DOCSLIB.ORG

The Syntax of Hungarian Auxiliaries: a Dependency Grammar Account

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Syntax of Hungarian Auxiliaries: a Dependency Grammar Account The syntax of Hungarian auxiliaries: a dependency grammar account András Imrényi Jagiellonian University, Cracow Chair of Hungarian Philology Poland [email protected] (2009). In particular, it will be proposed that Abstract while utazni acts as the governor of el (licens- ing its appearance), the latter element takes the This paper addresses a hot topic of Hunga- auxiliary as its head (a case of rising). Formal rian syntactic research, viz. the treatment of evidence in favour of the account will come “discontinuous” constructions involving from ellipsis, coordination, prosodic structure, auxiliaries. The case is made for a projective and the placement of adverbs. dependency grammar (DG) account built on Secondly, with the above syntactic analysis the notions of rising and catenae (Groß and Osborne, 2009). Additionally, the semantic in mind, I will turn to the issue whether the basis of the dependency created by rising is dependency created by rising has any asso- described with a view to analogy and con- ciated meaning or function. It will be argued structional meaning. that it does, but in a way which crucially in- volves aspects of (clausal) constructional se- 1 Introduction mantics. The paper is concerned with a syntactic con- The topic of this paper is the word order pat- struction rather than the word class of auxilia- tern illustrated below. ries. It has to be mentioned, though, that both (1) János el fog utazni Párizsba. traditional (Lengyel 2000) and generative ap- John away will.3SG travel Paris.to proaches (Kenesei 2008) to Hungarian tend to ‘John will travel to Paris.’ narrow down the group to a few elements (in- cluding fog ‘will’ but excluding akar ‘want’, (2) Részt akar venni a kiállításon. for example). I side with Kálmán C. et al. part. ACC wants take the exhibition.on (1989), however, who identify Hungarian aux- ‘He/she wants to take part in the exhibition’ iliaries on the basis of syntactic and prosodic Both examples include a discontinuity, with behaviour; roughly, appearance in the kind of the auxiliaries fog ‘will.3 SG ’ and akar ‘wants’ construction illustrated in (1) and (2) above. I intervening between two parts of the complex regard verbs which participate in this construc- verbs elutazni ‘to travel away’ and részt venni tion (in other words, which are collexemes of it ‘to take part’, respectively. Under the standard in terms of Stefanowitsch and Gries, 2003) as assumption that the finite auxiliaries are the auxiliaries, when and to the extent that they do roots here, taking lexical verbs as their infini- so. However, this does not prevent them from tival complements, the simplest DG analysis being verbs, i.e. “auxiliary” is not viewed here incurs a projectivity violation: as a distinct (let alone closed) word class of Hungarian. (3) fog In section 2, I will present the relevant data, János utazni and make three observations against which the el Párizsba analyses will be matched. Section 3 compares four syntactic accounts, two each from the tra- János el fog utazni Párizsba ditions of phrase structure grammar and de- The goals of the paper are twofold. pendency grammar. Section 4 addresses the Firstly, I will compare possible analyses of relationship between rising and constructional the construction, and argue for a projective DG meaning. Finally, summary and conclusions account along the lines of Groß and Osborne follow in section 5. 118 Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (DepLing 2013), pages 118–127, Prague, August 27–30, 2013. c 2013 Charles University in Prague, Matfyzpress, Prague, Czech Republic 2 Data and observations verb with the base verb” (Kiefer 2003: 17). Thirdly, it can be added that the VM + verb In this section, I make three observations about sequence tends to behave as a single phonolog- the construction, which will serve as a basis for ical word, with the word-initial stress of Hun- evaluating analyses in section 3. These obser- garian falling on the first syllable of the unit. vations are highlighted below for convenience. VM s come in two subgroups, illustrated by 1. There is a syntactic relationship between the expressions in (4) and (5). the verb modifier ( VM , e.g. el, részt ) ap- (4) a. moziba megy pearing to the left of the root auxiliary cinema.to goes and the infinitive (e.g. utazni, venni , ‘[he/she] goes to cinema’ with the -ni infinitive suffix) on its right. b. újságot olvas 2. There is also a syntactic relationship be- newspaper. ACC reads tween the VM (e.g. el, részt ) and the root ‘[he/she] reads newspaper’ / ‘[he/she] auxiliary (e.g. fog, akar ). is engaged in newspaper-reading’ 3. The three elements (i.e. the VM , the root (5) a. ki-megy auxiliary and the infinitive) form a out-goes grammatical unit, which, however, is ‘[he/she] goes out’ subject to word order variation. b. el-olvas away-reads 2.1 The link between VM and infinitive ‘[he/she] reads [to the end]’ The first, rather trivial observation is that in patterns like el fog utazni ‘he/she will travel Whereas the VM s of the complex verbs listed away’ and részt akar venni ‘he/she wants to in (4) satisfy an argument of the base verb, so- take part’, there is a syntactic relationship be- called verbal particles such as el ‘away’, be tween the first and the third element. This rela- ‘in’ and ki ‘out’ fail to do so (cf. Kiefer ibid.). tionship is one of licensing: the so-called verb Nevertheless, there is considerable agreement VM modifiers ( el ‘away’, részt ‘part. ACC ’) could in the literature that the two types of s are not occur in these structures were it not for the amenable to essentially the same syntactic lexical verbs appearing in an infinitive form. analysis, cf. the analogous examples in (6). The two elements form a semantic unit with (6) a. moziba fog menni a higher or lower level of compositionality (cf. ‘[he/she] will go to cinema’ the oft-cited example berúg ‘get drunk’, where b. újságot akar olvasni the VM be literally means ‘in’, and rúg literally means ‘kick’). In addition, it is noteworthy that ‘[he/she] wants to read newspaper’ there is often a morphological dependency be- c. ki fog menni tween the two elements: for example, the -t ‘[he/she] will go out’ accusative suffix of részt ‘part. ACC ’ is as- d. el akarja olvasni signed by venni ‘to take.’ While morphological away wants. DEF .OBJ read dependencies are considered separable in prin- ‘[he/she] wants to read it’ ciple from syntactic ones (cf. Mel’čuk 1988), there is a clear tendency for such dependencies In conclusion, it would be hard to deny that to hold between elements which are also syn- there is a relationship between VM s and infini- tactically related. tives in the construction under study. The link In Hungarian linguistics, the term “verb is evident at several levels of analysis includ- modifier” 1 (also known as “preverb”) denotes ing the lexicon, morphology, syntax and se- a category of elements with the following mantics. From a syntactic perspective, the rela- properties: “(i) they occupy the position im- tionship can be defined as licensing, a point mediately preceding the verb,2 and (ii) in the that will be taken up later in section 3. typical case they form semantically a complex 2.2 The link between VM and auxiliary 1 As a reviewer points out, the term may be misleading as Less immediately apparent is the fact that there VM s are not in fact modifiers (in the sense of being ad- VM juncts). However, I still adopt it, following standard prac- is also a syntactic relationship between the tice in Hungarian grammar (cf. É. Kiss, 2002: 67). and the root auxiliary. Although the two ele- 2 At least in so-called neutral clauses, cf. section 2.3 . 119 ments are adjacent, adjacency alone is clearly the root auxiliary form a tightly integrated unit. insufficient to establish the link as syntactical- For example, the epistemic adverb talán ‘per- ly significant. For instance, in this obviously haps’ cannot occur between the VM and the contrived example , this and obviously have auxiliary (8a), only between the auxiliary and little to do with one another. the infinitive (8b) or externally to the VM + However, the following data strongly sug- auxiliary + infinitive pattern (8c, 8d). gest that the VM and the root auxiliary are (8) a. *János el talán fog utazni Párizsba. more intimately related. b. János el fog talán utazni Párizsba. (7) A: János el fog utazni Párizsba? John away will.3SG travel Paris.to c. János talán el fog utazni Párizsba. ‘Will John travel to Paris?’ d. János el fog utazni talán Párizsba. B: Igen, el fog. ‘John will perhaps travel to Paris.’ yes away will.3SG Finally, the following coordination pattern also ‘Yes, he will.’ suggests the existence of a direct link between In speaker B’s utterance, the VM and the root the VM and the auxiliary. Coordinating el akar auxiliary together form a well-formed clause. and el is fog (where is means ‘also’) would This would hardly be possible in the absence hardly be possible if VM + auxiliary sequences of a direct syntactic relationship (more specifi- were not grammatical units. 3 cally, a dependency) between them. In partic- (9) J. el akar és el is fog utazni Párizsba. ular, the analysis in (3) is rendered unlikely, J. away wants and away also will travel Paris.to since it implies the possibility of eliding an ‘John wants to, and also will, travel to Paris.’ intermediate element (utazni ‘travel’) while preserving the phonological content of ele- All in all, ellipsis and coordination facts, pros- ments both above and below it in the tree.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interpreting and Defining Connections in Dependency Structures Sylvain Kahane
    Interpreting and defining connections in dependency structures Sylvain Kahane To cite this version: Sylvain Kahane. Interpreting and defining connections in dependency structures. 5th international conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling), Aug 2019, Paris, France. hal-02291673 HAL Id: hal-02291673 https://hal.parisnanterre.fr//hal-02291673 Submitted on 19 Sep 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Interpreting and defining connections in dependency structures Sylvain Kahane Modyco, Université Paris Nanterre & CNRS [email protected] Abstract This paper highlights the advantages of not interpreting connections in a dependency tree as combina- tions between words but of interpreting them more broadly as sets of combinations between catenae. One of the most important outcomes is the possibility of associating a connection structure to any set of combinations assuming some well-formedness properties and of providing a new way to define de- pendency trees and other kinds of dependency structures, which are not trees but “bubble graphs”. The status of catenae of dependency trees as syntactic units is discussed. 1 Introduction The objective of this article is twofold: first, to show that dependencies in a dependency tree or a similar structure should not generally be interpreted only as combinations between words; second, to show that a broader interpreta- tion of connections has various advantages: It makes it easier to define the dependency structure and to better under- stand the link between different representations of the syntactic structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Observations on the Hebrew Desiderative Construction – a Dependency-Based Account in Terms of Catenae1
    Thomas Groß Some Observations on the Hebrew Desiderative Construction – A Dependency-Based Account in Terms of Catenae1 Abstract The Modern Hebrew (MH) desiderative construction must obey four conditions: 1. A subordinate clause headed by the clitic še= ‘that’ must be present. 2. The verb in the subordinate clause must be marked with future tense. 3. The grammatical properties genus, number, and person tend to be specified, i.e. if the future tense affix is underspecified, material tends to appear that aids specification, if contextual recovery is unavailable. 4. The units of form that make up the constructional meaning of the desiderative must qualify as a catena. A catena is a dependency-based unit of form, the parts of which are immediately continuous in the vertical dimension. The description of the individual parts of the desiderative must address trans-, pre-, and suffixes, and cliticization. Catena-based morphology is representational, monostratal, dependency-, construction-, and piece-based. 1. Purpose, means and claims The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the Hebrew desiderative construction. This construction is linguistically interesting and challenging for a number of reasons. 1. It is a periphrastic construction, with fairly transparent compositionality. 2. It is transclausal, i.e. some parts of the construction reside in the main clause, and others in the subordinated clause. The complementizer is also part of the construction. 3. The construction consists of more than one word, but it does not qualify as a constituent. Rather the construction cuts into words. 4. Two theoretically 1 I want to thank Outi Bat-El (Tel Aviv University) and three anonymous reviewers for their help and advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Clitics in Dependency Morphology
    Clitics in Dependency Morphology Thomas Groß Aichi University, Nagoya, Japan [email protected] tured in much the same fashion as sentences was Abstract proposed first in Williams (1981), and further discussed in the famous “head-debate” between Clitics are challenging for many theories of grammar Zwicky (1985a) and Hudson (1987). In contem- because they straddle syntax and morphology. In most porary morphological theories that attempt to theories, cliticization is considered a phrasal pheno- inform syntax (predominantly within the genera- menon: clitics are affix-like expressions that attach to tive framework) such as Di Sciullo (2005) and whole phrases. Constituency-based grammars in par- the theory of Distributed Morphology (Halle and ticular struggle with the exact constituent structure of such expressions. This paper proposes a solution Marantz 1993, Embick and Noyer 2001, 2007, based on catena-based dependency morphology. This Harley and Noyer 2003, Embick 2003), words theory is an extension of catena-based dependency are now seen as hierarchically structured items. syntax. Following Authors et.al. (in press), a word or Seen in the light of this development, it is time a combination of words in syntax that are continuous for dependency grammar (DG) to make up for its with respect to dominance form a catena. Likewise, a neglect of morphological matters. The assess- morph or a combination of morphs that is continuous ment by Harnisch (2003) that the development of with respect to dominance form a morph catena. Em- a dependency-based morphology requires imme- ploying the concept of morph catena together with a diate attention is accurate.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting and Defining Connections in Dependency Structures
    Interpreting and defining connections in dependency structures Sylvain Kahane Modyco, Université Paris Nanterre & CNRS [email protected] Abstract This paper highlights the advantages of not interpreting connections in a dependency tree as combina- tions between words but of interpreting them more broadly as sets of combinations between catenae. One of the most important outcomes is the possibility of associating a connection structure to any set of combinations assuming some well-formedness properties and of providing a new way to define de- pendency trees and other kinds of dependency structures, which are not trees but “bubble graphs”. The status of catenae of dependency trees as syntactic units is discussed. 1 Introduction The objective of this article is twofold: first, to show that dependencies in a dependency tree or a similar structure should not generally be interpreted only as combinations between words; second, to show that a broader interpreta- tion of connections has various advantages: It makes it easier to define the dependency structure and to better under- stand the link between different representations of the syntactic structure. We will focus on the possible syntactic combinations (what combines with what), without considering the fact that combinations are generally asymmetric, linking a governor to a dependent. We use the term connection to denote a dependency without the governor-depen- dency hierarchy. Section 2 presents the notions of combination and connection, which are based on the notion of catena (Osborne et al. 2012). The properties of the set of catenae are studied and used to define an equivalence relation on the set of combinations, which is used to define the connections.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Dependencies (And Constituents)
    Gerdes K., Kahane S. (2013) Defining dependency (and constituency), in K. Gerdes, E. Hajičová, L. Wanner (éds.), Computational Dependency Linguistics, IOS Press. Defining dependencies (and constituents) a b Kim GERDES and Sylvain KAHANE a LPP, Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris b Modyco, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre Abstract. The paper proposes a mathematical method of defining dependency and constituency provided linguistic criteria to characterize the acceptable fragments of an utterance have been put forward. The method can be used to define syntactic structures of sentences, as well as discourse structures for texts, or even morphematic structures for words. Our methodology leads us to put forward the notion of connection, simpler than dependency, and to propose various representations which are not necessarily trees. We also study criteria to refine and hierarchize a connection structure in order to obtain a tree. Keywords. Connection graph, dependency tree, phrase structure, syntactic representation, syntactic unit, catena Introduction Syntacticians generally agree on the hierarchical structure of syntactic representations. Two types of structures are commonly considered: Constituent structures and dependency structures (or mixed forms of both, like headed constituent structures, sometimes even with functional labeling, see for example Tesnière’s nucleus [34], Kahane’s bubble trees [21], or the Negra corpus’ trees [6]). However, these structures are often rather purely intuition- based than well-defined and linguistically motivated, a point that we will illustrate with some examples. Even the basic assumptions concerning the underlying mathematical structure of the considered objects (ordered constituent tree, unordered dependency tree) are rarely motivated (why should syntactic structures be trees to begin with?). In this paper, we propose a definition of syntactic structures that supersedes constituency and dependency, based on a minimal axiom: If an utterance can be separated into two fragments, we suppose the existence of a connection between these two parts.
    [Show full text]
  • Catena Operations for Unified Dependency Analysis
    Catena Operations for Unified Dependency Analysis Kiril Simov and Petya Osenova Linguistic Modeling Department Institute of Information and Communication Technologies Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Bulgaria {kivs,petya}@bultreebank.org Abstract to its syntactic analysis. On the other hand, a uni- fied strategy of dependency analysis is proposed The notion of catena was introduced origi- via extending the catena to handle also phenomena nally to represent the syntactic structure of as valency and other combinatorial dependencies. multiword expressions with idiosyncratic Thus, a two-fold analysis is achieved: handling the semantics and non-constituent structure. lexicon-grammar relation and arriving at a single Later on, several other phenomena (such means for analyzing related phenomena. as ellipsis, verbal complexes, etc.) were The paper is structured as follows: the next formalized as catenae. This naturally led section outlines some previous work on catenae; to the suggestion that a catena can be con- section 3 focuses on the formal definition of the sidered a basic unit of syntax. In this paper catena and of catena-based lexical entries; sec- we present a formalization of catenae and tion 4 presents different lexical entries that demon- the main operations over them for mod- strate the expressive power of the catena formal- elling the combinatorial potential of units ism; section 5 concludes the paper. in dependency grammar. 2 Previous Work on Catenae 1 Introduction The notion of catena (chain) was introduced in Catenae were introduced initially to handle lin- (O’Grady, 1998) as a mechanism for representing guistic expressions with non-constituent structure the syntactic structure of idioms.
    [Show full text]
  • Catena Operations for Unified Dependency Analysis
    Catena Operations for Unified Dependency Analysis Kiril Simov and Petya Osenova Linguistic Modeling Department Institute of Information and Communication Technologies Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Bulgaria {kivs,petya}@bultreebank.org Abstract to its syntactic analysis. On the other hand, a uni- fied strategy of dependency analysis is proposed The notion of catena was introduced origi- via extending the catena to handle also phenomena nally to represent the syntactic structure of as valency and other combinatorial dependencies. multiword expressions with idiosyncratic Thus, a two-fold analysis is achieved: handling the semantics and non-constituent structure. lexicon-grammar relation and arriving at a single Later on, several other phenomena (such means for analyzing related phenomena. as ellipsis, verbal complexes, etc.) were The paper is structured as follows: the next formalized as catenae. This naturally led section outlines some previous work on catenae; to the suggestion that a catena can be con- section 3 focuses on the formal definition of the sidered a basic unit of syntax. In this paper catena and of catena-based lexical entries; sec- we present a formalization of catenae and tion 4 presents different lexical entries that demon- the main operations over them for mod- strate the expressive power of the catena formal- elling the combinatorial potential of units ism; section 5 concludes the paper. in dependency grammar. 2 Previous Work on Catenae 1 Introduction The notion of catena (chain) was introduced in Catenae were introduced initially to handle lin- (O’Grady, 1998) as a mechanism for representing guistic expressions with non-constituent structure the syntactic structure of idioms.
    [Show full text]
  • Transformational Grammarians and Other Paradoxes Abstract Keywords
    Barcelona, 8-9 September 2011 Transformational Grammarians and other Paradoxes Thomas Groß Aichi University 1 Machihata-cho 1-1, Toyohashi-shi, Aichi-ken, Japan [email protected] Abstract This paper argues that morphs can/should be granted node status in tree structures. Most theories of morphology do not do this. For instance, word-based morphologies (Anderson 1992 and others) see inflectional affixes appearing post-syntactically, producing a specific word form based on paradigmatic rules. On the other hand, derivational affixes attach prior to syntax. So-called “bracketing paradoxes” (Williams 1981, Pesetsky 1985, Spencer 1988, Sproat 1988, Beard 1991, Stump 1991) such as transformational grammarian concern primarily derivational affixes (here: -ian). If a theory can avoid bracketing (or structural) paradoxes by maintaining an entirely surface-based account, then this theory should be preferred over competing theories that posit different levels or strata in order to explain the same phenomenon. This contribution demonstrates that such a surface-based account is possible if the catena is acknowledged. The catena is a novel unit of syntax and morphosyntax that exists solely in the vertical dominance dimension. Keywords Bracketing paradox, catena, morph catena 1 Introduction (Williams 1981:219f) is credited with introducing “bracketing paradoxes” to theoretical linguistics. He puts forth examples such as the following: (1) a. hydroelectricity (2) a. Gödel numbering (3) a. atomic scientist For example (1a) Williams posits the next structure: (1) b. [hydro-[electric-ity]] The problem with (1b), Williams realizes, is that the structure cannot provide the adjective hydroelectric because the prefix and the root do not appear within a bracket that excludes the suffix.
    [Show full text]
  • A Lexical Theory of Phrasal Idioms
    A Lexical Theory of Phrasal Idioms Paul Kay Ivan A. Sag U.C. Berkeley & Stanford University Stanford University Dan Flickinger Stanford University Abstract This paper presents a theory of syntactically flexible phrasal idioms that explains the properties of such phrases, e.g. keep tabs on, spill the beans, in terms of general combinatoric restrictions on the individual idiomatic words (more precisely, the lexemes) that they contain, e.g. keep, tabs, on. Our lexi- cal approach, taken together with a construction-based grammar, provides a natural account of the different classes of English idioms and of the idiosyn- crasies distinguishing among particular phrasal idioms. 1 Introduction Among the most important desiderata for a theory of idioms, also known as multi- word expressions (MWEs), are the following four. First, idioms divide into classes whose distinct properties, described below, need to be theoretically accommo- dated. Second, the theory should get the semantics right. It should, for example, represent the fact that (1a) and (1b) have roughly the same meaning, which can be glossed as (1c):1 0We would like to thank Frank Richter, Manfred Sailer, and Thomas Wasow for discussion of some of the issues raised here, Stephen Wechsler for comments on an earlier draft, and especially Stefan Muller¨ for detailed comments and extensive discussion. We are also indebted for highly pertinent comments to two anonymous referees for the Journal of Linguistics. None are to be blamed for the good advice we have failed to accept. 1All unstarred examples in this paper were attested on the web at the time of drafting, unless otherwise noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Catenae in Morphology
    Catenae in Morphology Thomas Groß Aichi University, Nagoya, Japan [email protected] takes the backseat with just 8 pages. Valency Abstract theory is characterized by putting valency- bearing lexical items at center stage. Assuming This paper argues for a renewed attempt at morpholo- that non-lexical material is somehow subsumed gy in dependency grammar. The proposal made here by lexical material seems on a logical trajectory. is based on the concept of the “catena” proposed by But research in typology, foremost Bybee (1985), Authors (in press). The predecessor to this notion was has confirmed that affixes as expressions of va- the “chain” introduced by O‟Grady (1998), and em- lency, voice, aspect, modality, tense, mood, and ployed by Osborne (2005) and Groß and Osborne (2009). In morphology and morphosyntax, a morph person obtain in a specific linear order (or hie- catena is A MORPH OR A COMBINATION OF MORPHS rarchy), and developments in generative gram- THAT IS CONTINUOUS WITH RESPECT TO DOMINANCE. mar during the 1980‟s emphasized the domin- This concept allows for a parsimonious treatment of ance structure of the IP/TP, where such affixes morphology on the surface. The fact that no additional are thought to be located. Similar statements also terms and concepts are necessary for the analysis of concern NP structure: if case or plural is ex- morphological data is highly desirable because it pressed by morphs, then these morphs appear in makes a fluid transition from syntax to morphology peripheral position, an indication that they domi- possible. This paper introduces the relevant depen- nate their nouns.
    [Show full text]
  • Why So Many Nodes? Dan Maxwell US Chess Center Washington DC, USA [email protected]
    Why so many nodes? Dan Maxwell US Chess Center Washington DC, USA [email protected] Abstract relationships include subject and verb, (more This paper provides an analysis of the rarely) object and verb, noun and adjective, representation of various grammatical phenomena and noun and determiner. Highly inflected in both constituency structure and dependency languages like Russian have all of these kinds structure (hereafter c-structure and d-structure), of agreement. English has only two of them including agreement, case marking, and word order (and then only to a limited extent). So-called in transitive sentences, as well as three theoretical isolating languages like Vietnamese do not constructs, and the interface between the form of a sentence and its meaning. There is a crucial show agreement at all. The agreement can be structural relationship for all of these phenomena in in person, number, gender, and (for case- both constituency grammar and dependency inflecting languages only) case. grammar, but only the version used in dependency English has agreement between the subject grammar is fully reliable. This insight evokes the and the verb in the third person singular of the following question: Why do linguists working with present tense, as shown by the contrast constituency grammars think that so many nodes between (1a) on the one hand and (1b) and (1c) are necessary? Upon examination, the extra nodes on the other: succeed only in confusing our understanding of syntactic phenomena. (1) a. John walks slowly. 1 Introduction b. John and Sarah walk quickly. c. I walk more quickly than they do.
    [Show full text]
  • Tests for Constituents: What They Really Reveal About the Nature of Syntactic Structure
    http://www.ludjournal.org ISSN: 2329-583x Tests for constituents: What they really reveal about the nature of syntactic structure Timothy Osbornea a Department of Linguistics, Zhejiang University, [email protected]. Paper received: 17 June 2017 DOI: 10.31885/lud.5.1.223 Published online: 10 April 2018 Abstract. Syntax is a central subfield within linguistics and is important for the study of natural languages, since they all have syntax. Theories of syntax can vary drastically, though. They tend to be based on one of two competing principles, on dependency or phrase structure. Surprisingly, the tests for constituents that are widely employed in syntax and linguistics research to demonstrate the manner in which words are grouped together forming higher units of syntactic structure (phrases and clauses) actually support dependency over phrase structure. The tests identify much less sentence structure than phrase structure syntax assumes. The reason this situation is surprising is that phrase structure has been dominant in research on syntax over the past 60 years. This article examines the issue in depth. Dozens of texts were surveyed to determine how tests for constituents are employed and understood. Most of the tests identify phrasal constituents only; they deliver little support for the existence of subphrasal strings as constituents. This situation is consistent with dependency structure, since for dependency, subphrasal strings are not constituents to begin with. Keywords: phrase structure, phrase structure grammar, constituency tests, constituent, dependency grammar, tests for constituents 1. Dependency, phrase structure, and tests for constituents Syntax, a major subfield within linguistics, is of course central to all theories of language.
    [Show full text]