Winter School in Language and Speech … School in Language and Speech Technologies, 2012 Rovira i...

Winter School in Language and SpeechTechnologies, 2012

Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona

Geoffrey K. Pullum

University of Edinburgh

January 2012Tarragona, Spain

Geoffrey K. Pullum (Edinburgh) WSLST 2012 Jan 2012 1 / 163

The English language: preliminaries

What we mean by English: grammar, style, dialects, etc.What English is like: brief typologyStructure of The Cambridge Grammar of the English LanguageCategories and functionsLexical categorization: V, N, D, Adj, Adv, P, Sbr, Cdr, IntjSyntactic features: [auxiliary], [definite], [number], [pronoun], ...Projection to phrases: heads and dependents.Complements and adjunctsSubjects and objectsCanonical clauses


The Cambridge Grammar

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Languageby Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullumis abbreviated here as CGEL.

Useful elementary textbook based on CGEL:A Student’s Introduction to EnglishGrammar — a guide to CGEL in 300 pages.



The Cambridge Grammar of the English Languageby Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullumis abbreviated here as CGEL.

Useful elementary textbook based on CGEL:A Student’s Introduction to EnglishGrammar — a guide to CGEL in 300 pages.



Structure of CGEL:

Chapter 1: introductionChapter 2: overview of the content of the entire bookChapters 3–7: lexical categorization (N, V, Adj, Adv, Prep)Chapter 8: adjunctsChapters 9–16: non-canonical clauses (negation, subordinateclauses, non-declarative clauses, etc.)Chapter 17: anaphora and ellipsisChapter 18: inflectional morphologyChapter 19: derivational morphology (word formation)Chapter 20: punctuation


First topic: verbs and auxiliaries

— Verbs and the AUXILIARY/LEXICAL distinction

— The verbal inflectional system

— The Catenative-Auxiliary analysis


Lexical and auxiliary verbs

Two syntactic classes of verbs (they are not semantic!):

A special subsets, the auxiliary verbs

The rest, called the lexical verbs

Warning: The traditional definition of auxiliary verbsas ‘helping verbs’ is toxic! Stay away from it!

(In CGEL terms: it overlooks the non-core uses of auxiliaries.)


English verb inflection

The unique paradigm of be:

PRIMARY FORMS

NEUTRAL NEGATIVE

1st sg 3rd sg other 1st sg 3rd sg otherpresent am is are aren’t isn’t aren’t

preterite was were wasn’t weren’tirrealis were — weren’t —

SECONDARY FORMS

plain form past participle gerund-participlebe been being



The wrong wrong wrong way to describe regular verbs:

PRIMARY FORMS

NEUTRAL NEGATIVE

1st sg 3rd sg other 1st sg 3rd sg otherpresent fill fills fill — — —

preterite filled filled filled — — —irrealis filled filled filled — — —

SECONDARY FORMS

plain form past participle gerund-participlefill filled filling



The disastrous threesome lie/lied /lied (“tell untruths”), lie/lay /lain (“berecumbent”), and lay /laid /laid (“deposit”):

plain present lie lie layPRIMARY 3rd sg present lies lies lays

preterite lied lay laidplain form lie lie lay

SECONDARY gerund-participle lying lying layingpast participle lied lain laid


English verb inflection: LEXICAL VERBS

The six paradigmatic forms that have to be recognizedfor a regular lexical verb like fill :

filled preteritePRIMARY fills 3rd singular present

fill plain presentfill plain form

SECONDARY filling gerund-participlefilled past participle



The distinction between finite and non-finite clauses ALMOST BUT

NOT QUITE aligns with the distinction between primary and secondaryverb inflectional forms:

VERB FORM CONSTRUCTION CLAUSE

PRIMARY I am kind.IMPERATIVE Be kind. FINITE

PLAIN FORM SUBJUNCTIVE that I be kindINFINITIVAL for me to be kind

GERUND-PPL. being kind NON-FINITE

PAST-PPL. been kind



The distinction between finite and non-finite clauses ALMOST BUT

NOT QUITE aligns with the distinction between primary and secondaryverb inflectional forms:

VERB FORM CONSTRUCTION CLAUSE

PRIMARY I am kind.IMPERATIVE Be kind. FINITE

PLAIN FORM SUBJUNCTIVE that I be kindINFINITIVAL for me to be kind

GERUND-PPL. being kind NON-FINITE

PAST-PPL. been kind



But not all forms have different shapes:

fill ed preteritePRIMARY fill s 3rd singular present

fill plain presentfill plain form

SECONDARY fill ing gerund-participlefill ed past participle



There are actually no verbs with exactly 6 shapes.

Some irregular verbs (with past participle identical to plain form)have just 3 shapes for the 6 paradigm forms:

3rd sing present gerund-participle

hits hitting

plain present plain form

hit

preterite past participle



Regular verbs, like bake, have 4 shapesfor the 6 paradigm forms:


bakes baking


bake

baked




Several dozen verbs with irregular past participle suffixes,like take, have 5 shapes for 6 paradigm forms:


takes taking


take

took taken



English verb inflection: AUXILIARY VERBS

And now for the auxiliary verbs. As we saw, beovercrowds the chart with extra forms:


is(n’t) being


am / are(n’t) be

was(n’t) / were(n’t) been


The negative forms really need a separate column.



The negative forms really are words, not word sequences

(Zwicky & Pullum, ‘Cliticization versus inflection: English n’t ’,Language 59 [1983], 502-513)

Key syntactic evidence: single word inversion in interrogatives

We should go. Should we go?We shouldn’t go. Shouldn’t we go?We should’ve gone. *Should’ve we gone?We oughta go. *Oughta we go?



For the non-modal auxiliary verb have (the one that expresses perfecttense), the paradigm is the same as its transitive lexical verbcounterpart, except for the additional negative primary forms, and thefact that it has no past participle:

PRIMARY SECONDARY

3rd sg pres neutral 3rd sg pres negative

have haven’t

plain present neutral plain present negative

have haven’t

preterite neutral preterite negative

had hadn’t

gerund-participle

having

plain form

have

past participle

*



Auxiliary do is similar, except there are no grounds for saying it has agerund-participle or a plain form, so it has no secondary forms:

PRIMARY SECONDARY

3rd sg pres neutral 3rd sg pres negative

does doesn’t

plain present neutral plain present negative

do don’t


did didn’t

gerund-participle

*

plain form

*

past participle

*



The modal auxiliary verb will has one less distinction than auxiliary do— there is no distinct 3rd singular present; moreover, all secondaryforms are missing:

PRIMARY SECONDARY

present neutral present negative

will won’t


would wouldn’t

gerund-participle

*plain form

*past participle

*



The modal may is defective in one more form (present negative):

PRIMARY SECONDARY


may *


might mightn’t

gerund-participle

*plain form

*past participle

*



Must is even more defective (no preterite), but still has an inflectionalparadigm:

PRIMARY SECONDARY


must mustn’t


* *

gerund-participle

*plain form

*past participle

*



Such defectiveness seems to be genuinely morphological.Consider the data for the modal dare:

No one dare tell him. [present neutral]

We daren’t tell him. [present negative]

No one dared tell him before. [preterite neutral]∗We daredn’t tell him before. ←− [no preterite negative]∗Not daring tell him, we left. ←− [no gerund-participle]

I thought no one would dare tell him. [plain form]

No one has dared tell him yet. [past participle]



So the paradigm seems to be this:

PRIMARY SECONDARY


dare daren’t


dared *

gerund-participle

*plain form

darepast participle

dared



The modal need is different again. The data seem to be:

No one need tell him. [present neutral]

We needn’t tell him. [present negative]∗No one needed tell him before. ←− [no preterite negative]∗We neededn’t tell him before. ←− [no preterite negative]∗Not needing tell him, we left. ←− [no gerund-participle]

I thought no one would need tell him. [plain form]∗No one has needed tell him yet. ←− [no past participle]



So the paradigm seems to be this:

PRIMARY SECONDARY


need needn’t


* *

gerund-participle

*plain form

needpast participle

*



Certain special properties, the ‘NICE’ properties, distinguish lexicalfrom auxiliary verbs:

N Special Negation syntax, preceding clause-negating not(He is not in), and special negation morphology with the ·n’t suffix(He isn’t in).

I Special Initial (‘Inverted’) position in independent polarinterrogatives (etc.): Do you love me?

C Special ‘Code’ interpretation: Complement Omission DenotesEllipsis (Yes, you are [ ])

E Special Emphasis phonology — heavy stress signals polarityemphasis (But you cán help!)



The ‘NICE’ properties are found with certain non-core uses ofauxiliaries. Illustrating just with inversion:

Is he [PP in? ]

Have you [NP any idea? ]

Would you rather [Clause I didn’t come? ]

The underlined verb is not ‘helping’ any main-clause lexical verb.

These items invert, but take PP or NP or full tensed Clausecomplements (bracketed).

If the underlined words are in ‘Aux’, what is head of VP?


The Catenative-Auxiliary analysis

What is a catenative complement?

VP-internal

subjectless

non-finite

clausal complement

not an object

not predicative

not ascriptive

not specificational

allows arbitrary chaining



VPPPPP

��V

might

VPPPPP��

V

have

VPPPPP��

V

helped

VPPPPP��

V

avoid

VPHHH��

V

seeming

AdjPZZ��

foolish



VP��

��V

ought

VP��

��to be qualified

VP��

��V

thought

VP��

��to be qualified



As with lexical verbs, some auxiliary verbs take a bare infinitivalcomplement and some take a to-infinitival:

taking bare infinitival taking to-infinitivallexical have; hear ; help; let ;

make; see . . .dare; hope; like; need ;seem; try ; want . . .

auxiliary can; dare; do; may ;must ; need ; shall ; will

is (modal use); ought

Note also these idiomatic combinations:

be + going and BrE have + got : to-infinitivalhad + better and would + rather / sooner / as soon: bare infinitival



The catenative-auxiliary analysis claims the auxiliaries are all verbsand there is one clause per verb. Each clause can be separatelynegated:

NEGATED:I have always taken bribes from lobbyists. Neither.

I have not always taken bribes from lobbyists. Have.

I have always not taken bribes from lobbyists. Take.

I have not always not taken bribes from lobbyists. Both.



The old “dependent-auxiliary” analysis, where auxiliaries are littlenon-verbal markers prefixed to the verb in a clause, has no explanationfor negation facts such as those just illustrated.

Nor can it handle various other facts to do with temporal specificationand constituent structure.

On this topic, read CGEL Ch 3, pp. 1214–1220.


Nouns, Determinatives, and NPs

Plan for this part of the lecture:

Nouns and their definition

The category of Determinatives

The Determiner function

Prenominal attributive modifiers

Pronouns, and why they are really nouns


Defining nounsThe thing-word caricature

Lowth, A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762): A noun is‘the name of any thing conceived to subsist, or of which we haveany notion’

Murray, English Grammar (1795): A noun ‘is the name of anything that exists, or of which we have any notion’

Curme, English Grammar (1925): ‘A noun . . . is the name of aliving being or lifeless thing’

Garner, in The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition (2003): ‘Anoun is a word that names something’

250 years of saying the same old same old!


Defining nounsWhat the general public thinks today

‘I got through 12 years of state funded schooling with the sum total ofmy grammatical knowledge being — Nouns are thing words, verbs aredoing words, and adjectives are describing words. I suspect we nevercovered adverbs.’

John Wilkins, on his blogEvolving Thoughts (14 June 2008)


Defining nouns: history without evolution

‘We declared war on terror. We declared war on terror – it’s not even anoun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I’m sure we’ll take on thatbastard ennui.’

Jon Stewart, in a graduation addressat the College of William and Mary

‘I think – uh – the con– th... the phrase “the war on terror” – uh – as...as if there could be a war on an adjective, I mean it’s – it’s just – or anadverb – it doesn’t really work.’

Stefan Halper, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Council on Ethics andInternational Affairs in New York, interviewed on radio WHYY


Defining nounsThey don’t all denote things

fire: process of combustion (rapid oxidation)absence: not being thereemptiness: nothing being therefailure: not managing tolack : failing to be provided when neededmethod : how (by what means) something is doneassistance: being there with supportive actions

We don’t get our definition of ‘Noun’ from metaphysics;we get our metaphysics from the use of our nouns.


Defining nounsThey don’t all denote things

fire: process of combustion (rapid oxidation)absence: not being thereemptiness: nothing being therefailure: not managing tolack : failing to be provided when neededmethod : how (by what means) something is doneassistance: being there with supportive actions

We don’t get our definition of ‘Noun’ from metaphysics;we get our metaphysics from the use of our nouns.


NounsWhat they do have in common

Four inflectional forms: singular and plural plain case × singularand plural genitive case

Serve as heads of NPs with functions like Subject, Object,Predicative Complement, Complement of Preposition

Preceded by determinatives like the or a(n)

Modified by (preceding) adjectives like big

Modified by (following) relative clause modifiers likewho I didn’t recognize


NounsAn irregular lexeme with full paradigm

Inflectional forms of child

PLAIN GENITIVE

SINGULAR child child’sPLURAL children children’s

Phonologically, regular nouns are only half as complex:

Inflectional forms of dog

PLAIN GENITIVE

SINGULAR /dag/PLURAL /dagz/


NounsAn irregular lexeme with full paradigm

Inflectional forms of child

PLAIN GENITIVE

SINGULAR child child’sPLURAL children children’s

Phonologically, regular nouns are only half as complex:

Inflectional forms of dog

PLAIN GENITIVE

SINGULAR /dag/PLURAL /dagz/


Determinatives as a distinct category

The ‘qualifies a noun’ definition of Adjective leads all dictionaries toinclude among the adjectives:

(i) both the articles (the, a(n)

(ii) both demonstratives (this, that)

(iii) all quantifiers (all , some, most , several , . . . )

(iv) all numerals (one, two, . . . , 243, . . . )

(v) the dependent genitive forms of pronouns (my , your , . . . )

Treating these as Adjectives makes a complete hash of the syntacticproperties of that category.



The proposal defended here (and in CGEL):

Determinative is a category of words (like Noun or Preposition),distinct (but not disjoint) from Adjective, containing about 35 basicitems plus all the numerals.

Determiner is a function (like Subject or Head).

Determinatives often (but not always) serve as Determiner.

The Determiner function is often (but not always) filled by aDeterminative.

Genitive NPs can also serve in Determiner function.



A Grammar of Spoken English (Harold Palmer and F. G. Blandford,1939) cites some criteria for distinguishing adjectives from a class ofdeterminatives (Fr. adjectifs déterminatifs) from the class ofadjectives:

(a) Determinatives cannot be used predicatively.

Alert residents objected. ∼ The residents were alert.

All residents objected. 6∼ *The residents were all.



(b) Determinatives only rarely express grade (comparison).

Those who succeeded were more motivated than the others.

*Those who succeeded were more most than the others.

(c) Determinatives only rarely take modifiers, and in particular do nottake intensifying modifiers.

[Very alert ] residents objected.

*[Very all ] residents objected.



(b) Determinatives only rarely express grade (comparison).

Those who succeeded were more motivated than the others.

*Those who succeeded were more most than the others.

(c) Determinatives only rarely take modifiers, and in particular do nottake intensifying modifiers.

[Very alert ] residents objected.

*[Very all ] residents objected.



Four more reliable criteria also distinguish Adjectives fromDeterminatives:

(d) Determinatives do not stack, or even (for the most part) co-occurin NP structure.

Responsible, alert, intelligent residents helped out.

*These, the, all residents helped out.



(e) Adding a Determinative can make a singular count noun into agrammatical NP but adding an adjective cannot:

I heard [NP this guy] was asking about me.

*I heard [NP thin guy] was asking about me.



(f) Most Determinatives occur in the fused determiner-headconstruction, where a Determinative serves as Determiner andHead simultaneously and thus constitutes a whole NP. Noadjective does this.

I’d like to hear more about [NP this].

*I’d like to hear more about [NP thin].



One further minor point is that there is a phonological conditionsufficient to guarantee non-adjectivehood:

(h) Adjectives can never begin with phonological /ð/, butdeterminatives can, and some do (that , the, this).

As a result of a historical accident, initial /ð/ is never found in Nouns,Verbs, or Adjectives.



There are about 35 basic Determinatives:

a(n) a few a little all+ anotherany both certain+ each eitherenough every few+ little+ manymuch neither no one+ said+

several some such+ sufficient+ thatthe this various+ we+ whatever+

whatsoever+ what+ whichever which+ you+

Words with superscript ‘ + ’ belong to other categories as well.Words in boldface italics have varying inflectional forms.



The Determiner of an NP is intuitively an initial subconstituent thatfixes certain properties like definiteness and quantification and make itfit for use semantically as an argument.

In semantic terms, a Determiner combines with the propertydenotation of a nominal expression to form a full NP meaning (ageneralized quantifier, under many accounts).

The Determiner function in English is filled by either a Determinative(this house) or an NP in the genitive case (the president’s house).

What does ‘Specifier’ mean in post-1970 transformational grammar?Not clear. But probably Determiner — i.e., it’s regarded as a function,not a category, and certainly not a lexical category.



The Determiner of an NP is intuitively an initial subconstituent thatfixes certain properties like definiteness and quantification and make itfit for use semantically as an argument.

In semantic terms, a Determiner combines with the propertydenotation of a nominal expression to form a full NP meaning (ageneralized quantifier, under many accounts).

The Determiner function in English is filled by either a Determinative(this house) or an NP in the genitive case (the president’s house).

What does ‘Specifier’ mean in post-1970 transformational grammar?Not clear. But probably Determiner — i.e., it’s regarded as a function,not a category, and certainly not a lexical category.


The ‘DP Hypothesis’

The DP Hypothesis is not merely that some phrases have D as Head.CGEL agrees that there are phrases with D as Head such as hardlyany , just about all , almost every :

NP��

��Det:

DP��

��Mod:

AdvP

Head:

Adv

hardly

Head:

D

any

Head:

Nom

Head:

N

onions



The DP Hypothesis is not merely that some phrases have D as Head.CGEL agrees that there are phrases with D as Head such as hardlyany , just about all , almost every :

NP��

Det:

DP��

Mod:

AdvP��

Mod:

AdvP

Head:

Adv

just

Head:

Adv

about

Head:

D

all

Head:

Nom��

Mod:

AdjP

Head:

Adj

civilized

Head:

Nom

Head:

N

societies



But the DP hypothesis is not that some phrases have D as Head; it isthat phrases like the archbishop and this bicycle have the D asHead.

In a phrase like the king of France, it is claimed that the is the Head.The rest of the phrase, king of France, is a dependent, specifically aComplement.

Once informally proposed by John Lyons, the DP Hypothesis wasrevived in 1987 in the MIT doctoral dissertation of Steven Abney.


Attributive Modifiers

English allows pre-head modification of nouns by adjuncts of variouscategorial types:

Adjective Phrase (AdjP):those nice new green sandals you bought

Nominal (Nom, i.e. N): a labor union organizer

Gerund-participial Verb Phrase (VPGPL):several quietly sleeping children

Past-participial Verb Phrase (VPPPL):the university’s hastily developed pay reduction plan



With the ordering of attributive modifiers we find a phenomenon thatappears to be syntactic at first but is, I think, truly semantic throughand through — or at least, sensitive to both semantic and syntacticproperties.

For example, in nice new green sandals it seems hard to reorder anyof the adjectives:

nice new green sandals??nice green new sandals??new nice green sandals??new green nice sandals??green nice new sandals??green new nice sandals



One suggested operational semantics for the ?? prefix would be“profoundly unlikely to get more than a tiny handful of non-spuriousGoogle hits.”

For example: 100 instances of friendly little white + Noun can be foundusing Google; but for ??little white friendly , only 10 hits, most spurious.



The conditions on sequencing of attributive modifiers are not strict likethe condition that says the Determiner precedes the Head. They arelabile constraints: violating them creates special effects, or lowersacceptability, but does not clearly mark the result as not being English.

Early modifiers (determinatives such as numerals; superlativeadjectives; ordinal adjectives; primacy adjectives) have a strongtendency to precede residual modifiers (all others):

the two vital facts [D + residual]the largest known meteorite [sup + residual]the second abortive attempt [ord + residual]a key new proposal [prim + residual]



And within the residual modifiers, there is a weaker tendency to adhereto an order like this:

evaluative modifiers beforegeneral modifiers before

age modifiers beforecolor modifiers before

provenance modifiers beforemanufacture modifiers before

type modifiers

CGEL cites this NP:

an attractive tight-fitting new pink Italian lycra women’s swimsuit



Shifting any modifier leftward in its sequence tends to suggest it isbeing used contrastively with the following constituent presupposed:

pink Italian swimsuit if Italian swimsuits are under discussion;

Italian pink swimsuit if pink swimsuits are under discussion.


Pronouns and determinatives

The inflectional paradigms of the personal pronoun lexemes

NOM ACC DEP GEN IND GEN REFL

I me my mine myselfyou your yours yourself

he him his himselfshe her hers herself

it its itselfwe us our ours ourselves

you your yours ourselvesthey them their theirs themselves


Pronouns and determinatives

A small overlap: there are two personal determinatives.

PRONOUN USES DETERMINATIVE USES

I do all right. *I man do all right.You do all right. *You man do all right.He does all right. *He man does all right.She does all right. *She woman does all right.It does all right. *It puppy does all right.We do all right. We men do all right. ← both OKYou do all right. You men do all right. ← both OKThey do all right. *They men do all right.*The do all right. The women do all right.*A does all right. A linguist does all right.*Every do all right. Every puppy does all right.


Adjectives, Adverbs, their phrases, and their functions

Plan for this part of the lecture

The disastrous function / category confusion

The functions served by adjective phrases

Criteria for identifying adjectives

Criteria for identifying adverbs

A note on zero-derived adverbs in non-standard dialects

The Categorial Exclusivity assumption

The Adjective-Adverb Identity thesis


The function / category confusion

For two hundred years or more the following two notions have beenpersistently confused in discussions of English grammar:

What kind of constituent is this? — category

What role does this constituent play? — function

Category can be listed (for words) in a dictionary: it is independent ofthe syntax of any particular sentence.

Function is not, and cannot be, a lexical property. It is entirely relativeto the syntax of some particular expression.



For two hundred years or more the following two notions have beenpersistently confused in discussions of English grammar:

What kind of constituent is this? — category

What role does this constituent play? — function

Category can be listed (for words) in a dictionary: it is independent ofthe syntax of any particular sentence.

Function is not, and cannot be, a lexical property. It is entirely relativeto the syntax of some particular expression.



Just to make sure the disastrous confusion continues for anotherhundred years or so, the Merriam-Webster dictionaries actually usethe term ‘function’ for ‘(lexical) category’!

Main Entry: 1pigPronunciation: pigFunction: nounInflected Form: -sUsage: often attributiveEtymology: Middle English pigge

1 : a young swine of either sex that has notreached sexual maturity; broadly : a wild ordomestic swine — see HOG 1a . . .



Just to make sure the disastrous confusion continues for anotherhundred years or so, the Merriam-Webster dictionaries actually usethe term ‘function’ for ‘(lexical) category’!

Main Entry: 1pigPronunciation: pigFunction:Category!! nounInflected Form: -sUsage: often attributiveEtymology: Middle English pigge

1 : a young swine of either sex that has notreached sexual maturity; broadly : a wild ordomestic swine — see HOG 1a . . .


The functions of adjectives and AdjPs

Adj serves, of course, as Head of AdjP. (When nothing hangs on it weoften say ‘adjective’ when strictly we mean AdjP.)

The two most important functions in which AdjPs serve are:

1. Attributive Modifier in the structure of NP (n.b.: stackable):

[NP those [Nom totally stupid [Nom red [Nom pants ] ] ] ]

2. Predicative Complement in the structure of VP:

Those pants [VP look really stupid ]


The functions of adjective phrases and AdjPs

There are a few less significant functions of AdjP:

Postpositive Modifier in the structure of NP:

I’d never seen [NP anything so stupid ]

External Modifier in the structure of indefinite NP:

I’d never seen [NP so stupid a [Nom pair of pants ]]

(Marginally, perhaps also Subject function: Totally stupid was my mainimpression.)


The functions of adjective phrases

Traditional grammar crucially fails to recognize that

occurrence as Attributive 6= membership in Adj

In the same spirit as the ‘thing word’ definition of Noun, traditionalgrammarians define adjective as a word that ‘modifies’ or ‘qualifies’ or‘adds to the meaning’ of a noun’.

This is vague, semantically-tinged function talk. As a definition, it ishopeless.

Consider: The good die young.

Two adjectives, no nouns. Modifying a noun is not necessary.

But as we shall see, it is also not sufficient.



Dictionaries often list various nouns with Adj as a second category.Merriam-Webster is typical:

Main Entry: 2headPronunciation: hedFunction:Category!! adjectiveEtymology: Middle English heved, hed, from

heved, hed, n.

1 : of, relating to, or for a head or the head2 : PRINCIPAL, CHIEF, LEADING, FIRST 〈head chorister〉〈head cook〉3 : situated at the head 〈head wall* 〈head sails〉4 : coming from in front : meeting the head as it ismoved forward 〈head sea〉〈head tide〉



Consider the modifiers in NPs like Alaska residents, Beatlesrecordings, California girls, Dell laptops, Edinburgh weather . . .

If serving in Attributive Modifier function is sufficient to determineadjectivehood, then the Adjective category will have to include

all place names in the world (Sheffield steel)every company name (IBM stock , Toyota truck )every number name (their prestigious 10025 zipcode)every name of a chemical element or other substance (aluminiumfoil , gold ring, oil painting, plutonium bomb)every plant name (mahogany table, grass verge) . . .



Under the traditional view the list of adjectives will never end.

Adjective will be an open category, even larger than Noun.

And there will be no distinction in grammatical properties between thetwo.



M-W is cautious in defining ‘adjective’, claiming only typicality, notcriteriality:

. . . typically used as a modifier of a noun to denote aquality of the thing named . . .

But amusingly, M-W also has an entry for ‘adjective’ as an adjective!The primary sense given is:

being an adjective 〈an adjective word〉 : functioning as an ad-jective 〈an adjective clause〉 : fitting or suitable to an adjective〈adjective uses of nouns〉〈adjective inflections〉

A classic confusion over what ‘adjective’ means, in a dictionary entrywhere adjective is wrongly analysed as an adjective!



M-W is cautious in defining ‘adjective’, claiming only typicality, notcriteriality:

. . . typically used as a modifier of a noun to denote aquality of the thing named . . .

But amusingly, M-W also has an entry for ‘adjective’ as an adjective!The primary sense given is:

being an adjective 〈an adjective word〉 : functioning as an ad-jective 〈an adjective clause〉 : fitting or suitable to an adjective〈adjective uses of nouns〉〈adjective inflections〉

A classic confusion over what ‘adjective’ means, in a dictionary entrywhere adjective is wrongly analysed as an adjective!


Criteria for adjectivehood

How do we define ‘adjective’, if not by reference to the functionAttributive Modifier?

In any language, the adjectives (if there are any) are a grammaticallydistinct class of words including the simplest and most direct ways ofdenoting one-dimensional and stative properties such as beinggood, bad, large, small, new, old, black, white, etc.

But that is applicable only in universal grammar.

In English we can, and must, be more specific.



Adjectives usually denote static and gradable properties, andmany basic ones inflect for grade (old , older , oldest).

Uninflectable adjectives, if gradable, express grade with pre-Headmore and most .

No adjectives show agreement for person or number.

Adverbs function as pre-head Modifiers of Adjectives (unusuallyintelligent , insanely great).

Typical AdjPs can serve as both Attributive Modifier (big boy ) andPredicative Complement (looks big).

The Complements that Adjectives select are typically PP orClause — almost never NP.



AdjP can serve as Adjuncts (i.e., Modifiers or Supplements).

When such an Adjunct is fronted, it requires a target of predication.

If no such target is available, we get the dangling modifier effect —useful for diagnosing adjectives:

Away is a Preposition but afraid is an Adjective:

Away from home, John behaved properly. [no target needed]Afraid of us, John behaved properly. [target is John]

Away from home, there was just work. [target unneeded]∗Afraid of us, there was just work. [BAD — NO TARGET]



The predicativity test is also useful in distinguishing adjectives fromadverbs. The general principle is: Prepositions and Adverbs alwayshave some uses as non-predicative modifiers; adjectives neverdo.

Again is an Adverb. Awake is an Adjective.

Again, we scarcely knew what to do. [no target needed]Awake, we scarcely knew what to do. [target is we]

Again, it snowed heavily. [target unneeded]∗Awake, it snowed heavily. [BAD — NO TARGET]



The strange adjective worth

Does not inflect for grade (despite being short).

Can never be used attributively.

Selects an NP complement, not PP.

The complement is obligatory.



The strange adjective worth

Compare with the typical adjective worthy :

The lexeme worth The lexeme worthy

worth, *worther , *worthest worthy , worthier , worthiest

*It’s a worth project. It’s a worthy project.

It was worth my time. *It was worthy my time.*It was worth of my time. It was worthy of my time.

*It is certainly worth. It is certainly worthy.



The words due, like, near , opposite, and unlike are also puzzling, witha complex mix of Adjective and Preposition properties. But argumentscan be given that

due and opposite were adjectives but have evolved intoprepositions;

like and unlike are sometimes prepositions and sometimesadjectives with NP or Clause complements;

near may be dually categorized, but is probably prepositional(though it inflects for grade!).


And now...

Adverbs


Criteria for adverbhood

VP modification may be expressed by NP, PP, or AdvP:

Modifier type NP PP AdvPLOCATIVE next door in the USA locallyTEMPORAL (next) Monday on Monday soonDURATIVE a long time for ages lengthilyMANNER the same way in haste hastily

‘Modifying a verb’ is therefore virtually useless as a criterion formembership in the Adverb category. Yet it is the sole criteriontraditional grammars generally give.



Adverb is a heterogeneous category in the languages that have it. Theadverbs include expressions for

additive and restrictive focusing (also, even, only ),degree (very , really , nearly ),aspectuality (still , already , yet),seriality (again),connection (however , therefore, thus),frequency (always, never , often),modality (perhaps, probably , certainly ),time (later , soon, recently ),manner (quickly , easily , better ),

and other semantic categories.



English has a modest number of basic, underived adverbs:

again, almost , already , also, always, anyway , as, even, ever ,how , however , indeed , just , long, maybe, never , often, only ,otherwise, perhaps, please, quite, rather , sometimes, soon, still ,therefore, though, thus, too, very , well , yet

A few (early , hard , ill , late, right , well , . . . ) are formed from adjectivesby zero derivation (sometimes with a meaning change). But the vastmajority are derived by suffixation of ·ly .



But being derived by the ·ly suffix is not a criterion for adverbhood.Many adjectives are derived from nouns by means of the same suffix:

beast ·ly , brother ·ly , coward ·ly , curmudgeon·ly , death·ly ,father ·ly , friend ·ly , king·ly , mother ·ly , musician·ly , painter ·ly ,prince·ly , queen·ly , sister ·ly , spright ·ly

And there are other ·ly adjectives like kind ·ly and live·ly .



Jackendoff, in X Syntax (1977), suggested a key distinction betweenadjectives and adverbs:

Jackendoff’s complementability criterionAdjectives take complements; adverbs do not.

Jackendoff’s claim is not true.

Jackendoff may have been misled by the small size of the classes ofcomplement-taking adverbs.

There are several of such classes. They take the same complementsas the related adjectives.



A few examples of complement-taking adverbs (from the WSJ corpus)operates [AdvP quite [Adv separately ] [PP from the rest of thecompany ] ]

the lower portion could move [AdvP [Adv independently ][PP of the upper part ] ]

[AdvP [Adv luckily ] [PP for them, ] ] Mr. Keswick decided not to calltheir bluff

it will be treated [AdvP no [Adv differently ] [PP from more permanenttrade developments ] ]

an unregulated concern that operated [AdvP [Adv similarly to a banktrust department ] ]


A note on non-standard zero-derived adverbs

It is well known that many non-standard dialects use words withadjectival form in adverb roles. Some song lines:

!Love me tender [Ken Darby; attributed to Presley & Matson]

!Treat me nice [Leiber & Stoller]

!Hurts so bad [Randazzo, Wilding & Hart]

!my love does it good [McCartney]

It is commonly thought that this indicates confusion of adjectives andadverbs. Not true, I believe.


A note on non-standard zero-derived adverbs

What is involved seems to be merely a slight broadening of the class ofzero-derived adverbs in English mentioned above: early , hard , right ,etc.

And (I believe) even in the dialects that have a broader class of suchadverbs, the zero-derived ones are not used as pre-head modifiers:

!Drive real carefully now! ∼ !Drive real careful now!!She carefully drug it outside. ∼ *!She careful drug it outside.

(Sociolinguists: Is this claim correct? Can it be verified from actualrecords of non-standard English conversation?)


The categorial exclusivity claim

There is a long history of traditional grammarians and modern linguistsstating this generalization for Standard English:

The categorial exclusivity claimAdjectives modify nouns; adverbs modify non-nouns.

Almost any reference work at random — any English grammar,dictionary, or terminology guide — will repeat this statement.


The categorial exclusivity claim

On this view, adjectives and adverbs (in Standard English) do notoverlap in function:

adjective modifier adverb modifiermodifying a noun a nice man *a nicely manmodifying a verb *she sings nice she sings nicely


The Adjective–Adverb identity thesis

Given the exclusivity claim, an obvious hypothesis arises.

John Lyons proposed it in 1966: that adverbs are merely‘positional variants’ of the corresponding adjectives.

A decade later Joseph Emonds (1976, 12–13) suggested the samething: that the adverbs formed with ·ly are simply ‘adjectives in averb-modifying rather than a noun-modifying function’.



Andrew Radford (1988) suggests the term ‘advective’ for the Acategory.

And Ingo Plag (2003, p. 196) explicitly asserts that ·ly is an inflectionalsuffix occurring on just those occurrences of adjectives that do notmodify nouns.

Mark Baker (2003, 230–257) makes the radical proposal that there areonly three universal categories: N, V, and A. N must refer; V mustassign thematic roles to N; and A must occur only where neither N or Vcan.



But it is not in fact true that an adverb can act as Modifier of a categoryif and only if an adjective cannot.

We begin by setting aside two distractors.

• First, ignore the sky above, the weather outside, the roomdownstairs.

Traditionally these would be adverbs modifying nouns. (Henry Sweetnoted this.)

But in fact overwhelming evidence shows that the underlined wordsare prepositions (claim to be justified later).



• Second, ignore hardly anyone, precisely nothing, almost everybody .

These would appear to have adverbs modifying nouns if(i) pronouns are a special kind of noun, and(ii) anyone, nothing, and everybody are pronouns.

But CGEL rejects (ii).

CGEL holds that anyone, nothing, everybody , etc., are compounddeterminatives.

And it is normal for determinatives to take adverbs as modifiers.



Harder to set aside are cases that appear to have adjectivesmodifying other adjectives, where modification by the relatedadverbs either expresses a different sense or is unacceptable.

ADJECTIVE MODIFIER SEMANTICALLY DISTINCT ADVERB

cold sober 6= coldly soberplain stupid 6= plainly stupidbloody good 6= bloodily goodsilky smooth 6= silkily smooth



And here the adverb versions seem outright unacceptable:

ADJECTIVE MODIFIER UNACCEPTABLE ADVERB

blind drunk 6= ?blindly drunkfilthy rich 6= ?filthily rich

pretty cruel 6= ?prettily cruelblack British 6= ?blackly British



Another context in which both adjectives and adverbs occur is in thecomplement of the copula:

ASCRIPTIVE COMPLEMENT:The way she dressed was elegant.(≈ “She elegantly performed the act of dressing herself.”)

SPECIFYING COMPLEMENT

The way she dressed was elegantly.(≈ “Her dress was elegant in style.”)



ASCRIPTIVE COMPLEMENT

It was rude that she spoke to me.(≈ “The fact of her speaking to me constituted rudeness.”)


It was rudely that she spoke to me.(≈ “She spoke to me in a rude manner.”)


It was clever that they used flashbacks.(≈ “Using flashbacks was a clever idea.”)


It was cleverly that they used flashbacks.(≈ “They used flashbacks in a clever way.”)




It was rude that she spoke to me.(≈ “The fact of her speaking to me constituted rudeness.”)


It was rudely that she spoke to me.(≈ “She spoke to me in a rude manner.”)


It was clever that they used flashbacks.(≈ “Using flashbacks was a clever idea.”)


It was cleverly that they used flashbacks.(≈ “They used flashbacks in a clever way.”)



But the really convincing evidence comes from a constructionmentioned briefly in Huddleston & Pullum, A Student’s Introduction toEnglish Grammar (2005, 123n — not covered in CGEL).

Adverbs (or AdvPs) can postmodify nouns in NPs:

I express my profound disappointment at [NP the government’srefusal yet again to take the high road and bring forth a motion toallow parliament to sit in committee of the whole.]

Yet again isn’t modifying take the high road ; it’s modifying the nounrefusal : the government has yet again refused. This is an AdvPmodifying a noun.



Other examples:

[NP The NHS and other health organisations internationally] clearlyneed methodologies to support benefit analysis of merging healthcareorganisations.

[NP The unique role globally of the Australian Health Promoting SchoolsAssociation, as a non-government organization specifically establishedto promote the concept of the health promoting school,] is described.



Other attested examples:

the winner recently of both a Gramophone award and the RoyalPhilharmonic Society Award for Best Chamber Ensemble

the people locally

the weather recently

the centerpiece visually of the film



The bottom line:

Adjective–Adverb Identity is falseIt is impossible to sustain the categorial identity claim for theAdjective and Adverb categories.

Categorial Exclusivity is falseNot even the claim that the sets of modified constituents aremutually exclusive for Adjective and Adverb can be sustained.

Whatever the facts may be for some other languages, Adj and Adv aretwo quite distinct categories in Standard English.


Prepositions, Particles, and Subordinators


Prepositions, Adverbs, and Particles:The Jespersen/Klima/Fraser/Emonds arguments

‘Subordinating conjunctions’ as prepositions:The Hunter/Jespersen/Geis thesis

The CGEL category of Subordinators


Prepositions, Adverbs, and Particles

What is the lexical category of words such as in, up, and down ?

Every dictionary of English gives the wrong answer.

All say ‘Preposition (‘prep’) and Adverb (‘adv’), and give them separateentries — despite copious semantic overlap.



The relevant dictionary entries for down (ignoring the noun meaning“soft feathers” and the verb meaning “defeat”, “drink”, etc.) tend to saythis sort of thing:

down adv 1 a from a higher point to or toward the ground or base; bfrom a higher to a lower position; 2 in a direction conventionally theopposite of up . . .

down prep 1 a in a descending direction along; b from a higher to alower position upon or within; 2 in a direction conventionally theopposite of up . . .



CGEL claims that in, on, off , up, down, round , through, etc., are neveradverbs.

Consider how implausible the traditional claim actually is.

It says that these words are adverbs, despite the fact that

(i) they are not derived from adjective stems like most adverbs;

(ii) they are all homophonous with specific prepositions; and

(iii) they are synonymous with those homophonous prepositions.


















A syntactic argument against the traditonal view

What is more, these words do not perform the usual modifyingfunctions of adverbs:

He was bleeding internally.*He was bleeding in.

She was upwardly mobile.*She was up mobile.

Mike fell immediately.Mike fell down.

Mike immediately fell.*Mike down fell.

These are adverbs without the properties of adverbs!


The Klima/Fraser/Emonds arguments

Several relevant syntactic arguments were given in a classic article ofthe ‘classical transformational’ era (citing earlier observations byEdward Klima and Bruce Fraser):

Joseph E. Emonds (1972), ‘Evidence that indirect objectmovement is a structure-preserving rule.’Foundations of Language 8: 546–561.

Reprinted 1973 in Gross, Halle & Schützenberger (eds.),The Formal Analysis of Natural Languages (Mouton).



1. Subcategorization of intransitivesSome intransitive verbs like glance and dart syntactically select adirectional phrase as an obligatory complement:

The lizard darted into that hole.∗The lizard darted.

These so-called ‘adverbs’ can fill that complement role:

The lizard darted in.

But in general adverbs cannot:∗The lizard darted immediately.



2. Subcategorization of transitivesCertain transitive verbs like put and sneak select a directional phraseas obligatory second complement:

We’ll have to sneak some beer into the dorm.∗We’ll have to sneak some beer.

These so-called ‘adverbs’ can fill in that complement role:

We’ll have to sneak some beer in.

But in general adverbs cannot:

∗We’ll have to sneak the beer quietly.


Interim conclusion

Conclusion from arguments 1 and 2:

in and similar words are not adverbs.



3. Into the bin with it etc. These constructions involve a directionalPP (underlined) followed by a with-headed PP:

Into the bin with it!Up the stairs with you!

Some so-called ‘adverbs’ can also occur as the directional, butadverbs in general cannot:

Down with capitalist greed!Out with the old, in with the new.

*Fiercely with capitalist greed!*Slowly with the old, immediately with the new.



4. Fronted directional PPs with verbs of motionDirectional PPs switch with subjects of verbs of motion:

The terrified townspeople ran into the church.

Into the church ran the terrified townspeople.

The same alternation is found with the so-called ‘adverbs’, but not withadverbs in general:

The terrified townspeople ran in.

In ran the terrified townspeople.

The terrified townspeople ran immediately.

∗Immediately ran the terrified townspeople.



5. Modification with rightCertain items such as right , straight , and bang occur in modernStandard English as pre-head modifiers only with prepositions:∗There is a McDonald’s right dominating the square.

∗There is a McDonald’s right the same place.

∗There is a McDonald’s right local.

∗There is a McDonald’s right locally.

There is a McDonald’s right on our doorstep.

Yet sentences like these are fine:

She leaned over and fell right in.

The price went right down the next day.

Does this road go right through?


Interim conclusion

Conclusion from arguments 3, 4, and 5:

in and similar words head preposition phrases (PPs).


An additional argument

6. In and outThe traditional analysis has to put in and out , counterintuitively, inentirely different categories:

It looks like we’re in luck. [in + NP]∗It looks like we’re out luck. [*out + NP]It looks like we’re out of luck. [out + PP]

I keep my diamonds in the safe. [in + NP]∗I left my diamonds out the safe. [*out + NP]I left my diamonds out of the safe. [out + PP]

We’ll be in trouble if he leaves. [in + NP]∗We’ll be out trouble if he leaves. [*out + NP]We’ll be out of trouble if he leaves. [out + PP]


Prepositions that never have NP complements

We can now see that many items are best categorized as prepositionseven though they are ‘strictly intransitive’, i.e., they never take NPcomplements:

The lizard darted [PP away. ]

We’ll have to sneak some beer [PP back. ]

Let’s hold the meeting [PP right here. ]

Make sure you come [PP straight home. ]

It went [PP right outside. ]

Dear Lord, grant me your precious gift of patience — preferably[PP right now. ]


Prepositions that never have NP complements

Words like ahead and abroad are prepositions that never take NPcomplements, whereas again is an adverb. And it is easy todemonstrate this:

In 2008 he got arrested again. [Adv at end of VP]In 2008 he again got arrested. [Adv OK before V]

In 2008 he got arrested abroad. [PP at end of VP]*In 2008 he abroad got arrested. [PP bad before V]

Conclusion: abroad is not an Adverb.


Particles

And what of ‘particles’, in the sense of the verb-particle construction?

They are light ‘intransitive’ PPs with special linear positioningprivileges.

PARTICLES NOT PARTICLES

away at (strictly transitive)back betweendown downstreamin indoorsout outsideup upstairs


Particles

Plausible structures for a simple verb-particle construction:

VP��

V

take

PP

P+

out

NP��

��the trash

VP��

V

take

NP��

��the trash

PP

P+

out


The traditional category ‘subordinating conjunction’

Traditional grammar recognizes a category of ‘conjunctions’ dividedinto ‘subordinating conjunctions’ and ‘coordinating conjunctions’.

Cogent arguments were presented against the composition of theformer category at least 225 years ago.

John Hunter argued before the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1784 thatit was not sensible for after to be placed in different categories in thesetwo examples:

I came after he departed.I came after his departure.


The Hunter/Jespersen/Geis thesis

The idea Hunter advocated was argued again by Jespersen 140 yearslater (The Philosophy of Grammar, 1924) and again half a centuryafter that by Michael Geis (MIT Ph.D. dissertation, 1970):

Different verbs take different kinds of complement(NP complement, Clause complement, no complement, etc.), yet,Jespersen observes, ‘no one thinks of assigning them to differentparts of speech’.

Prepositions should be treated analogously, as subcategorized forcomplements of different types.

Dual categorization should be resorted to only when thegrammatical facts require it.


The Hunter/Jespersen/Geis thesis

Jespersen even finds a sentence in Thackeray where after has acomplement consisting of an NP coordinated with a content clause:

After [ the Baden business and he had dragged off his wife toChampagne ], the Duke became greatly broken.

CGEL (1327, [15iiib]) cites a better-sounding and more recent attestedcase, where the clause comes first:

After [their rubber plantation failed, andher husband’s death on the Upper Rewa in 1885 ], she maintainedher three young children with a tiny store.

Given such examples, dividing after into preposition and ‘conjunction’instances becomes actually impossible.


Genuine multiple categorization

A word like cosy really does have three lexical entries:

a tea cosy (N) SINGULAR PLURAL

PLAIN cosy cosiesGENITIVE cosy’s cosies’

keep us cosy (Adj) PLAIN COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE

cosy cosier cosiest

cosy up to her (V) PLAIN FORM cosy3RD SING. PRESENT cosies

PRETERITE, PAST PARTICIPLE cosiedGERUND-PARTICIPLE cosying


Spurious multiple categorization

But it is syntactic madness to claim that since belongs to three differentcategories, which is what the traditional account does.

I’ve loved her ever since [‘adv ’]

I’ve loved her ever since our first meeting [‘prep’]

I’ve loved her ever since we first met [‘conj ’]


Spurious multiple categorization

Typical dictionary information for since:

since adv1 : continuously from a time in the past until the present . . .2 : before the present time3 : after a time in the pastsince prep1 : in the period after a specified time in the past2 : continuously from a specified time in the pastsince conj1 : after the time in the past when2 : up to the present time from the time in the past when3 : for the reason that; because of the fact that ← special


A better account of since

Rough draft of a more sensible dictionary entry:

since prep1 continuously from a certain time in the past until the present, the timebeing specified by NP complement (empty since March) or Clausecomplement (empty since they left) or the context (empty ever since≈ empty ever since that time).In older usage, may modify a verb (a wall, since removed), or (espe-cially if modified by long) may mean simply earlier than the present(abandoned long since).2 (with Clause complement only) for the reason that, or because ofthe fact that (We must assume it, since there is no other explanation).


The category of Subordinators

Not all traditional ‘subordinating conjunctions’ are prepositions.

CGEL posits a small class of subordinators.

a small class (half a dozen items)

markers of syntactic subordination

no independent meaning

often optional or substitutable

never function as Head

(‘Complementizer’ is a bad name for these. They don’t always formComplements. Modifiers such as relative clauses are also introducedby Subordinators.)


Recapitulation

Notice that in these lectures I am rejecting boththe ‘DP hypothesis’ (that the determinative rather than the nominalbody is Head in the king of France) andthe ‘CP hypothesis’ (that the subordinator rather than the clausalbody in that nobody cares).

Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives, Adverbs, Prepositions, and Determinativeshead NPs, VPs, AdjPs, AdvPs, PPs, and DPs, respectively (thoughthe king of France is not a DP).

Subordinators and Coordinators never head phrases at all.



Declarative clause subordinator: that

default marker of a declarative content clause

has no meaning at all

normally unaccented

usually optional when marking an internal complement, but notwhen marking a Subject clause

obligatory in that-relative before Subject gap

never functions as Head (lexical items select tensed or plain formverbs, but not simply that as subordinator)



Interrogative clause subordinator: whether

marks a clause as an interrogative content clause

no clear meaning independently of clause interrogativity (?)

can be replaced by if when marking an internal complement, butnot when marking a Subject clause or in the whether or not‘exhaustive conditional’ construction

never functions as Head



Other subordinators:

for when initial in infinitival clauses that have subjects for you to doa thing like that (the word is also a preposition, of course, in othercontexts)

if in extraposed irrealis declarative content clauses, e.g. It wouldbe great if he were able to join us (compare *If he were able to joinus would be great) — but note that conditional if is a preposition

possibly infinitival to also fits in this category (but would be ananomalous member)



Nothing is gained by forcing all Subordinators into the P category (asEmonds 1985 proposes).

But the prepositions traditionally called ‘subordinating conjunctions’(although, because, conditional if , lest , since, though, unless, etc.) aredifferent from Subordinators:

independent lexical meaning

cannot be omitted or replaced without altering meaning

select complements the way Heads of phrases do



These prepositions all differ in complement selection:

OBJECT of - BARE that- PRED NO

NP PP CLAUSE CLAUSE COMP COMP

although – – + – + –at + – – – – –because – + + – – –down + – – – – +given + – – + – –lest – – + – – –out (+) + – – – +provided – – + + – –since + – + – – +



The difference with Subordinators, if CGEL has it right, is that theydon’t select anything. They have no subcategorizational properties,and take no complements.

They are meaningless markers of subordinate clause status, oftenoptional, quite idiosyncratic in syntactic behavior.

In X-bar theory terms, they are exceptions to the general principle forcategories in the lexicon: they do not found bar-level projections, theyare never heads.

In The staff were sure that the students were happy, the head of theunderlined complement clause is not that ; it is the students werehappy .


Relative Constructions and Unbounded Dependencies


— The typology of subordinate clauses

— Types of relative clause

— The diversity of wh-phrase uses

— Unbounded dependencies

— The implausibility of movement


The typology of subordinate clauses

The traditional view (shown here in green to remind you that it iscompletely wrong) is that subordinate clauses are of three types:

‘Nominal’ or ‘noun’ clauses: act like nouns — can be subjectsand objects‘Adjectival’ or ‘adjective’ clauses: act like adjectives — theymodify nouns‘Adverbial or ‘adverb’ clauses: act like adverbs — they modifyverbs

This whole classification is a mistake.



First, this is another classification based on function.

As such, it does not separate clauses appropriately.

A clause like that he was guilty can belong either to the ‘nominal’clauses or the ‘adverbial’ ones:

That he was guilty seemed obvious. [‘nominal’]

I was disappointed that he was guilty. [‘adverbial’]

Why posit two kinds of clause, here rather than two functions(external complement [= Subject] and internal Complement)?



Notice also:

Caroline was late, as she so often is. [‘adverbial’]

Caroline was late, as her car wouldn’t start. [‘adverbial’]

Here there are two kinds of clause:she so often is (structurally incomplete)her car wouldn’t start (structurally complete)

They are traditionally classified the same — as ‘adverbial’ because theintuitively conceived function is ‘modifying’ the adjective late.



‘Nominal’ or ‘noun’ clauses aren’t like nouns.

— They can be subjects, though there are limits:*Is that he doesn’t like you a problem?

— They are not (normally) direct objects:*He denied categorically responsibility.He denied categorically that he was responsible.



‘Nominal’ or ‘noun’ clauses aren’t like nouns.

— They are never objects of prepositions:*I don’t approve of that you smoke.

— Some verbs take ‘nominal’ clauses but not nouns:I used to marvel that he could remember all our names.*I used to marvel his memory for names.I wonder whether anyone cares.*I wonder people’s apathy.



‘Adjectival clauses’ aren’t like adjectives:

— They are never allowed prenominally (*a that I like car ).

— They don’t take adjective modifiers (*very that I like).

and so on.

And ‘adverbial clauses’ aren’t clauses at all, but PPs.

Nothing about the traditional classification really works.



‘Adjectival clauses’ aren’t like adjectives:

— They are never allowed prenominally (*a that I like car ).

— They don’t take adjective modifiers (*very that I like).

and so on.

And ‘adverbial clauses’ aren’t clauses at all, but PPs.

Nothing about the traditional classification really works.



The right classification of English subordinate clauses:

FINITE SUBORDINATE CLAUSES

content clausesrelative clausescomparative clauses

NON-FINITE SUBORDINATE CLAUSES

infinitival clausesparticipial clauses




content clausesdeclarative interrogative exclamative

relative clauseswh-relatives th-relatives bare relatives

comparative clausesscalar inequality scalar equalitynon-scalar inequality non-scalar equality




content clausesdeclarative interrogative exclamative

relative clauseswh-relatives th-relatives bare relatives

comparative clausesscalar inequality scalar equalitynon-scalar inequality non-scalar equality



Content clauses illustrated:

declarative content clause(that) no one had ever told me

interrogative content clauseclosed interrogative:

whether anyone could ever survive a trip to Marsopen interrogative:

what surviving a trip to Mars would call for

exclamative content clausewhat a great accomplishment it has been


The classification of relative clauses

Formal types of relative clauses illustrated:

wh-relative clause:which they had been invited to [NP ]

to which they had been invited [PP ]

th-relative clause:that they had been invited to [NP ]

bare relative clause:they had been invited to [NP ]



Relational types of relative clauses

integrated relative clause:a party which we had been invited to [NP ]

a party to which we had been invited [PP ]

supplementary relative clause:their party, which we had been invited to [NP ]

cleft relative clause:It was the anthropology department

whose party we had been invited to [NP ]

fused relative construction:I protested against what we had been invited to [NP ]



Which formal types can instantiate which relational types?

INTEGRATED SUPPLEMENTARY CLEFT FUSED

wh- yes yes yes yes

th- yes (very rare) yes no

bare yes no yes no


The diversity of wh-phrase uses

OPEN INTEGR. SUPPL. FUSED

INTERROG. RELATIVE RELATIVE RELATIVE

who X X X ?*whom X X X ∗

[+hum] whose X X X ∗[–hum] whose ∗ X ?∗ ∗

what X ∗ ∗ Xwhich X X X ∗where X X X Xwhen X X X ?Xhow X ∗ ∗ ?Xwhy X X ∗ ?∗

while ∗ ∗ ∗ X



Whose with non-human reference:— open interrogative: ∗I asked whose hinges squeaked.— integrated relative: Oil any door whose hinges squeak.— supplementary relative: ?that door, whose hinges squeaked— fused relative: ∗Oil whose hinges squeak.

What :— open interrogative: I didn’t know what he was doing.— integrated relative: ∗the things what he was doing— supplementary relative: ∗his idea, what he had not tested— fused relative: I was suspicious about what he was doing.



Why :— open interrogative: I didn’t know why he was yelling.— integrated relative: the reason why he was yelling— supplementary relative: ∗my painful foot, why I was yelling— fused relative: I was suspicious about why he did it.

How :— open interrogative: I didn’t know how he would respond.— integrated relative: ∗the way how he would respond— supplementary relative: ∗the usual way, how I do it— fused relative: I was suspicious about how he did it.


Unbounded dependencies: syntactic structure

The structure of We are deeply indebted to him:

Clause��

Subj:

NP

we

Head:

VP��

��Head:

V

are

Comp:

AdjP��

��Adjunct:

Adv

deeply

Head:

AdjP��

��Head:

Adj

indebted

Comp:

PP��

��Head:

P

to

Comp:

NP

him


Representing grammatical structure

The structure of Him, we are deeply indebted to :Clause��

Prenucleus:

NP

him

Nucleus:

Clause��

��Subj:

NP

we

Head:

VP��

��Head:

V

are

Comp:

AdjP��

��Adjunct:

Adv

deeply

Head:

AdjP��

��Head:

Adj

indebted

Comp:

PP��

��Head:

P

to

Comp:

NP


Unbounded dependencies

A hypothesis about plain vanilla unbounded dependencies:

When the path is all Head and Comp links, unbounded dependenciesare always entirely grammatical.

When ‘Adjunct’ interrupts the path, the result is always somewhatungrammatical.



How many paths are there to describe?

How far from the fronted complement (e.g., what)can the stranded preposition be, in grammatical sentences?

I don’t know what the FBI looked at .

I don’t know what you imagine the FBI looked at .

I don’t know what you imagine he thinks the FBI looked at .

I don’t know what you imagine he thinks she’ll say the FBIlooked at .

I don’t know what you imagine he thinks she’ll say we told themthe FBI looked at .

Clearly there is no grammatically fixed limit.




















































Model-theoretic syntax

We can use a description language based on symbolic logic to expressstatements about the structure of trees directly.

(∃x , y)[Clause(x) ∧ VP(y)]

“There is a point labeled ‘Clause’ and a point labeled ‘VP’ in the tree.”

(∃x)[Clause(x) ∧ ¬(∃y)[(y < x)]]

“There is a point labeled ‘Clause’ right at the top of the tree.”(Note: ‘y < x ’ means that y is immediately above x and linked to it.)

(∀x , y , z)[((z < x)∧ (z < y)∧ (x 6= y)∧ (NP(x))∧ (VP(y)))⇒ (x ≺ y)]]

“An NP node (x) precedes a VP node (y ) if they are both immediatelyunder some third node (z).”






(∃x)[Clause(x) ∧ ¬(∃y)[(y < x)]]









(∃x)[Clause(x) ∧ ¬(∃y)[(y < x)]]









(∃x)[Clause(x) ∧ ¬(∃y)[(y < x)]]






In a more expressive type of language known as monadicsecond-order logic (MSO) we can also say things like this:

“there is a set of points Z that are all on one branch”(∃Z )(∀x , y)[(Z (x) ∧ Z (y))→ ((x <∗ y) ∨ (y <∗ x))]




“there is a set of points Z that are all on one branch”

(∃Z )(∀x , y)[(Z (x) ∧ Z (y))→ ((x <∗ y) ∨ (y <∗ x))]




“there is a set of points Z that are all on one branch”(∃Z )(∀x , y)[(Z (x) ∧ Z (y))→ ((x <∗ y) ∨ (y <∗ x))]



“Z is a continuous chain of points”

(∀x , y , z)[((Z (x)) ∧ (Z (z)) ∧ (x <∗ y) ∧ (y <∗ z))→ Z (y)]

“Z is a chain of Comp and Head links”(∀x , y)[(Z (x) ∧ Z (y) ∧ x < y)→ (Head(x , y) ∨ Comp(x , y))]



“Z is a continuous chain of points”(∀x , y , z)[((Z (x)) ∧ (Z (z)) ∧ (x <∗ y) ∧ (y <∗ z))→ Z (y)]





“Z is a chain of Comp and Head links”

(∀x , y)[(Z (x) ∧ Z (y) ∧ x < y)→ (Head(x , y) ∨ Comp(x , y))]







So in MSO we can give a very precise definition of the following notionof a properly located vacancy:A vacancy is properly located in a clause if and only if there is acontinuous chain of Comp and Head links leading down to it from thetop of the clause.

For non-standard dialects (which allow Where’s it at?):Prenucleus where can accompany a clause with a properlylocated noun phrase vacancy that immediately follows at .

For all dialects:a Prenucleus noun phrase can accompany a clause with anyproperly located noun phrase vacancy.



So in MSO we can give a very precise definition of the following notionof a properly located vacancy:A vacancy is properly located in a clause if and only if there is acontinuous chain of Comp and Head links leading down to it from thetop of the clause.For non-standard dialects (which allow Where’s it at?):Prenucleus where can accompany a clause with a properlylocated noun phrase vacancy that immediately follows at .




So in MSO we can give a very precise definition of the following notionof a properly located vacancy:A vacancy is properly located in a clause if and only if there is acontinuous chain of Comp and Head links leading down to it from thetop of the clause.For non-standard dialects (which allow Where’s it at?):Prenucleus where can accompany a clause with a properlylocated noun phrase vacancy that immediately follows at .




Three pieces of computational good news about MSO:

1 DECIDABLE SATISFIABILITY

For any description in an MSO language, a computer program canfigure out whether it is consistent — whether there could be a treethat conforms to that description.

2 TREE RECOGNIZABILITY

A property of trees is describable in MSO if and only if atree-crawling bug with finite memory could recognize that property.

3 STRING RECOGNIZABILITY

If a grammar describing some set of sentences can be given asan MSO description of a set of trees, then for any string of words itcan be determined by a computer program (quite rapidly) whetherit is grammatical or not.





























Date post:	07-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phamdiep
View:	221 times
Download:	5 times

Winter School in Language and Speech … School in Language and Speech Technologies, 2012 Rovira i...

Documents