VP Comp+S Semantic functior: (V) (P) (VP) (Det) (Aux) (Comp) (C) Morphosyntactic locus = = = * = * (D) Subcategorizand = . . = . = (E) Governor = = = . = = (F) Distributional equivalent = . . * * * (G) Obligatory = = = * * * (H) Ruler = . . * * =
2.3 Auxiliaries and complementizers (18) Distributional equivalents and obligatoriness: Aux+VP a. He *(will) control those penguins. b. He *(is) controlling those penguins. c. Why *(are) you worrying? d. I can swallow goldfish, but you can’t.
(19) Distributional equivalents and obligatoriness: Comp+S a. He thinks (that) we control those penguins. b. He haven’t seen him *(since) we had that argument. c. I don’t know *(what) he did. d. I’ve not seen him since. e. I don’t know what.
(20) “Morphosyntactic locus:” P and C a. I informed her of the argument. b. I told her about the argument. c. I doubt whether/if it’s true. d. *I doubt why it’s true. e. I doubt that it’s true.
2.4 Determiners (21) Zwicky’s observation re. subcategorization a. each penguin/*penguins/*sand b. many *penguin/penguins/sand c. much *penguin/*penguins/sand
“Zwicky’s other claims about Det+N are open to serious doubt.” (p. 122)
(22) Morphosyntactic locus a. Number on D: this/these, few, either, both, etc. b. Pronouns: e government is against us/*we students.
(23) Distributional equivalence a. I know the children/children/*the. b. I know this boy/this/*boy.
3 of 4 Ling 290a Heads Fall 2013 Jenks
2.5 “A Harmonious Analysis” (24) Hudson’s revision of Zwicky’s analysis: “the six genuinely head-like categories”
V+NP P+NP NP+VP Det+N Aux+VP Comp+S Semantic functior: (V) (P) (VP) (Det) (Aux) (Comp) (C) Morphosyntactic locus ======(D) Subcategorizand = . . = . = (E) Governor = = = . = . (F) Distributional equivalent = . . = = = (G) Obligatory ======(H) Ruler = . . = = =
3 Syntax and morphology: any hope? - Back to Zwicky
(25) Morphological determinant a. e morphological constituent that intuitively ‘dominates’ its co-constituents and so ‘determines’ the category of the construct. b. In some construct of category Z one of the constituents, of category X, is largely restricted to occurring within constructs of category Z, while its co-constituent, of category Y, occurs in constructs belonging to a number of categories in addition to Z. As a result, Z can be predicted on the basis of X, but not on the basis of Y.
(26) a. -ness = nominal ‘constructs’ b. Adjectives occur in different constructs: (i) bluish (A) (ii) widen (V) (iii) happiness (N)
(27) Syntactic determinant a. (i) e syntactic constituent that intuitively ‘dominates’ its co-constituents and so ‘determines’ the category of the construct. (ii) In some construct of category Z one of the constituents, of category X, is largely restricted to occurring within constructs of category Z, while its co-constituent, of category Y, occurs in constructs belonging to a number of categories in addition to Z. As a result, Z can be predicted on the basis of X, but not on the basis of Y.
(28) Zwicky discovers that “syntactic determinants are semantic functors.”
(29) In light of Hudson’s discussion, we can conclude, contra Zwicky, that there is a coherent notion of head which spans both syntax and morphology, and it can be grounded in independent facts about the grammar.
4 References Hudson, Richard A. 1987. Zwicky on heads. Journal of Linguistics 23:109–132. Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21:1–29.
4 of 4