traditional and modern approaches to syntax
TRANSCRIPT
CONTENT
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………page 3
Introduction……………………………………………………………….....................page 4
Chapter 1. Syntax as opposed to morphology…………………………………………..page 6
Chapter 2. The sentence patterns of language…………………………………………..page 8
2.1. Grammatical or ungrammatical: the grammaticality of sentences…………..page 8
2.2. Ambiguity…………………………………………………………………..page 10
2.3. Grammatical relations………………………………………………………page 11
2.3.1. Grammatical relations in the sentence……………………………………page 13
2.3.2. Theta/θ – Theory. Thematic roles………………………………………...page 13
2.4. Sentence structure (constituent structure)…………………………………..page 16
2.5. Syntactic categories (word classes)………………………………………...page 19
2.6. Phrase structure trees……………………………………………………….page 21
2.7. Phrase structure rules……………………………………………………….page 24
2.8. The lexicon…………………………………………………………………page 28
2.8.1. Lexical insertion………………………………………………………….page 28
2.8.2. Subcategorisation………………………………………………………...page 28
2.9. Sentence relatedness……………………………………………………… page 30
2.9.1. Types of sentence relatedness…………………………………………....page 30
2.9.2. Transformational rules…………………………………………………...page 32
Chapter 3.Some approaches to syntax………………………………………………...page 34
1
3.1. Descriptive grammars………………………………………………….....page 34
3.2. Immediate constituent analysis……………………………………….......page 35
3.3. The post-Bloomfieldian school: structuralist approach………………......page 36
3.4. Deep syntax………………………………………………………………page 36
3.4.1.Tagmemic theory :Tagmemics………………………………......page 36
3.4.2. Scale and category grammar…………………………………....page 37
3.4.3. Systemic grammar………………………………………………page 38
3.4.4. Stratificational grammar………………………………………...page 38
3.4.5.Case grammar……………………………………………………page 38
3.5. Generative transformational grammar……………………………………page 39
3.5.1 Generative grammar……………………………………………..page 39
3.5.2. Transformational grammar……………………………………...page 41
3.6. Functional grammar………………………………………………………page 42
3.7. Other theories……………………………………………………………..page 44
3.7.1 Government theory………………………………………………page 44
3.7.2. Binding theory…………………………………………………..page 46
3.7.3. X-Bar Theory………………………………………………........page 47
CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………………………..page 51
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………........page 53
REZUMAT/SUMMARY………………………………………………………........page 54
2
ABSTRACT
In linguistics, syntax is the study of the principles and rules for constructing sentences
in natural languages.
In my dissertation entitled „Traditional and modern approaches to syntax” I made an
exploration of the English grammar in terms of syntax. It focuses on the interpretation of
some modern theories in syntax, which have came to complete the scientific research of
linguists since the last century. In the first Chapter I explained the relationship between
syntax and morphology as opposite terms.Chapter two deals with the sentence patterns of
language and the aim is to show what syntactic structure is and what the rules that determine
syntactic structures are like and to illustrate the precise way in which success in constructing
tree diagrams for complex sentences requires constant reference to syntactic rules as well as
to the individual words that make up sentences.
The last Chapter deals with the most straightforward treatment of syntax that is
provided by descriptive grammars, other modern approaches to syntax are discussed in the
sections of this chapter, namely, The post- Bloomfieldian school: the Structuralist approach,
Tagmemic theory that is concerned primarily with grammatical analysis, Case Grammar that
is a system of linguistic analysis, focusing on the link between the valence, or number of
subjects, objects, etc., of a verb and the grammatical context it requires; Stratificational
Grammar is a structural framework that aims to provide an account of the structure of
language, the relationship between meaning and speech.
Transformational genarative grammar theory explains this arrangement and
organization of sentences. It means how correct and well-formed sentences are made or
formed and other theories in syntax which define the kinds of relationships possible within a
grammar, the most important being X-bar theory. Others approaches to syntax are
represented by government theory, binding theory.
3
“We know that the grammars that are in fact constructed vary only slightly among
speakers of the same language, despite wide variations not only in intelligence but also in the
conditions under which language is acquired.” (Chomsky 1972, p.79)
INTRODUCTION
The word syntax is used in linguistics with two meanings.
First, it refers to a branch of linguistics (or grammar), which studies the regular
patterns of communicative units, their structure and function.
Second, syntax is the whole of linguistic phenomena that are involved in the building
and use of communicative units.
We may speak of linguistics as a definite field of studies only from the 19th century
on. All linguistic phenomena haven't yet found reflections in modern linguistics, reflections
that would be unequivocal and correspond to reality.
Linguistics comprises several distinct theories, approaches, and points of view. They
all more or less differ from each other. This is especially true for syntax, one of the more
recent branches of linguistics.
In modern syntax, albeit schematically, two main approaches may be distinguished:
traditional syntax and structural (or structuralistic) syntax.
Both main approaches to syntax, the traditional and the structural, continue to develop
further, their theoretical foundations are defined more precisely, and the language material
considered is enlarged. Therefore, for the time being it is not justified to adopt only one of
them and reject the other. There is reason to expect that the achievements of the two
approaches will be united in the future.
Syntax, put simply, is the grammatical arrangement of each element of a sentence. It’s
main concern is ensuring the coherence of your subject, verb and object, as well as the
relationships that tie them together. Involving a logical sequence, it’s the framework from
which you build sentences correctly.
Each word we use in our language has a meaning. When we string words together to
form a sentence, the goal is for the complete statement to relay a specific message. How
4
these words are arranged and presented is usually dictated by syntax. The reader, who looks at
these arranged words, uses syntax to determine what it means as well.
Without the structure of a syntax, there is no point in putting words together to form a
sentence – they wouldn’t make any sense anyway.
5
Chapter 1.Syntax as opposed to morphology
Syntax is a central component of human language. Language has often been
characterized as a systematic correlation between certain types of gestures and meaning, as
represented simplistically in Figure 1.1. For spoken language, the gestures are oral, and for
signed language, they are manual.
GESTURES MEANING
Figure 1.1. Language as a correlation between gestures and meaning
It is not the case that every possible meaning that can be expressed is correlated with a
unique, unanalyzable gesture, be it oral or manual. Rather, each language has a stock of
meaning-bearing elements and different ways of combining them to express different
meanings, and these ways of combining them are themselves meaningful.
The two English sentences:
1. Chris gave the notebook to Dana.
2. Dana gave the notebook to Chris; contain exactly the same meaning-bearing elements,
i.e. words, but they have different meanings because the words are combined
differently in them. These different combinations fall into the realm of syntax; the two
sentences differ not in terms of the words in them but rather in terms of their syntax.
The term ‘syntax’ is from the Ancient Greek syntaxis, a verbal noun which literally means
‘arrangement’ or ‘setting out together’. Traditionally, it refers to the branch of grammar
dealing with the ways in which words, with or without appropriate inflections, are arranged to
show connections of meaning within the sentence. First and foremost, syntax deals with how
sentences are constructed, and users of human languages employ a striking variety of possible
arrangements of the elements in sentences. One of the most obvious yet important ways in
which languages differ is the order of the main elements in a sentence.
In English, for example, the subject comes before the verb and the direct object follows
the verb. In any event there are problems. A function that is fulfilled by a single word in one
case may be fulfilled elsewhere by a succession of words. Thus, where the English use two
words, e.g. I give, some Romance languages do not usually use a subject pronoun (R. dau, It.
do). Also, when referring to an action in the future, English speakers need an additional word
6
to indicate future tense, whereas speakers of some Romance languages do not; the Italian
equivalent of the English three-word phrase I will give is the single word darò.
The study of the formation of words and how they may change their form is called
morphology. These examples illustrate the important relationship between syntax and
morphology: something which may be expressed syntactically in some languages may be
expressed morphologically in others. Syntax and morphology make up what is traditionally
referred to as ‘grammar’; an alternative term for it is morphosyntax, which explicitly
recognizes the important relationship between syntax and morphology. Thus a more complex
picture of the nature of language emerges than that given in Figure 1.1; it is summarized in
Figure 1.2.
GESTURES ARRANGEMENT MEANING
MORPHOLOGY SYNTAX
Figure 1.2. Language as a correlation between gestures and meaning
In terms of Figure 1.2, one could say that syntax makes possible the formulation of
expressions with complex meanings out of elements with simple meanings. One of the
defining features of human language is its unlimited nature; that is, the number of meaningful
expressions that can be produced by users of a human language is potentially infinite, and this
expressive potential comes from the combination of the basic meaningful elements with
syntactic principles. Much of the interest in language in psychology and cognitive science
comes from what the study of the cognitive mechanisms underlying language use and
acquisition can reveal about the human mind.
7
Chapter 2. The sentence patterns of language
„To grammar even kings bow” J.B.Moliere, LES FEMMES SAVANTES,II, 1672 taken
from Fromkin, Victoria & Rodman, Robert. 1998. An Introduction to Language. 6 th Ed, New
York: Thomson Heinle.
Speakers and writers of any human language have many options when they compose
each sentence they utter. English, for example, has been gifted with an enormous variety of
sentence types. At first glance, each different sentence type may appear to mean exactly the
same as every other type in the examples below so that one has the idea that there is an
enormous amount of wasteful redundancy in the language. But that's not true. Each sentence
has its own subtleties of emphasis and meaning.
2.1. Grammatical or ungrammatical : the grammaticality of sentences
A central part of the description of what speakers do is characterizing the
grammatical (or well-formed) sentences of a language and distinguishing them from
ungrammatical or (ill-formed) sentences. Grammatical sentences are those that are in accord
with the rules and principles of the syntax of a particular language, while ungrammatical
sentences violate one or more syntactic rules or principles. For example, The teacher is
reading a book is a grammatical sentence of English, while Teacher the book a reading is
would not be. Ungrammatical sentences are marked with an asterisk, hence *Teacher the book
a reading is. This sentence is ungrammatical because it violates some of the word order rules
for English, that is (i) basic word order in English clauses is subject–verb–object, (ii) articles
like the and a precede the noun they modify, and (iii) auxiliary verbs like is precede the
main verb, in this case reading. It is important to note that these are English-specific
syntactic rules.
Well-formed sentences are those that are in accord with the syntactic rules of the
language; this does not entail that they always make sense semantically.
For example, the sentence the book is reading the teacher is nonsensical in terms of
its meaning, but it violates no syntactic rules or principles of English; indeed, it has exactly
the same syntactic structure as The teacher is reading a book.Hence it is grammatical (well-
formed), despite being semantically odd.
8
What grammaticality is based on: Grammaticality judgements are not idiosyncratic or
capricious but are determined by rules that are shared by the speakers of a language.
Unconscious knowledge of the syntactic rules of grammar permits speakers to make
grammaticality judgements.
The syntactic rules that account for the ability to make these grammaticality judgements
include, in addition to rules of word order, other constraints. For example:
(i) The boy found the ball. (iii) *The boy found quickly.
(ii) *The boy found in the house. (iv) The boy found the ball in the house.
Speakers of English will place an asterisk in front of the second and third sentences.
These two sentences are ungrammatical because the rules specify that found must be followed
directly by a direct object (a noun like ball) but not by an adverb (like in the house or quickly)
Also consider the examples below:
(i) *Ann slept the baby. (ii) Ann slept soundly.
Sentence (i) is ungrammatical because the rules specify that the verb sleep occurs in a
pattern different from find, in that it may be followed solely by an adverb (a word like
soundly) but not by other kinds of phrases (direct objects) such as the baby.
Sentences are not random strings of words. To be a sentence, words must conform to
specific patterns determined by the syntactic rules of the language.
“Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. This is a very interesting sentence, because it
shows that syntax can be separated from semantics—that form can be separated from
meaning. The sentence doesn’t seem to mean anything coherent, but it sounds like an English
sentence.” ( Howard Lasnik, The Human Language: Program One)taken from Fromkin,
Victoria & Rodman, Robert. 1998. An Introduction to Language. 6 th Ed, New York: Thomson
Heinle.
What grammaticality is not based on: The ability to make grammaticality
judgements does not depend on having heard the sentences before. You may never have heard
or read the sentences (i) Enormous crickets in pink socks danced at the prom.
(ii) Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.
9
But your syntactic knowledge tells you that they are grammatical.
Grammaticality judgements do not depend on whether the sentences are meaningful or
not, as shown by the sentences above (i) and (ii). For instance, sentence (ii) doesn’t seem to
mean anything coherent, but it sounds like an English sentence, i.e. although the sentence
does not make much sense, it is syntactically well-formed.
On the other hand, you may understand ungrammatical sequences even though you know
they are not well-formed. To most English speakers the sentence below
*The boy quickly in the house the ball found.
Is interpretable, or understood although those same speakers know that the word order is
irregular. On the other hand, grammatical sentences may be uninterpretable if they include
nonsense strings, that is, words with no agreed-on meaning, as shown by the first two lines of
“Jabberwocky” by Lewis Carroll:
‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves / Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
Such nonsense poetry is amusing because the sentences comply with syntactic rules and
sound like good English.
Nor does grammaticality depend on the truth of sentences – if it did, lying would be
impossible. Untrue sentences can be grammatical, for example, sentences discussing unicorns
can be grammatical, and sentences referring to pregnant fathers can be grammatical.
2.2. Ambiguity
Ambiguity is the property of being ambiguous, where a word, term, notation, sign,
symbol, phrase, sentence, or any other form used for communication, is called ambiguous if it
can be interpreted in more than one way. Ambiguity is different from vagueness, which arises
when the boundaries of meaning are indistinct. Ambiguity is context-dependent: the same
linguistic item (be it a word, phrase, or sentence) may be ambiguous in one context and
unambiguous in another context. For a word, ambiguity typically refers to an unclear choice
between different definitions as may be found in a dictionary. A sentence may be ambiguous
due to different ways of parsing the same sequence of words.
Linguists often distinguish between two types of ambiguities: the grammatical (or
structural) ambiguity of phrases and sentences and the lexical ambiguity of words.
10
Grammatically ambiguous units admit the possibility of more than one structural
interpretation: in new houses and shops, which could be analysed either as (i) new [houses
and shops] (i.e. both are new) or [new houses] and shops (i.e. only the houses are new).
In transformational ambiguity, the alternative semantic representations can be shown only
by relating the ambiguous sentence to different structures. For example, Visiting relatives can
be boring can mean both It is boring to visit relatives and Relatives who visit are boring.
An analysis which demonstrates the ambiguity in a sentence is said to disambiguate the
sentence.
Lexical ambiguity: ambiguity which does not arise from the grammatical analysis of a
sentence, but is due solely to the alternative meanings of an individual lexical item, is referred
to as lexical ambiguity. Lexical ambiguity arises because of polysemy (words having more
than one meaning) or homonymy (words having the same form, but different origins):
e.g. I found the table fascinating (=’object of furniture’ or ‘table of figures’ – cf.
polysemy). Also in: This will make you smart - the two interpretations of this sentence are due
to the two meanings of ‘smart’: ‘clever’ or ‘burning sensation’. I need new glasses might
mean something different to a short-sighted reader and a publican.
In recent semantic discussion, a distinction is sometimes drawn between ‘ambiguity’
and ‘vagueness’: an ambiguous sentence is formulated as having more than one distinct
structure; a vague sentence, on the other hand, permits an unspecifiable range of possible
interpretations. For example, deciding on the implications of a negative sentence such as He
didn’t hit the dog is a matter of vagueness, in this view, in that it is not possible to state
specifically a fixed number of different underlying structures involved in its interpretation
(What did he hit? Did he do something else to the dog?)
2.3. Grammatical relations
As an example of the role that grammatical relations can play in syntactic description,
consider finite verb agreement in English. It is traditionally described as being triggered by
the subject of the sentence. It is exemplified in (2.1).
(2.1) a. The boy knows the answer.
b. The boys know the answers.
11
How does one know that it is the subject NP rather than the direct object NP which
triggers agreement? After all, in (2.1a) both NPs are singular and in (2.1b) both are
plural. The answer can be seen clearly in (2.2).
(2.2) a. The boy knows/*know the answers.
b. The boys know/*knows the answer.
In (2.2a), the subject NP is singular and the direct object NP is plural, and the verb
shows singular rather than plural agreement; similarly in (2.2b), the subject NP is plural and
the direct object is singular, and the verb shows plural rather than singular agreement. Hence
it must be the subject, not the direct object, which triggers agreement. Suppose one were to
say that it is not necessarily the subject which is the trigger but rather the first NP in the
sentence; how would one show that this is not the correct analysis? The crucial examples
which argue against this hypothesis are given
in (2.3).
(2.3) a. Those boys Chris does/*do not like.
a′. That boy the girls do/*does not like.
b. Which teacher do/*does the girls like?
b′. Which students does/*do the teacher like?
In these sentences the verb does not agree with the first NP in the sentence; rather, it
agrees with the subject. When the initial NP is plural and the subject NP singular, as in (2.3a),
(2.3b′), the verb shows singular agreement. Similarly, when the initial NP is singular and the
subject plural, as in (2.3a′), (2.3b), the verb shows plural agreement. Note that the sentences in
(2.3b), (2.3b′) show that the rule is not simply ‘the verb agrees with the immediately
preceding NP’; while that is true in (2.1), (2.2) and (2.3a), (2.3a′), it is not true in these two
sentences. Hence the simplest and most straightforward hypothesis is the initial one: in
English a tensed verb agrees with the subject.
12
2.3.1. Grammatical relations in the sentence
In the syntactic structure of sentences, two distinct yet interrelated aspects must be
distinguished. The first one has already been mentioned: the function of elements as subject
and direct object in a sentence. ‘Subject’ and ‘direct object’ have traditionally been referred to
as grammatical relations. Hence this kind of syntax will be referred to as ‘relational
structure’. It includes more than just grammatical relations like subject and direct object; it
also encompasses relationships like modifier–modified, e.g. tall building or walk slowly (tall,
slowly = modifier, building, walk = modified) and possessor–possessed, e.g. Pat’s car (Pat’s
= possessor, car = possessed).
2.3.2. Theta/θ – Theory. Thematic roles.
Thematic theory, or theta theory, is a sub-theory of universal Grammar, which deals
with the valency requirements of verbs. As I mentioned in the previous section, it incorporates
a set of principles regulating the assignment of thematic roles. In this way, Riemsdijk (1986)
defines theta theory as the basic logical notion “argument of”, a notion that any theory of
Grammar must account for. He goes on to add that the aim of this theory is to determine
which NP can be an argument of a verb. That’s why to designate arguments of a verb, terms
as agent, goal, patient …are commonly used.
It’s important to recognise that ‘theme’ is being used differently here from its use in
functional grammar, where it has largely a discourse meaning as the first item in a clause. In
theta theory ‘theme’ indicates one of a number of semantic roles which arguments fulfil.
Clauses are seen as consisting of propositions, or logical statements, which require certain
types of arguments in order to be acceptable sentences in English.
The approach is similar in some respects to M.A.K. Halliday’s ‘participant, process,
circumstance’ model in functional grammar, and indeed, some of the terms overlap, but
whereas Halliday is principally concerned with transitivity, theta theory is more concerned
with ‘agency’: who does what to whom.
The essential elements of the theory differ somewhat from linguist to linguist, but the
following are the commonly assumed theta-roles:
(i) Theme (or patient) = entity undergoing the effect of some action: The cat died;
(ii) Agent (or actor) = instigator of some action; the one who performs the action:
13
John threw the ball;
(iii) Experiencer = entity experiencing some psychological state; one who perceives
something: John was happy.
(iv) Benefactive = entity benefiting from some action:
Mary bought some chocolate for John.
(v) Instrument = the means by which an action is performed:
John dug the garden with a spade.
(vi) Locative = place where an action takes It rained in London.
(vii) Goal = The place towards which an action is directed:
Mary passed the plate to John.
(viii) Source = The place from which an action originates John returned from London.
The value of incorporating thematic roles into a model of syntax is that it allows us to
give a more principled account of the way in which linguistic items behave than relying
simply on formal grammatical criteria. In the following pair of sentences, the phrase the vase
fulfils the same grammatical role, that of subject, but two distinct thematic roles:
(i) The vase shattered the glass. (ii) The vase shattered.
In (i) the vase is the cause of the shattering, hence it performs the role of instrument,
whereas in (ii) it is the entity which undergoes the effect of shattering, hence it acts as the
theme, or patient. The difference of thematic status is reflected in a difference of selection
restrictions. In (i) we can replace the vase with the noise, or a hidden flaw, but not in (ii).
Analyzing the thematic structure of these two sentences enables us to reveal differences which
are not reflected in their constituent structure (see Immediate constituent analysis).
The meaning of a sentence is determined in part by the thematic roles of the noun
phrases in relation to the verb. These semantic relationships indicate who, to whom, with
whom/what, from which, etc. The noun phrase subject of a sentence and the constituents of a
verb phrase are semantically related in various ways to the verb. The relations depend on the
meaning of the particular verb.
14
For example, the NP the boy in The boy found a red brick is called the agent, or ‘doer’
of the action of finding. The NP a red brick is the theme that undergoes the action. Part of the
meaning of find is that its subject is an agent and that its direct object is a theme.
The NPs within a verb phrase whose head is the verb put have the relation of theme
and goal. For example, in the sentence The boy put the red brick on the wall, the red brick is
the theme and on the wall is the goal. The entire verb phrase is interpreted to mean that the
theme of put changes its position to the goal. The subject of put is also an agent, so that in this
sentence (The boy put the red brick on the wall) the boy performs the action.
The knowledge speakers have about find and put may be revealed in their lexical
entries:
find, V – NP (Agent, Theme)
put, V – NP, PP (Agent, Theme, Goal)
The thematic roles are contained in parentheses. The first one states that the subject is
an agent. The remaining thematic roles belong to the categories for which the verb is
subcategorized. The direct object of both find and put will be a theme. The prepositional
phrase for which put subcategorizes will be a goal.
Our knowledge of verbs include their syntactic category, how they are subcategorized
and the thematic roles that their NP subject and object(s) have and this knowledge is
explicitly represented in the lexicon.
Thematic roles are the same in sentences that are paraphrases. Thus, in both these
sentences: The dog bit the stick.
The stick was bitten by the dog.
the dog is the agent and the stick is the theme.
Thematic roles may remain the same in sentences that are not paraphrases, as in the
following sentences: The boy opened the door with the key.
The key opened the door.
The door opened.
15
In all 3 sentences, the door is the theme, the thing that gets opened. In the first two
sentences, the key, despite the different structural positions, retains the thematic role of
instrument.
The three examples illustrate the fact that English allows many different thematic roles
to be the subject of the sentence (that is, the first NP under the S). These sentences had as
subjects an agent (the boy), an instrument (the key) and a theme (the door). The sentences
below illustrate other kinds of subjects: This hotel forbids dogs.
It seems that John has already left.
In the first example, this hotel has the thematic role of location. In the second, the
subject it is semantically empty and lacks a thematic role entirely.
English prepositions indicate a number of thematic roles Thus, from and to often
indicate the thematic roles of source and goal. Instrument is marked by with, location by
prepositions such as on and in, possessor by of; agent, experiencer and causative by the
preposition by in passive sentences. The role of theme is generally unaccompanied by a
preposition, as its most common syntactic function is direct object.
What has been called thematic roles in this section has sometimes been studied as
case theory, devised by the American linguist Ch. Fillmore (1968, 1976)
2.4. Sentence structure(constituent structure)
“A unit forming part of a larger structure” (Chalker and Weiner 1998)taken from Fromkin,
Victoria & Rodman, Robert. 1998. An Introduction to Language. 6 th Ed, New York: Thomson
Heinle.
Syntactic rules determine determine the order of words in a structure and how the
words are grouped. The words in the sentence The child found the puppy may be grouped into
(The child) and (found the puppy) corresponding to the subject and predicate of the sentence.
A further division gives (the child) (found) (the puppy) and finally the individual words (the)
(child) (found) (the) (puppy).
It is easier to see the parts and subparts of the sentence in a tree diagram:
16
The child found the puppy
The child found the puppy
The child found the puppy
The puppy
The tree is upside down with its ‘root’ being the entire sentence: The child found the
puppy and its ‘leaves’ being the individual words the, child, found, the, puppy. The tree
conveys the same information as the nested parentheses, but more clearly. The groupings and
sub-groupings reflect the hierarchical structure of the tree.
The tree diagram shows among other things that the phrase found the puppy is
naturally divided into two branches, the two groups, found and the puppy. A different
division, say, found the, and puppy, is unnatural.
The natural groupings of a sentence are called constituents. Various linguistic tests
reveal the constituents of a sentence. For example, the set of words that can be used to answer
a question is a constituent. So in answer to the question “what did you find?” a speaker might
answer, the puppy, but not found the.
Pronouns can also substitute for natural groups. In answer to the question “where did
you find the puppy?” a speaker may say, “ I found him in the park.” There are also words
such as do that can take the place of the entire expression found the puppy, as in “ John found
the puppy and so did Bill”, or “John found the puppy and Bill did too”.
Constituents can also be “relocated” as in the following examples.
It was the puppy the child found
The puppy was found by the child
17
In the first example the constituent the puppy is relocated; in the second example both
the puppy and the child are relocated. In all such rearrangements the constituents the puppy
and the child remain intact. Found the does not remain intact, because it is not a constituent.
In the sentence the child found the puppy, the natural groupings or constituents are the
subject the child, the predicate found the puppy, and the direct object the puppy.
Some verbs take a direct object and prepositional phrase.
The child put the puppy in the garden.
We can use our tests to show that in the garden is also a constituent , as follows:
1. Where did the child put the puppy? In the garden.
2. The child put the puppy there.
3. In the garden is where the child put the puppy.
4. It was in the garden that the child put the puppy.
In (1) in the garden is an answer to a question. In (2) the word there can substitute for a
phrase in the garden. In (3) and (4) in the garden has been relocated.
Our knowledge of the constituent structure may be graphically represented as a tree
structure. The tree structure for the sentence The child put the puppy in the garden is as it
follows:
The child put the puppy in the garden
The child put the puppy in the garden
The child put the puppy in the garden
The puppy in the garden
The garden
Every sentence in a language is associated with one or more constituent structures. If a
sentence has more than one constituent structure, it is ambiguous, and each tree will
correspond to one of the possible meanings. Multiple tree structures can account for structural
ambiguity, as in the following examples:
18
synthetic buffalo hides synthetic buffalo hides
synthetic buffalo hides synthetic buffalo hides
buffalo hides synthetic buffalo
2.5. Syntactic categories (word classes)
Each of the groupings in the tree diagram The child found the puppy is a member of a
large family of similar expressions.
For example, the child belongs to a family that includes a police officer, your
neighbour, this yellow cat, he, and countless others. Each member of this family can be
substituted for the child without affecting the grammaticality of the sentence although the
meanings of course would change. The child found the puppy.
A police officer found the puppy.
Your neighbour found the puppy.
This yellow cat found the puppy.
He found the puppy.
A family of expressions that can substitute for one another without loss of
grammaticality is called a syntactic category.
The child, a police officer and so on, belong to the syntactic category Noun Phrase
(NP), one of several syntactic categories in English and every other language in the world.
Noun Phrases may function as the subject or as various objects in a sentence. They often
contain some form of a noun or proper noun, but may consist of a pronoun alone, or even
contain a clause or a sentence. Even though a proper noun like John and pronouns such as he
and him are single words, they are technically NPs, because they pattern like NPs in being
able to fill a subject or object or other NP slot.
19
John found the puppy.
He found the puppy.
The puppy loved him.
The puppy loved John.
NPs that are more complex are illustrated by: Romeo who was a Montague loved
Juliet who was a Capulet.
Part of the syntactic component of grammar is the specification of the syntactic categories
in the language, since this constitutes part of a speaker’s knowledge. That is, speakers of
English know that only items (a), (b), (e), (f), (g), and (i) in the following list are Noun
Phrases even if they have never heard the term before.
1. (a) a bird (f) it
(b) the red banjo (g) john
(c) have a nice day (h) went
(d) with a balloon (i) that the earth is round
(e) the woman who was laughing
As we discussed earlier, you can test this claim by inserting each expression into three
contexts: “Who discovered…….?”, “………was heard by everyone,” and “What I heard was
……?”. Only those sentences which NPs can be inserted are grammatical, because only NPs
can function as subjects and objects.
There are other syntactic categories. The expression found the puppy is a Verb
Phrase (VP). Verb Phrases always contain a Verb (V) and may contain other
categories such as a Noun Phrase (NP) or Prepositional Phrase (PP), which is a
preposition followed by a Noun Phrase. In (2) the VPs are those phrases that can
complete the sentence “ The child…………..”.
2. (a) saw a clown (e) is smart
(b) a bird (f) found the cake
(c) slept (g) found the cake in the cupboard
(d) smart (h) realized that the earth was round
20
Inserting (a), (c), (e), (f), (g), and (h) will produce grammatical sentences, whereas the
insertion of (b) or (d) would result in an ungrammatical string. Thus, in list 2 (a), (c), (e), (f),
(g), and (h) are Verb Phrases.
Other syntactic categories such as: Sentence (S), Determiner (Det), Adjective (Adj),
Noun (N), Pronoun (Pro), Preposition (P), Prepositional Phrase (PP) Adverb (Adv),
Auxiliary Verb (Aux) and Verb (V), but this is not a complete list. Some of these syntactic
categories (word classes) have traditionally been called parts of speech. All languages have
such syntactic categories. In fact, categories such as Noun, Verb, and Noun Phrases are
present in the grammars of all human languages. Speakers know the syntactic categories of
their language, even if they do not know the technical terms. Our knowledge of the syntactic
classes is revealed when we substitute equivalent phrases, as we just did in examples (1) and
(2), and when we use the various syntactic tests just discussed.
In addition to syntactic tests, there is experimental evidence for constituent structure.
In these experiments subjects listen to sentences that have clicking noises inserted into them
at random points. In some cases the click occurs at a constituent boundary, for example,
between the subject NP and the VP. In other sentences, the click is inserted in the middle of a
constituent, for example, between a determiner and an NP. The subjects are then asked to
report where the click occurred. There were two important results: First, subjects noticed the
click and recalled its location best when it occurred at a constituent boundary. Second, clicks
that occurred inside the constituent were reported to have occurred between the constituents.
In other words, subjects displaced the clicks and put them at constituent boundaries. These
results show that speakers perceive sentences in chunks corresponding to grammatical
constituents. This argues for the psychological reality of constituent structure.( J. Fodor and T.
Bever. 1965 “The Psychological Reality of Linguistic Segments,” Journal of Verbal Learning
and Verbal Behavior 4:414-20.
2.6. Phrase structure trees
„Who climbs the Grammar-Tree distinctly knows/Where Noun and Verb and Participle
grows.” John Dryden taken from Fromkin, Victoria & Rodman, Robert. 1998. An
Introduction to Language. 6th Ed, New York: Thomson Heinle.
21
The following tree diagram provides labels for each of the constituents of the sentence
The child put the puppy in the garden. These labels show that the entire sentence belongs
to the syntactic category of Sentence, that the child and the puppy are Noun Phrases, that
put the puppy is a Verb Phrase, that in the garden is a Prepositional Phrase, and so on.
The child put the puppy in the garden
S
The child put the puppy in the garden
NP VP
The child put the puppy in the garden
Det N V NP PP
The puppy in the garden
Det N P NP
The garden
Det N
A tree diagram with syntactic category information is called a phrase structure tree,
sometimes called a constituent structure tree. This tree shows that a sentence is both a
linear string of words and a hierarchical structure with phrases nested in phrases. Phrase
structure trees are graphic representations of a speaker’s knowledge of the sentence structure
in their language.
Therefore, three aspects of speakers’ syntactic knowledge of sentence structure are
disclosed in phrase structure trees:
i. The linear order of words in the sentence,
ii. The groupings of words into particular syntactic categories,
22
iii. The hierarchical structure of the syntactic categories: e.g., a sentence is composed of a
Noun Phrase followed by a Verb Phrase, a Verb Phrase is composed of a Verb that may be
followed by a Noun Phrase, and so on.
A phrase structure tree that explicitly reveals these properties can represent every
sentence in English and of every human language. Notice, however, that the phrase structure
tree above is correct, but redundant. . The word ‘child’ is repeated three times in the tree,
‘puppy’ is repeated three times, and so on. We can streamline the tree by writing the words
only once at the bottom of the diagram. Only the syntactic categories to which the words
belong need to remain at the higher levels.
S
NP VP
Det N V NP PP
The child put Det N P NP
The puppy in Det N
The garden
No information is lost in this simplified version. The syntactic category of each
individual word appears immediately above that word. In this way, ‘ the’ is shown to be a
Determiner, ‘child’ a noun, and so on. Words occur in trees under labels that correspond to
their syntactic category. Nouns are under N, prepositions under P, and so on.
We have not given definitions of these syntactic categories. Traditional definitions
usually refer to meaning and are either imprecise or wrong. For example, a noun is often
defined as “a person, place or thing”. However, in the sentence seeing is believing, seeing
and believing are nouns but are neither persons, nor places, nor things. Syntactic categories
23
are better defined in terms of the syntactic rules of the grammar. For example, defining a noun
as “the head of an NP”, or “ a grammatical unit that occurs with a determiner,” or “ can be
relocated in passive sentences” are more accurate characterizations.
The larger syntactic categories, such as Verb Phrases, are identified as consisting of all
the syntactic categories and words below that point, or node, in the tree. The VP in the above
phrase structure tree consists of syntactic category nodes V and NP,PP, and the words put,
the, puppy, in, the, and garden. Since the puppy can be traced up the tree to a PP, this
constituent is a Prepositional Phrase. The phrase structure tree reflects the speaker’s intuitions
about the natural groupings of words in the sentence.
The phrase structure tree also states implicitly what combinations of words are not
syntactic categories. For example, since there is no node above the words put and the to
connect them , the two words do not constitute a syntactic category, reflecting our earlier
judgments.
The phrase structure tree also shows that some syntactic categories are composed of
other syntactic categories. The sentence The child put the puppy in the garden consists of a
Noun Phrase – the child – and a Verb Phrase – put the puppy in the garden. The Verb Phrase
consists of the verb put and a Noun Phrase - the puppy, and the Prepositional Phrase in the
garden. Together, the Determiner the and the Noun puppy constitute a Noun Phrase, but
individually neither is an NP. The Prepositional Phrase contains a Preposition in and the NP
the garden. Every higher node is said to dominate all the categories beneath it. VP dominates
V, NP, and PP, and also dominates Det, N, P and PP. A node is said to immediately
dominate the categories one level below it. VP immediately dominates V, NP, and PP.
Categories that are immediately dominated by the same node are sisters. V, NP, and PP are
sisters in the sentence The child put the puppy in the garden.
2.7. Phrase structure rules
“Everyone who is master of the language he speaks…may form new…phrases,
provided they coincide with the genius of the language” (Michaelis, Disertation, 1769) taken
from Fromkin, Victoria & Rodman, Robert. 1998. An Introduction to Language. 6 th Ed, New
York: Thomson Heinle.
24
A phrase structure tree is a formal device for representing the knowledge that a
speaker has of the structure of sentences in his language. When we speak, we are not aware
that we are producing sentences with such structure, but controlled experiments show that we
use them in speech production and comprehension.
When we look at phrase structure tree that represent the sentences of English, certain
patterns emerge. In ordinary sentences, the S always subdivides into NP Aux VP. As we said
earlier, NPs always contains Nouns; VPs always contain Verbs; PPs consist of a Preposition
followed by a Noun Phrase; and APs consist of an Adjective possibly followed by a
complement.
Of all logically possible tree structures, few actually occur, just as not all word
combinations constitute grammatical phrases or sentences. For example, a non-occurring tree
structure in English is:
NP
N Det
boy the
The speaker of a language knows whether any sentence or phrase is a possible or
impossible structure in her language. The structure given in the preceding tree is not possible
in English.
Just as a speaker cannot have an infinite list of sentences in her head, so she cannot
have an infinite set of phrase structures trees in her head. Rather, a speaker’s knowledge of
the permissible and impermissible structures must exist as a finite set of rules that “generate”,
or provide a tree for, any sentence in the language. These are phrase structure rules. Phrase
structure rules specify the structures of a language precisely and concisely. They express the
regularities of the language, such as the head complement order, and other relationships.
For example, in English a Noun Phrase may simply contain a Determiner followed by
a Noun. One of the several allowable NP subtrees looks like this:
25
NP
Det N
The bus
The phrase structure rule that makes this explicit is: NP Det N
This rule conveys two facts:
A Noun Phrase can contain a Determiner followed by a Noun.
A Determiner followed by a Noun is a Noun Phrase.
To the left of the arrow is the category whose components appear on the right side.
The right side of the arrow also shows the linear of these components. Phrase structure rules
make explicit speakers’ knowledge of the order of words and the grouping of words into
syntactic categories.
An NP may also contain a complement, as in the example a picture of Mary or the
destruction of Rome. We can accommodate this fact by revising the rule to include an
optional Prepositional Phrase. The parentheses around the PP indicate that it is optional. Not
all NPs in the language have PPs inside them.
NP Det N (PP)
This revised rule says that an NP can contain a Det followed by an optional PP.
The phrase structure trees of the previous section show that the following phrase
structure rules are also part of the grammar of English.
1. VP V NP
2. VP V NP PP
Rules 1 and 2 can be summed up in one statement: A Verb Phrase may be a Verb
followed by a Noun Phrase, which may or may not be followed by a Prepositional Phrase. By
putting parentheses around the optional element, we can abbreviate rules 1 and 2 to a single
rule:
26
VP V NP (PP)
In fact, the NP is also optional, as shown in the following trees:
S
NP Aux VP
Det N V
The baby past slept
S
NP Aux VP
Det N V PP
The men past fled P NP
from Det N
the posse
In the first case the Verb Phrase consists of a Verb alone, corresponding to the rule VP
V; and in the second case we have a Verb Phrase consisting of a Verb plus a Prepositional
Phrase, corresponding to the rule VP V PP. All the facts about the Verb Phrase we have
seen so far are explicit in the single rule:
VP V (NP) (PP)
27
This rule states that a Verb Phrase may consist of a Verb followed optionally by a
Noun Phrase and/or a Prepositional Phrase.
Other rules of English are:
S NP Aux VP
PP P NP
AP Adj (PP)
2.8. The lexicon
Speakers of any language know thousands of words. They know how to pronounce
them in all contexts, they know their meaning and they know how to combine them in Phrases
or Sentences, which means that they know their syntactic category. All this knowledge is
combined in the component of the grammar called the lexicon.
2.8.1. Lexical insertion
Together with the phrase structure rules, the lexicon provides the information needed
for complete, well-formed phrase structure trees. The phrase structure rules account for the
entire tree except for the words at the bottom. The words in the tree belong to the same
syntactic categories that appear immediately above them. Through lexical insertion words of
the specified category are chosen from the lexicon and put into the tree. Only words that are
specified as verbs in the lexicon are inserted under a Node labelled Verb, and so on. Words
such as love, which belong to two (or more) categories, have separate entries in the lexicon, or
are marked for both categories.
2.8.2.Subcategorization
The lexicon represents the knowledge speakers have about the vocabulary of their
language including the syntactic category of words and what elements may co-occur together
expressed as subcategorization restrictions.
The lexicon contains more syntactic information than merely the lexical category of each
word. If it did not, speakers of English would be unable to make the following grammaticality
distinctions: (i) The boy found the ball.
(ii) *The boy found quickly.
28
(iii) *The boy found in the house.
(iv) The boy found the ball in the house.
The verb find is a transitive verb. A transitive verb must be followed by a Noun
Phrase, its direct object. This additional specification is called subcategorization and is also
included in the lexical entry of each word. Most words in the lexicon are subcategorized for
certain contexts. Subcategorization accounts for the ungrammaticality of the following
sentences:
(i) *Ann put the milk.
(ii) * Jane slept the baby.
The verb put is a transitive verb which occurs with both a Noun Phrase (its direct
object) and a Prepositional Phrase, as in: (i) Ann put the milk on the table.
(ii) Ann put the milk in the refrigerator.
Sleep is an intransitive verb, so it cannot be followed by a Noun Phrase.
This information is included as the subcategorization of each word.
Other categories besides verbs are subcategorized.
For example, within the NP, if the Determiner is lacking (i.e. there is no article), only
a plural noun (or a proper name) may be inserted (i); and if the Determiner is a (the indefinite
article), only a singular noun may be inserted (iii). This accounts for the following:
(i) Puppies love milk.
(ii) *Puppy loves milk.
(iii) A puppy loves milk.
(iv) *A puppies love milk.
Subcategorization within the NP affects individual nouns. Belief is subcategorized for
both a Prepositional Phrase (PP) and a Sentence (S), as shown by the following two examples:
(i) The belief in freedom of speech
29
(ii) The belief that freedom of speech is a basic right.
Knowledge about subcategorization may be accounted for in the lexicon as follows:
A fragment of the lexicon Comments:
put, V, ------- NP, PP put is a transitive Verb which must be followed by both an NP and
a PP within the Verb Phrase
find, V, ------- NP find is a transitive Verb which must be followed by an NP within the
Verb Phrase
sleep, V, ------- sleep is an intransitive verb which must not be followed by any
category within the Verb Phrase
belief, N -------(PP), S belief is a Noun which may be followed by either a PP or an S
within the Noun Phrase
2.9.Sentence relatedness
“Most wonderful of all are…[sentences], and how they make friends one with another.”
(O .Henry, as modified by a syntactician) taken from Fromkin, Victoria & Rodman, Robert.
1998. An Introduction to Language. 6th Ed, New York: Thomson Heinle.
2.9.1. Types of sentence relatedness
“ The structure of every sentence is a lesson in logic”. (John Stuart Mill) cited in
Fromkin, Victoria & Rodman, Robert. 1998. An Introduction to Language. 6th Ed, New York:
Thomson Heinle.
Sentences may be related in various ways. For example, they may have the same
phrase structure, but differ in meaning because they contain different words.
Two sentences with different meanings may contain the same words in the same order,
and differ only in structure, like the boy saw the man with the telescope. These are cases of
structural ambiguity.
30
Two sentences may differ in structure, possibly with small differences in grammatical
morphemes, but with no difference in meaning:
The father wept silently. The father silently wept.
Mary hired Bill. Bill was hired by Mary.
I know that you know. I know you know.
Two sentences may have structural differences that correspond systematically to
meaning differences.
The boy is sleeping. Is the boy sleeping?
The boy can sleep. Can the boy sleep?
The boy will sleep. Will the boy sleep?
Auxiliaries are very important in forming certain types of sentences in English,
including questions. In questions, the auxiliary appears at the beginning of the sentence. This
difference in position is not accounted for by the phrase structure rules, which specify that in a
sentence the NP comes first, followed by Aux, followed by VP.
We could easily add a phrase structure rule to our mini-grammar that would generate
the questions above. It would look like the following:
S Aux NP VP
Although such a rule might do the job of producing the right word order, it would fail
to capture the generalization that interrogatives are systematically related ( in both form and
meaning) to their declarative counterparts. For example, the declarative sentence John is
sleeping is well formed, as is the question Is John sleeping? The declarative sentence The
rock is sleeping is semantically odd, as is the question Is the rock sleeping? A speaker of
English will be able to immediately provide the interrogative counterpart to any declarative
sentences that we present.
Phrase structure rules account for much syntactic knowledge, but they do not account
for the fact that certain sentence types in the language relate systematically to other sentence
types.
31
2.9.2. Transformational rules
A way to capture the relationship between a declarative and a question is to allow the
phrase structure rules to generate the structure corresponding to the declarative sentence, and
have another formal device, called transformational rule, move the auxiliary in front of the
subject.
The rule “Move Aux” is formed as follows:
Take the first auxiliary verb following the subject NP an move it to the left of the
subject.
For example: The boy is sleeping Is the boy ___sleeping
The rule takes a basic structure generated by the phrase structure rules and derives a second
tree ( the dash represents the position from which a constituent has been moved) :
S S
NP Aux VP Aux NP VP
Det N V Det N V
The boy is sleeping is the boy sleeping
Questions are generated in two steps.
1. The phrase structure rules generate a basic structure.
2. Aux movement applies to produce the derived structure.
The basic structures of sentences, also called deep structures, are specified by the
phrase structure rules. Variants on those basic sentence structures are derived via
transformations. By generating questions in two steps, we are claiming that for speakers there
is a relationship between a question and its corresponding statement. The transformational
rule is a formal way of representing this relationship.
The structures that result from the application of transformational rules are called
surface structures. The phonological rule of the language ( pronunciation rule) apply to
surface structures. If no transformations apply, then deep structure and surface structure are
the same. If transformations apply, then surface structure is the result after all transformations
32
have had their effect. Much syntactic knowledge that is not expressed by phrase structure
rules is accounted for by transformations, which can alter phrase structure trees by moving,
adding, or deleting elements.
Other sentence types that are transformationally related are:
Active- passive:
The cat chased the mouse The mouse was chased by the cat
There sentences:
There was a man on the roof A man was on the roof
PP preposing:
The astronomer saw the quasar with the telescope With the telescope, the astronomer
saw the quasar
In conclusion, to capture the knowledge speakers have about the syntax of their
language, the grammar requires at a minimum, phrase structure rules, a lexicon richly
endowed with speakers’ knowledge about individual words and a set of transformational rules
describing the structure dependent patterning that occurs throughout the language.
33
Chapter 3.Some approaches to syntax
The last 10 years of linguistics have seen the emergence of a number of distinct
approaches to syntax. Though these approaches have the same announced goal—namely, to
understand the principles according to which sentences are organized—they differ radically in
their philosophical outlook, their specific aims and methods, and their assumptions about how
syntax relates to meaning and to communicative function.
3.1. Descriptive grammars
“They are no primitive languages. The great and abstract ideas of Christianity can be
discussed even by wretched Greenlanders.” (Johann Peter Sueemilch. 1756, in a paper
delivered before the Prussian Academy )taken from Fromkin, Victoria & Rodman, Robert.
1998. An Introduction to Language. 6th Ed, New York: Thomson Heinle.
The grammar of a language consists of the sounds and sounds patterns, the basic
units of meaning such as words, and the rules to combine all of these to form sentences with
the desired meaning. The grammar, then, is what we know. It represents our linguistic
competence. To understand the nature of language we must understand the nature of
grammar, and in particular, the internalized, unconscious set of rules that is part of every
grammar of every language.
Every human being who speaks a language knows its grammar. When linguists wish
to describe a language, they attempt to describe the grammar of the language that exists in the
minds of its speakers. There will be some differences among speakers’ knowledge, but there
must be shared knowledge too. The shared knowledge—the common parts of the grammar—
makes it possible to communicate through language. To the extent that the linguist’s
description is a true model of the speakers’ linguistic capacity, it is a successful description of
the grammar and of the language itself. Such a model is called a descriptive grammar. It
does not tell you how you should speak; it describes your basic linguistic knowledge. It
explains how it is possible for you to speak and understand, and it tells what you know about
the sounds, words, phrases, and sentences of your language. One of the most widely used of
such grammars is R. Quirk et al.’s, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language
(1985).
The procedure adopted by descriptive grammars is quite different from that used by
prescriptive grammars, which attempt to lay down rules about how people ought to speak and
34
write rather than how they actually do. Much of the terminology of the descriptive approach is
to be found in traditional grammar, which is similarly concerned with analysing phrases and
clauses. But modern descriptive approaches have taken account of recent developments in
linguistics at a more theoretical level.
3.2. Immediate constituent analysis
“One of the parts which a linguist unit is immediately divisible, by a process of
immediate constituent analysis.” IC Chalker and Weiner taken from Fromkin, Victoria &
Rodman, Robert. 1998. An Introduction to Language. 6th Ed, New York: Thomson Heinle.
The modern approach to syntax begins with the development of more explicit
techniques of grammatical analysis, of which the most important was Immediate constituent
(IC) analysis. This term was introduced by L. Bloomfield in his book Language.
The smaller forms into which a larger form may be analyzed are its constituents, and
the larger form is a construction. For example, the phrase “poor John” is a construction
analyzable into, or composed of, theconstituents “poor” and “John.” Because there is no
intermediate unit of which “poor” and “John” are constituents that is itself a constituent of the
construction “poor John,” the forms “poor” and “John” may be described not only as
constituents but also as immediate constituents of “poor John.” Similarly, the phrase “lost his
watch” is composed of three word forms—“lost,” “his,” and “watch”—all of which may be
described asconstituents of the construction. Not all of them, however, are its immediate
constituents . The forms “his” and “watch” combine to make the intermediate construction
“his watch”; it is this intermediate unit that combines with “lost” to form the larger phrase
“lost his watch.”
The immediate constituents of “lost his watch” are “lost” and “his watch”; the
immediate constituents of “his watch” are the forms “his” and “watch.” By the constituent
structure of a phrase or sentence is meant the hierarchical organization of the smallest forms
of which it is composed (its ultimateconstituents ) into layers of successively more inclusive
units. Viewed in this way, the sentence “Poor John lost his watch” is more than simply a
sequence of five word forms associated with a particular intonation pattern. It is analyzable
into the immediateconstituents “poor John” and “lost his watch,” and each of these phrases is
35
analyzable into its own immediate constituents and so on, until, at the last stage of the
analysis, the ultimate constituents of the sentence are reached.
The constituent structure of the whole sentence is represented by means of a tree diagram:
Poor John lost
his watch
3.3. The post- Bloomfieldian school: Structuralist approach
Bloomfield was strongly influenced by Wundt's psychology of language. In 1933,
however, he published a drastically revised and expanded version with the new title
Language; this book dominated the field for the next 30 years. In it Bloomfield explicitly
adopted a behaviouristic approach to the study of language, eschewing in the name of
scientific objectivity all reference to mental or conceptual categories. Of particular
consequence was his adoption of the behaviouristic theory of semantics according to which
meaning is simply the relationship between a stimulus and a verbal response. Because science
was still a long way from being able to give a comprehensive account of most stimuli, no
significant or interesting results could be expected from the study of meaning for some
considerable time, and it was preferable, as far as possible, to avoid basing the grammatical
analysis of a language on semantic considerations. Bloomfield's followers pushed even further
the attempt to develop methods of linguistic analysis that were not based on meaning. One of
the most characteristic features of “post-Bloomfieldian” American structuralism, then, was its
almost complete neglect of semantics.
3.4.”Deep” syntax
3.4.1.Tagmenic theory :Tagmenics
Tagmemic theory is concerned primarily with grammatical analysis and is especially
associated with Kenneth Lee Pike. It is an offshoot of structuralism. Structuralism ignored
functions of a linguistic form and concentrated only on form. Tagmemics fuses together the
36
form as well as the function of a linguistic entity. According to this approach, utterances can
be analyzed simultaneously at three interpenetrating levels, where each level represents a
hierarchy of units. These levels are lexical (with the minimum unit being morpheme),
phonological (having phoneme as the minimum unit), grammatical ( in which the minimum
unit is tagmeme). The grammatical component is a series of syntactic statements concerning
sentence, clause, phrase, and word level structures. The lexicon lists the formal unit of
language while phonological components give the phonemic sentence a phonetic realization
in the language.
Pike rejected the idea of a sentence as being the minimum unit of grammar and
recommended a hierarchical order and labeling. It has three semi-autonomous but interlocking
levels or modes -- phonology, grammar and lexicon. It stresses the hierarchical ordering of
grammatical units into ranks of levels -- morphemes, words, phrases, clauses, sentences,
paragraphs, and discourses.
Immediate Constituent analysis of the structaralists insists just on binary cuts, but
tagmemics always goes in favor of string constituent analysis, and have many cuts.
Tagmemics, unlike a structural analysis asks for the function of the categories and not merely
their naming. It is a "slot and filler grammar"; a slot being a position in construction frame.
The filler class is the co-relation between a grammatical function like subject and class of
fillers like nouns that can fill that function. But neither the slot nor the filler itself is important,
it is the tagmeme which is significant. The slot is the function and filler being the category. A
tagmeme, therefore, is the co-relation of a slot and the class of items that can occur in that
slot. Hence we have sentence level tagmemes, clause level tagmemes, phrase level tagmemes,
word level tagmemes and morpheme level tagmemes.
3.4.2. Scale and category grammar
A very similar theory, in some respects, is that associated primarily with the British
linguist M.A.K. Halliday. The theory is known as scale and category grammar. The reason
for the labels ‘scale’ and ‘category’ is that they refer to the two basic ideas underlying the
theory: the best way of accounting for language’s structure was by postulating four major
theoretical categories, and relating them via various scales of abstraction. The categories
comprised class (covering concepts such as ‘verb’ and ‘noun’), unit (covering concepts such
as ‘sentence’ and ‘clause’), structure (covering concepts such as ‘subject’ and ‘predicate’),
and system (covering concepts such as the set of ‘personal pronouns’ or ‘tenses’).
37
3.4.3. Systemic grammar
More recently, M. A. K. Halliday has developed a concept of systemic grammar,
which would now be considered a quite distinct model. As its title suggests, it is based on the
idea of system, which was a category of the early approach. This idea suggests that at any
given place in a structure, the language allows for a choice among a small, fixed set of
possibilities (we can have the/this/ my/ a…man, for instance); and it is very similar to the
Saussurean concept of paradigmatic relationships.
Language is viewed as a series of ‘system networks’, each network representing the choices
associated with a given type of constituent (e.g. clause system network, nominal group system
network, and so on). In this approach, it is the clause system which is taken as the point of
departure in analysis, not (as in most other models) the sentence.
3.4.4. Stratificational grammar
Another theory is stratificational grammar developed by S. Lamb in his book entitled
Outline of Stratificational Grammar (1966). The theory is called ‘stratificational’ because one
of its chief features is its model of linguistic structure in terms of several structural layers, or
strata. Language for Lamb – as for Halliday - is best viewed as a system of complex
relationships which relates sounds (or, of course, their written counterparts) to meanings.
These relationships are not all of the same kind, however, but break down into more restricted
sub-systems, each of which has its own structural organization; one sub-system operates at
each stratum. There are three main strata hypothesized for all languages, ‘semology’,
‘grammar’ and ‘phonology’; and these are subdivided in various ways to produce further
systems.
3.4.5. Case grammar
Case grammar refers to an approach to grammatical analysis devised by the American
linguist Ch. Fillmore in the late 1960s, within the general orientation of generative grammar.
The approach recognizes a set of syntactic functions (‘cases’) in the analysis of a sentence,
giving these an interpretation in terms of the semantic roles that these functions express, such
as agentive, dative, and locative.
By focusing on syntactic functions, it was felt that several important kinds of
semantic relationship could be represented, which it would otherwise be difficult or
38
impossible to capture. A set of sentences such as The key opened the door, The door was
opened by / with the key, The door opened, The man opened the door with a key , etc. illustrate
several ‘stable’ semantic roles, despite the varying surface grammatical structures. In each
case the key is ‘instrumental’ case, the door is the entity affected by the action, and so on.
The term ‘case’ is used because of the similarity with several of the traditional
meanings covered by this term, but the deep structure cases recognized by the theory do not
systematically correspond with anything in the surface morphology or syntax.
The original proposal set up six cases (agentive, instrumental, dative, factitive,
objective and locative) and gave rules for their combination in defining the use of verbs.
Later, other cases were suggested (source, goal). Case grammar exercised considerable
influence on subsequent developments in linguistic theory.
3.5. Generative transformational grammar
In the 1950s the school of linguistic thought known as transformational-generative
grammar received wide acclaim through the works of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky postulated a
syntactic base of language (called deep structure), which consists of a series of phrase-
structure rewrite rules, i.e., a series of (possibly universal) rules that generates the underlying
phrase-structure of a sentence, and a series of rules (called transformations) that act upon the
phrase-structure to form more complex sentences. The end result of a transformational-
generative grammar is a surface structure that, after the addition of words and pronunciations,
is identical to an actual sentence of a language. All languages have the same deep structure,
but they differ from each other in surface structure because of the application of different
rules for transformations, pronunciation, and word insertion. Another important distinction
made in transformational-generative grammar is the difference between language competence
(the subconscious control of a linguistic system) and language performance (the speaker's
actual use of language). Although the first work done in transformational-generative grammar
was syntactic, later studies have applied the theory to the phonological and semantic
components of language.
3.5.1. Generative grammar
Is a notion that was developed in 1950s by Noam Chomsky. Although numerous
scholars disagreed with Chomsky’s claims he gained many supporters and the idea was both
developed and challenged at the same time. His works have exerted considerable influence on
39
psycholinguistics, cognitive linguistics, applied linguistics as well as language methodology,
and with time ‘generative grammar’ received broader meaning than it initially had.
Based partially on mathematical equations generative grammar is a set of rules that
provide a framework for all the grammatically possible sentences in a language, excluding
those which would be considered ungrammatical. A classical generative grammar consists of
four elements:
A limited number of nonterminal signs;
A beginning sign which is contained in the limited number of nonterminal signs;
A limited number of terminal signs;
A finite set of rules which enable rewriting nonterminal signs as strings of terminal
signs.
The rules could be applied in a free way and the only requirement is that the final result
must be a grammatically correct sentence. What is more, generative grammar is recursive,
which means that any output of application of rules can be the input for subsequent
application of the same rule. That should enable generating sentences as the daughter ofthe
father of the brother of his cousin.
Chomsky considered language to be a species-specific property which is a part of the
human mind. Chomsky studied the Internal-language, a mental faculty for language. He also
wanted to account for the linguistic competence of native speakers and the linguistic
knowledge of language present in language users’ minds. As he argued:
People know which sentences are grammatically well formed in their native language
They have this knowledge also of previously unheard sentences
So they must rely on mentally represented rules and not only on memory
Generative grammars might be regarded as models of mentally represented rules
The ability to acquire such sets of rules is most probably uniquely human.
Moreover, Chomsky argued that people posses a kind of Language Faculty which is a
part of human natural biological qualities. The innate linguistic knowledge that enables
40
practically any child to learn any of about 6000 existing languages (at a given point in time) is
sometimes known as the Universal Grammar.
3.5.2.Transformational grammar
Is an approach to the use of grammar in communications that involves a logical and
analytical process to fully grasp the meaning behind the words selected. From this
perspective, transformational grammar goes beyond the process of structural grammar, which
tends to focus on the proper construction of sentences as the device for communication. Along
with sentence structure, transformational grammar will also attempt to explore the thought
behind the words.
Sometimes referred to as TG grammar, transformational grammar attempts to apply logic
to the task of looking into the deeper meanings of the structure of sentences, and to analyze
both the surface and the underlying intent of the words used. This means employing more
than just a visual approach to the words that make up the sentence. Syntax also plays a role in
the logical process of transformational grammar, as will context. To a degree,
transformational grammar will call upon most of the tools of linguistics in an attempt to fully
analyze the spoken or written word.
One of the main proponents of the idea of transformational grammar was Noam Chomsky.
During the middle portion of the 20th century, Chomsky worked to develop a logical
approach to analyzing the syntax of structural grammar within the setting of the English
language. As a result of his efforts, Chomsky developed and promoted the concept of
grammar as being a broader theory regarding language structure, rather than simply defining a
method for developing the structure for sentences. This approach had been inherent for
centuries in the broader concepts of universal grammar. But due to the work of Chomsky,
linguists and grammarians began to understand transformational grammar as a discipline all
its own.
People engage in the task of approaching grammar from a transformational approach
every day. In some cases, it is a matter of employing transformational grammar as a means of
comprehending a grouping of words within the setting or context, rather than focusing on the
actual structure of the words. At other times, the idea of transformational grammar is utilized
as a means of conveying more than one meaning. The double-entendre may be thought of as a
41
limited example of transformational grammar, as the device provides both a surface and a
hidden conveyance of ideas.
3.6. Functional / systemic grammar
A different kind of syntactic analysis is that provided by Functional grammar. A
functional grammar is one which seeks to derive syntactic structures from the functions which
language is said to perform. All syntactic analyses take some account of functional categories.
Terms such as subject and object, for example, are of this type. Functional grammar,
however, attempts to discriminate, with a greater degree of delicacy, between different types
of subjects and objects and relate these to semantic possibilities within the language.
In essence, the development of this kind of grammar was a reaction to the more
abstract approaches associated with Chomskyan transformational grammar. The concern of
functional linguists is with language as a system of meanings, rather than as an abstract code.
They pursue the interactive and communicative aspects of language.
Arguably the most influential of these linguists is the British linguist Michael
Halliday, whose systemic functional model is widely used in stylistics and discourse
analysis.
Halliday sees language as a sophisticated tool for accomplishing a number of central
functions such as the need to represent the world to ourselves and others, and the need to
interact with other humans. What he attempts to do is to map these functions onto language.
Instead of simply analyzing a sentence in terms of the phrases which comprise it, he is more
concerned with the semantic role the phrases play in the communication of meaning.
Sentences don’t just contain subjects, and objects, but participants, each of which can be
assigned a specific role, such as actor, or goal.
And verbs can be distinguished in terms of the processes they encode, whether action
ones, such as running, and jumping, or mental ones, such as thinking and feeling. In this way
he establishes a link between language as a code and language as a human tool.
Halliday’s model of language is sometimes called systemic grammar. In simple
terms this means that he sees language as a semantic system, i.e. a system for expressing
meanings. At every point of the system a user is offered a series of choices which are both
42
syntactic and semantic. The context within which these choices are made consists of three
overarching functions which language is said to fulfil:
(i) the ideational function: the use we make of language to conceptualise the world. This
function emphasizes language as an instrument of thought, a symbolic code, with which we
represent the world to ourselves.
(ii) the interpersonal function: the use we make of language as a personal medium. This
function emphasizes language as an instrument of transaction by which we represent
ourselves to others.
(iii) the textual function: the use we make of language to form texts, whether spoken or
written. This function emphasizes language as an instrument of communication with which
we construct cohesive and coherent sequences.
According to Halliday, these functions relate to three central purposes which govern
the form which clauses take. Clauses act as a representation (ideational function), an
exchange (interpersonal function), and a message (textual function). Halliday’s procedure is
to take each of these in turn and describe the choices open to native users of the language.
(i) The clause as representation: This sees the clause as a means of representing the
experiential world. As such, it is composed of three functional components: participant,
process and circumstance. The ‘participant’ function incorporates subjects and objects;
‘process’ incorporates the verb element; and ‘circumstance’ incorporates adjuncts/ adverbials.
Centrally important in Halliday’s model is the process component. It is this which
largely determines the types of participants which are possible. Halliday refers to this as ‘the
system of transitivity’ and distinguishes six main processes: (i) material processes; (ii)
mental processes; (iii) relational processes; (iv) behavioural processes; (v) verbal processes;
(vi) existential processes.
(ii) The clause as exchange: This sees the clause as an interpersonal medium. Principally
important here is mood, that is the relationship speakers forge with listeners through the form
of the language. Traditionally, sentences are classified as declarative, interrogative,
imperative, and subjunctive. These forms correspond to some of the speech acts which we
use language to accomplish.
43
(iii) The clause as message: The message function of clauses is connected very much with
their formation structure. Functional linguists characteristically distinguish between theme
and rheme, or alternatively, topic and comment.
The theme of a clause is its first major constituent, as in John has done his homework.
The theme is the starting point of the clause and it is sometimes referred to as the
‘psychological subject’. The rheme, or comment, is simply the remainder of the clause after
the theme. Its typical use is to expand on the theme and provide more information.
Theme and rheme overlap with another pair of terms, given and new.
3.7. Other theories
Government and binding is a theory of syntax in the tradition of transformational
grammar developed principally by Noam Chomsky in the 1980s. This theory is a radical
revision of his earlier theories and was later revised in The Minimalist Program (1995) and
several subsequent papers, the latest being Three Factors in Language Design (2005).
Although there is a large literature on government and binding theory which is not written by
Chomsky, Chomsky's papers have been foundational in setting the research agenda.
The name refers to two central subtheories of the theory: government, which is an
abstract syntactic relation, and binding, which deals with the referents of pronouns, anaphors,
and referential expressions. GB was the first theory to be based on the principles and
parameters model of language, which also underlies the later developments of the Minimalist
Program.
3.7.1. Government theory
The main application of the government relation concerns the assignment of case.
Government is defined as follows:
A governs B if and only if
A is a governor and
A m-commands B and
no barrier intervenes between A and B.
44
Governors are heads of the lexical categories (V, N, A, P) and tensed I (T). A m-
commands B if A does not dominate B and B does not dominate A and the first maximal
projection of A dominates B. The maximal projection of a head X is XP. This means that for
example in a structure like the following, A m-commands B, but B does not m-command A:
In addition, barrier is defined as follows: A barrier is any node Z such that
Z is a potential governor for B and
Z c-commands B and
Z does not c-command A
The government relation makes case assignment unambiguous. The tree diagram below
illustrates how DPs are governed and assigned case by their governing heads:
45
3.7.2.Binding Theory
Binding can be defined as follows:
An element α binds an element β if and only if α c-commands β, and α and β corefer.
Consider the sentence "Johni saw hisi mother." which is diagrammed below using simple
phrase structure rules.
The NP "John" c-commands "his" because the first parent of the NP, S, contains "his".
"John" and "his" are also coreferential (they refer to the same person), therefore "John" binds
"his".
On the other hand, in the ungrammatical sentence "The mother of John i saw himselfi",
"John" does not c-command "himself", so they have no binding relationship despite the fact
that they corefer.
The importance of binding is shown in the grammaticality of the following sentences:
1. *Johni saw him.
2. Johni saw himself.
3. *Himself saw John.
46
4. *John saw John.
Binding is used, along with particular binding principles, to explain the ungrammaticality
of those statements. The applicable rules are called Binding Principle A, Binding Principle B,
and Binding Principle C.
Principle A: an anaphor (reflexive or reciprocal, such as "each other") must be bound
in its governing category (roughly, the clause).
Since "himself" is not c-commanded by "John" in sentence , Principle A is violated.
Principle B: a pronoun must be free (i.e., not bound) within its governing category
(roughly, the clause).
In sentence [1], "him" is bound by "John", violating Principle B.
Principle C: an R-expression must be free (i.e., not bound). R-expressions (e.g. "the
dog" or "John") are referential expressions: unlike pronouns and anaphora, they
independently refer, i.e., pick out entities in the world.
In sentence [4], the first instance of "John" binds the second, violating Principle C.
Note that Principles A and B refer to "governing categories"--domains which limit the
scope of binding. The definition of a governing category laid out in Lectures on Government
and Binding is complex, but in most cases the governing category is essentially the minimal
clause or complex NP.
3.7.3. X-bar theory is a component of linguistic theory which attempts to identify
syntactic features presumably common to all those human languages that fit in presupposed
(1965) framework. It claims that among their phrasal categories, all those languages share
certain structural similarities, including one known as the "X-bar", which does not appear in
traditional, for inter alia natural English language, phrase structure rules. X-bar theory was
first proposed by Chomsky (1970) and further developed by Jackendoff (1977).
The letter X is used to signify an arbitrary lexical category; when analyzing a specific
utterance, specific categories are assigned. Thus, the X may become an N for noun, a V for
verb, an A for adjective, or a P for preposition.
47
The term X-bar is derived from the notation representing this new structure. Certain
structures are represented by X (an X with an overbar). Because this is difficult to typeset, this
is often written as X′, using the prime symbol. In English, however, this is still read as "X
bar". The notation XP stands for X Phrase, and is equivalent to X-bar-bar (X with a double
overbar), written X″, usually read aloud as X double bar.
There are three "syntax assembly" rules which form the basis of X-bar theory. These rules
can be expressed in English, as rewrite rules for natural language (useful for example for
programmers in field of NLP-natural language processing, or visually as parse trees. All three
representations are presented below.
1. An X Phrase consists of an optional specifier and an X-bar, in any order:
XP → (specifier), X′
XP XP
/ \ or / \
spec X' X' spec
2. One kind of X-bar consists of an X-bar and an adjunct, in either order:
(X′ → X′, adjunct)
Not all XPs contain X′s with adjuncts, so this rewrite rule is "optional".
X' X'
/ \ or / \
X' adjunct adjunct X'
3. Another kind of X-bar consists of an X (the head of the phrase) and any number of
complements (possibly zero), in any order:
X′ → X, (complement...)
X' X'
/ \ or / \
48
X complement complement X (a head-first and a head-final example showing one
complement)
The following diagram illustrates one way the rules might be combined to form a
generic XP structure. Because the rules are recursive, there is an infinite number of possible
structures that could be generated, including smaller trees that omit optional parts, structures
with multiple complements, and additional layers of XPs and X′s of various types.
XP
/ \
spec X'
/ \
X' adjunct
/ \
X complement
|
head
Because all of the rules allow combination in any order, the left-right position of the
branches at any point may be reversed from what is shown in the example. However, in any
given language, usually only one handedness for each rule is observed. The above example
maps naturally onto the left-to-right phrase order used in English.
Note that a complement-containing X' may be distinguished from an adjunct-
containing X' by the fact that the complement has an X (head) as a sister, whereas an adjunct
has X-bar as a sister.
The noun phrase "the cat" might be rendered like this:
NP
/ \
Det N'
49
| |
the N
|
cat
The word the is a determiner (specifically an article), which at first was believed to be
a type of specifier for nouns. The head is the determiner (D) which projects into a determiner
phrase (DP or DetP). The word cat is the noun phrase (NP) which acts as the complement of
the determiner phrase. More recently, it has been suggested that D is the head of the noun
phrase.
Note that branches with empty specifiers, adjuncts, complements, and heads are often
omitted, to reduce visual clutter. The DetP and NP above have no adjuncts or complements,
so they end up being very linear.
In English, specifiers precede the X-bar that contains the head. Thus, determiners
always precede their nouns if they are in the same noun phrase.
50
CONCLUSIONS
Syntax is the study of the part of the human linguistic system that determines how
sentences are put together out of words. Syntactic rules in a grammar account for the
grammaticality of sentences, and the ordering of words and morphemes.
Syntax involves our knowledge of structural ambiguity our knowledge that sentences
may be paraphrases of each other our knowledge of the grammatical function of each part of a
sentence, that is, of the grammatical relations. It is also concerned with speakers' ability to
produce and understand an infinite set of possible sentences.
The sentence is regarded the highest-ranking unit of grammar, and therefore the
purpose of a grammatical description is to define, making use of whatever descriptive
apparatus that may be necessary (rules, categories, etc).
The traditional approach to syntactic function identifies constituents of the sentence, states the
part of speech each word belongs to, describes the inflexion involved, and explains the
relationship each word related to the others. According to its relation to other constituents, a
constituent may serve certain syntactic function in a clause.
Syntax is seen to be a fundamental principle for encoding and decoding meaning and
is the part of grammar shared by speakers and listeners in communication.
The last chaper of my dissertation is of upmost importance since it synthesizes the
most important theories and approaches to syntactic analysis in the 20th century. In 1957, the
American linguist Chomsky proposed the transformational generative grammar (TG), thus
providing a model for the description of human languages. The goal of TG is to find out a
system of rules to account for the linguistic competence of native speakers of a language to
form grammatical sentences. It is called "transformational-generative" grammar because it
attempts to do two things: to provide the rules that can be used to generate grammatical
sentences how basic sentences can be transformed into either synonymous phrases or more
complex sentences. Abstract ‘syntactic representation’ posited to explain the way in which
actual sentences are interpreted
Visiting aunts can be boring
John is eager to please
51
John is easy to please
Flying planes can be dangerous
Surface structure is the actually produced structure. Directly observable actual form
of sentences as they are used in communication. The relationship between deep structure and
surface structure is that of transformation. Since the relationship is usually a complicated one,
we can best use transformational rules in the total process of relating deep structure to surface
structures.
If we were to attempt to extend phrase structure grammar to cover the entire language
directly, we would lose the simplicity of the limited phrase structure grammar and of the
transformational development. This approach to syntactic analysis is not appreciable.
Chomsky in `Syntactic Structures' observes that "notions of phrase structure are quite
adequate for a small part of the language and that the rest of the language can be derived by
repeated application of a rather simple set of transformations to the strings given by the phrase
structure grammar. Thus "Transformational Generative Grammar" was introduced. The name
suggests that there are two aspects of this theory. The grammar that it provides is both
`transformational' and `generative'. These two aspects are not logically dependent upon each
other, though the theory gains plausibility from the interaction of the two.
52
REFERENCES
Aarts,Bas.2001. English Syntax and Argumentation.2nd edition.Palgrave
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. Henry Holt.
Brown, Keith and Miller, Jim. 1996. Syntax: A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence Structure.
London: Routledge.
Croitoru, Elena.2002. The English Sentence Structure. Galati.Ed. fundatiei „Dunarea de Jos”
Crystal, David. 1985. Linguistics. Second Edition. Penguin Books
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Finch, Geoffrey. 2000. Linguistic Terms and Concepts. Palgrave Macmillan
Finch, Geoffrey. 2003. How to Study Linguistics. A Guide to Understanding Language. 2nd
ed. Palgrave Macmillan
Fromkin, Victoria & Rodman, Robert. 1998. An Introduction to Language. 6th Ed, New York:
Thomson Heinle
J. Fodor and T. Bever. 1965 “The Psychological Reality of Linguistic Segments,” Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior
Hallyday , M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold
Quirk, R. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of English Language
Lyons, J. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge CUP
Lamb, S. 1966. Outline of Stratificational Grammar
Poole, C. Stuart. 1999. An Introduction to Linguistics. Hampshire: Palgrave.
Murar, I.2006. Master Reader. New Theories in Linguistics. Craiova. Tipologia Universitatii
Radford, A. 1992.Transformational Grammar, Cambridge Univ. Press, Great Britain
53
REZUMAT/SUMMARY
Sintaxa este studiul sistemului lingvistic uman care determină modul în care sunt puse
împreună propoziţii din cuvinte. Cuvântul sintaxa este utilizat în lingvistică cu două sensuri.
În primul rând, se referă la o ramură a lingvisticii (sau gramatica), care studiază
unităţile de comunicare, structura lor şi funcţia, iar în al doilea rând sintaxă este un ansamblu
de fenomene lingvistice care sunt implicate în construirea şi utilizarea unităţilor de
comunicare.
Putem vorbi de lingvistică ca un domeniu definit de studii doar de la începutul
secolului al XIX-lea . Toate fenomenele lingvistice nu au găsit încă reflecţii în domeniul
lingvisticii moderne, reflecţii care ar fi fără echivoc şi care corespund cu realitatea.
Lingvistică cuprinde mai multe teorii distincte, abordări şi puncte de vedere. Ele diferă
mai mult sau mai puţin unele de altele. Acest lucru este valabil mai ales pentru sintaxă, una
dintre ramurile cele mai recente ale lingvisticii.
În sintaxa modernă, deşi schematic, două abordări principale pot fi distinse: sintaxa
tradiţională şi structurale (sau structuralistică).
Ambele abordări principale ale sintaxei, tradiţionale şi structurale, continuă să se
dezvolte în continuare, fundamentele teoretice ale acestora sunt definite mai precis, iar
materialul cu privire la dezvoltarea limbii este mărit. Prin urmare, pentru moment, nu este
logic să se adopte doar una dintre ele şi respinse celelalte. Există motive să ne aşteptăm că
realizările din cele două abordări vor fi unite în viitor.
Sintaxă, pur şi simplu, este aranjamentul gramatical al fiecărui element al unei
propoziţii. Principala preocupare este asigurarea coerenţei subiectului, verbului şi
complementului, precum şi relaţiile pe care le leagă împreună. Implică o succesiune logică,
este cadrul de la care aţi construi propoziţii corect.
Fiecare cuvânt pe care îl folosim în limbajul nostru are un sens. Când avem un şir de
cuvinte care împreună formează o propoziţie, obiectivul este ca propoziţia completă să
retransmită un anumit mesaj. Cum aceste cuvinte sunt aranjate şi prezentate sunt dictate de
obicei de sintaxă. Cititorul care se uită la aceste cuvinte aranjate, foloseşte sintaxa pentru a
54
determina ce înseamnă, de asemenea. Fără o structură a sintaxei, nu există nici un mod de a
pune cuvintele împreuna pentru a forma o teză - ele nu ar face nici un sens, oricum.
Sintaxa este considerată a fi un principiu fundamental pentru codarea şi decodarea
sensului şi este parte a gramaticii împărtăşite de vorbitori şi ascultători în comunicare.
În 1957, lingvistul american Chomsky propune Gramatică de Transformare (TG),
oferind astfel un model pentru descrierea limbi umane. Scopul Tgului este de a afla un
sistemul de norme care să ţină seama de competenţele lingvistice ale vorbitorilor nativi de
limba pentru a forma propoziţii gramaticale. Este numită “gramatica- transformaţională”,
deoarece încearcă să facă două lucruri: să s prevadă reguli care pot fi folosite pentru a genera
propoziţii gramaticale de bază, cum fraze poate fi transformate fie în fraze sinonime sau
propoziţii mai complexe.
55