CAS LX 522
Syntax I
Constituents
n
n
Week 3b. Constituents
n
n
Sentences are made of component parts, or
constituents.
Of course, there are the words, as we’ve
seen, but there is more structure than that.
Some words fit together into larger groups,
that function in certain respects as a unit.
And those larger groups (constituents) can
themselves be parts of yet larger groups
(constituents).
Constituents
n
The words that make up a sentence like…
n
n
n
Constituents
n
Functioning as a unit…
The students did their syntax assignment.
The students did the crossword puzzle.
n John did the crossword puzzle.
n The crossword puzzle is what John did.
n *Crossword puzzle is what John did the.
n John likes the crossword puzzle.
n John likes the jigsaw puzzle.
n John likes the theater.
n
The students did their syntax assignment.
n
…are grouped together into component
parts, constituents, which function together
as a unit.
Among them, [the students], the do-ers,
and [their syntax assignment], the done.
Finding constituents
n
How do we find constituents in a sentence?
For many of them, we can guess, but a
guess isn’t evidence. If sentences and
phrases have structure, we should be able
to test for this structure.
Replacement test
n
n
A constituent is a group of words which
function as a unit. If you can replace
part of the sentence with another
constituent (the smallest constituent
being a single word), this tells us that
the replaced section of the sentence is a
constituent.
This isn’t foolproof, but it usually works
if you try to keep the meaning as close
as possible.
1
Replacement test
n
n
n
The students left.
They left.
n
The students is a constituent.
n
n
n
n
n
Sentence fragment test
Generally, only constituents can be
used in the fragmentary response to a
question.
The students ate the sandwiches.
They ate the sandwiches.
The students ate them.
The students dined.
The students
ate
n
What did the students do?
n
What did the students eat?
n Ate
n The
[The students] [ate [the sandwiches]].
[The students] [ate [the sandwiches]]
Who ate the sandwiches?
n The
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
constituent
the sandwiches
constituent
One of the ways we know a verb is a verb
(category) is by observing that it can substitute
for other verbs.
n
the sandwiches
ate
Substitution
n
ate
*Ate the.
sandwiches.
The students
Trees, hierarchy, and
constituency
The students
the sandwiches.
[The students] [ate [the sandwiches]]
the sandwiches
[The students] [ate [the sandwiches]]
*Students ate the.
Trees, hierarchy, and
constituency
constituent
n
students.
[The students] [ate [the sandwiches]].
Trees, hierarchy, and
constituency
n
n
Pat likes to sing. Pat likes to drive.
Pat bought a book. *Pat bought (a) sing.
Pat likes to eat sandwiches.
*Pat bought eat sandwiches.
So is eat sandwiches a verb?
Well, kind of, yes.
It’s a constituent, a phrase, that has the
properties a verb does. A verb phrase.
2
VP
n
n
Why is eat sandwiches a verb phrase?
Well, presumably because eat is a verb.
n
n
n
n
n
The rock fell (off the wall).
#The rock jumped (off the wall).
The combination of eat and sandwiches
forms a constituent that inherits the
properties of eat (and not of sandwiches).
The verb projects to VP.
The verb heads the VP.
The making of a phrase
n
n
n
We’re trying to characterize our
knowledge of syntactic structure.
Our grammatical knowledge is a system
(we can judge new sentences).
All things being equal, a theory in which
the system is simpler (needed fewer
assumptions) is to be preferred over a
theory that entails more complex one.
The making of a phrase
n
n
n
In that spirit, we know that a phrase differs from
a word in that it contains words (or other
phrases).
We’ve seen that when words are combined into
a phrase, the phrase inherits the properties of
one of the things we combined. (The phrase has
a head).
Suppose: a phrase can arise from merging two
words together, with one taking priority. In a
way, attaching one word to another.
The making of a phrase
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
So, let’s go for the simplest theory of
structure we can (and only move away
from it if the simplest theory won’t work).
n
A phrase is a syntactic object formed by
combining (merging) two syntactic objects,
with the properties inherited from one of
them (the head of the phrase).
A word is a syntactic object.
n
sing
eat sandwiches
What does Pat like?
n
Merge
n
What will Pat do?
to eat sandwiches
to sing
[to [eat sandwiches]]
So, a phrase can also arise from combining to
and a verb phrase, to make a bigger phrase.
Trees and constituency
n
Pat will eat lunch.
Pat
will
eat
lunch
3
Trees and constituency
n
Pat will eat lunch.
Trees and constituency
n
Pat will eat lunch.
N
N
Pat
Pat
I
will
V
N
eat
lunch
will
Trees and constituency
n
Pat will eat lunch.
n
V
N
eat
lunch
Pat will eat lunch.
N
I
will
Pat
V
V
N
eat
lunch
Pat will eat lunch.
I
will
Trees and constituency
n
?
Trees and constituency
N
Pat
I
VP
V
NP
eat
lunch
Trees and constituency
n
Pat will eat lunch.
What do we do now? From where does ?
inherit its
?
features?
NP
IP
n This is a
whole
Pat
I
VP
sentence.
n Is it more
will
V
NP
“nouny” or more
eat
lunch
“tensey”?
n
N
Pat
IP
I
will
VP
V
NP
eat
lunch
4
X, X¢, XP
Trees and constituency
n
Pat will eat lunch.
n
Let X stand for a category.
n
When we just have the word, the item from the
lexicon, we write it as X.
If we combine two words (with Merge), the
combination inherits the properties of one of
them (the head). We say that the properties of the
lexical item project to the phrase.
n
IP
NP
Pat
n
I¢
I
will
VP
V
NP
V
N
eat
lunch
eat
lunch
X, X¢, XP
n
n
I, or V, or N, … doesn’t matter.
X, X¢, XP
When X combines with another syntactic object
and does not determine the category of the
combined object, we write XP. The maximal
projection. It projects no further.
Where X is not a combined object (e.g., a word),
we write X. We call this the head. The minimal
projection.
n
n
The XP is what is usually called the phrase, e.g.,
verb phrase (VP), the maximal projection of the
verb.
An XP that combines with a head is called the
complement. Below, lunch is the complement of eat.
VP
n
Did I write the right
thing over lunch?
VP
V
NP
V
NP
eat
lunch
eat
lunch
Radford and the X(P)
n
n
To forestall confusion: lunch is both a minimal
projection and a maximal projection. It functions
as a phrase, an XP, but it has nothing in it but a
head, an X.
Since you need to write something, Radford
generally opts to write X for these X/XPs.
VP
V
NP
eat
lunch
Radford and the X(P)
n
In this class, and on my overheads, I will usually write
X/XP as XP. You should do the same, but you should be
aware that Radford does it differently.
n
In general, this will depend on whether the properties we
are focusing on are those of phrases (XPs) or heads (Xs).
In these ambiguous cases, it will almost
invariably turn out that
they act like phrases
VP
with respect to what we
are focusing on.
V
NP
eat
lunch
5
X, X¢, XP
Radford and the X(P)
n
Another similar comment pertains to the status
of IP below. It is an IP. It is not an I¢. It’s true that
it will be an I¢ after we combine Pat with the IP,
but it isn’t yet. Cf. Radford p. 120.
n
In English, the head and the complement always
seem to come in that order: head-complement.
n
n
n
N
Pat
IP
I
n
VP
will
V
NP
eat
lunch
But here, languages differ.
English is a head-first (or
head-initial) language.
X, X¢, XP
n
n
PP
P
NP
at
lunch
X, X¢, XP
In Japanese, the head follows the complement.
Japanese is head-final.
n
at lunch
(P NP = PP)
eat lunch
(V NP = VP)
will eat lunch (I VP = IP)
n
ringo-o tabeta (NP V = VP)
apple ate
toshokan de (NP P = PP)
library
at
When a syntactic object is a projection of X,
but is neither the maximal projection nor
the minimal projection, we write X¢ (“Xbar”), an intermediate projection.
IP
n
This seems to be a
parameter that
distinguishes languages
(the head parameter)
PP
NP
NP
P
toshokan
de
Pat
I¢
I
VP
eat lunch
will
X, X¢, XP
n
X, X¢, XP
The XP that combines with a category that
projects to its maximal projection is the
specifier—if it isn’t the complement.
n
Below, the NP Pat, which combines with I¢ to
form the last projection of I.
IP
NP
Pat
will
n
Whether the specifier comes before X¢ or after is
independent of whether the head comes before
the complement.
Specifiers are overwhelmingly initial, although a
few languages may be best analyzed as having
final specifiers (sometimes).
IP
n
I¢
I
n
VP
eat lunch
E.g., Japanese, which is
head-final, nevertheless
has initial specifiers.
NP
Ringo-ga
I¢
VP
ringo-o tabe-
I
ta
6
X¢-theory
n
NP?
In the ’70s and ’80s, these ideas went by the
name “X¢-theory”.
n
n
n
n
n
maximal
projection
Every XP has exactly one:
head (a lexical item)
complement (another XP)
specifier (another XP)
for any X (N, V, A, P, I, etc.)
intermediate
projection
n
What category is students?
What category is the?
n Which one is the head?
n Where is the other one?
n
X¢
X
head
Traditionally, a phrase like the students is
called a noun phrase and written as NP.
What does this imply about the structure?
n
XP
YP
specifier
minimal
projection
n
ZP
complement
NP?
n
n
NP?
Traditionally, a phrase like the students is
called a noun phrase and written as NP.
What does this imply about the structure?
What category is students?
What category is the?
n Which one is the head?
n Where is the other one?
n
n
There are a couple of problems with this.
There’s the headedness problem
n
n
n
n
n
Is this Japanese?
The syntactic object that combines with the head is
the complement, not the specifier.
n
?
NP
DP
the
N
students
(Note: There is a way out of this, we’ll see it later)
Supposing that the is a whole DP is suspicious,
because it can never be
NP
?
modified by anything.
Modifiability is a signature
DP
N
property of phrases.
the
students
T
DP!
n
n
n
n
T
If the students is not an NP, it must be a DP.
T
It’s head-initial, like English should be.
The NP can of course be modified (happy students).
T
There are several reasons to think that the
students is a DP and not an NP, even better than
these two. We will return to these next week.
DP
D
the
T
T
T
T
!
NP
students
T
T
7