Week3-1

Week3-1 - Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 76 Frogs will...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 76 Frogs will eat flies Fish can see Those students read books. Sue won and so on. (Diagram these if it is not obvious what the structure is.) We can also make our AP rule less trivial, so that Adverbs are allowed. AP (Adv) A For instance: very tall. 14. Curly brackets for “or” One other complication in the notation for phrase structure rules. We find that a NP can begin either with an Article or with a possessive NP, but not both. Article: the book, a book, this book, those books NP: Fred’s book, the king of England’s book, my book not both: *the Fred’s book, *the king of England’s this book, *those my books Here is a simple way to account for this: we use curly brackets in the rules to me “one or the other, but not both” (logicians call this “exclusive or”). The basic NP phrase structure rule for English comes out something like this: Art NP NP (AP) N (PP) This means that you can start out an NP with an Article, or an NP, then continue with the rest (optional Adjective, obligatory Noun, optional PP). Examples of each type: the long book about linguistics the king’s long book about linguistics (beginning with Article) (beginning with NP) Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 77 15. Phrase structure rules for English sentences given so far As we continue through syntax, we will gradually build up an ever-improving grammar of phrase structure rules. Just to catch us up so far, I believe the following set of rules can generate most of the examples given in this book so far, as well as the sentences in the Study Exercises. S NP VP PP AP S NP VP PP AP V NP (Aux) VP Art (AP) N (PP) NP Pronoun V (NP)(NP)(PP) P NP (Adv) A S Conj S NP Conj NP VP Conj VP PP Conj PP AP Conj AP V Conj V NP 16. Parsing: using the phrase structure rules as a guide Once you’ve got a grammar like this to work with, then in principle it becomes easier to diagram sentences—any particular set of rules represents a claim about the inventory of phrase types a language allows, and thus constrains what kind of structures you can set up. Thus: When diagramming sentences, make sure every structure you set up is licensed by the rules. In other words, you can’t set up an NP whose structure is N AP, unless there is a phrase structure rule that specifies this sequence (either directly, or by leaving out parentheses). Thus you can be guided to an answer by both the meaning of the sentence and by the rules of the grammar. Example: if you’re thinking of the structure below for the king of England NP PP NP Art N P | | | the king of NP N | England Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 78 you can tell it’s not right because the grammar above contains not rule that permits NP to dominate NP followed by PP.34 There actually is one way you can legitimately diagram a structure that the grammar doesn’t allow—namely, change the grammar. In other words, you have to say something like “This sentence shows that our grammar was wrong, and has to be fixed like this [offer substitute rules here].” In this book I have included only sentences that can be parsed with the grammar given so far (unless I’ve made a mistake). But of course real life is different: a grammar that could parse all of English would be quite large and a real challenge to create. 17. Further details of our current grammar A few of our phrase structure rules need clarification. 17.1 Pronouns The phrase structure rule above that introduces Pronouns is very simple: NP Pronoun Pronoun, appearing in trees, is often abbreviated as Pro. Thus: S VP NP | Pro | She NP | Pro | him V | saw The reason to have a separate rule for pronouns is that, unlike nouns, they do not admit modifiers, except in special circumstances we’ll defer for now.35 This is one reason to give them their own phrase structure rule, rather than just calling them a kind of Noun. The other reason is that, later on, we will need rules of semantic interpretation that indicate what the pronouns refer to, and these rules need to identify the pronouns. Incidentally, pronouns in English are unusual in that they are inflected for case. English has a three-way case system, with Nominative, Objective, and Genitive. Objective covers what in many other languages (including English, long ago) was Accusative or Dative. Different authors will give different names to these cases. 34 Art Note that there is a rule NP NP (AP) N (PP). But it won’t help, because it requires there to be an N daughter. 35 Examples: Poor me, a “frozen” memorized expression; He who dares to go…, with a relative clause. Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 79 Singular Plural 1 2 3 1 2 3 Nominative I you he/she/it we you they Objective me you him/her/it us you them Genitive my your his/her/its our your their Part of what a grammar must do is ensure that the correct case form of each pronoun is used in the right context; we will turn to the sort of rules that are needed later on. 17.2 Aux “Aux”, meaning “auxiliary verb”, is the “helping verb” taught in school. In our phrase structure rules, it is the optional second daughter of S (S NP (Aux) VP). Here is a list of auxes: “Modal” verbs: can, could, shall, should, may, might, will, would Example: I can go. Forms of have: have, has, had Example: I have gone. Forms of be: be, am, are, is, was, were Example: I am going. You can see that the choice of Aux also determines the inflectional morphology of the following verb—this involves rules we haven’t yet covered. Be aware that have and be can serve as either Auxes or main Verbs. Thus: He is having a fit involves be as an Aux and have as a main Verb. He has been President. has have as an Aux and be as a main Verb. 17.3 Complementizers and subordinate clauses Much of the most intricate syntax arises when one “puts a sentence inside a sentence”; that is, when one uses a subordinate clause. This showed up early in the course when we looked at the patterning of each other. Thus, *[John and Bill think [I like each other.]S]S is impossible, because each other is allowed to refer only to Noun Phrases that are within the smallest clause containing it—in this case, [ I like each other ]S. Subordinate clauses often occur when the verb Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 80 of the main clause is a verb of saying or belief—the subordinate clauses serves to express the content of the thought that is said or believed. With the notions of syntax we’ve developed so far, we can now be much more explicit about subordinate clauses. To analyze subordinate clauses, we need to provide a slot in phrase structure for the grammatical words that often introduce them—that in sentences like: I think that [ John and Bill like each other ]S There is also for, as in: I would prefer for [ John and Bill to like each other]S. Such words are called subordinating conjunctions in traditional terminology. Linguists use the slightly shorter term complementizer, abbreviated Comp. Other complementizers include if, (al)though, when, whether, and some others we’ll mention later. With this apparatus, we can set up rules like these (I’m omitting optional material; see below for the full rules): VP V S ¯ Comp S S ¯ S is read S-bar, and is simply the category that provides the syntactic “slot” for the ¯ complementizer. Here is an example sentence that can be generated by these rules: S VP S ¯ S VP NP | N | John NP | Comp N | | that Alice NP | N | Fred Derived by: S Comp S ¯ V | said V | likes Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 81 Since S is a nuisance to type on a word processor; a prime (S) or apostrophe (S’) is considered ¯ an acceptable substitute. 17.4 Phrase structure rules for subordinate clauses Subordinate clauses in English most often occur the last constituent of the VP, indicating what was said or thought. Here are some examples: We said [ that we were going ]S ¯ We told Alice [ that we were going ]S ¯ We gave Bill notice [ that we were going ]S ¯ We sent word to Jane [ that we were going ]S ¯ From these sentences, you can see that the Verb Phrase can, in addition to its subordinate clause, include one or two NP objects and a PP, all of them preceding the S. Thus the phrase ¯ structure rule needed is something like: VP V (NP)(NP)(PP)(S) ¯ ——————————————————————————————————————— Study Exercise #13 Parse the four sentences given above. Answers on next page. Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 82 Answers to Study Exercise #13 S VP S ¯ S NP | Pro | We NP | Pro | we VP | Aux V | | were going V Comp | | said that S VP S ¯ S NP | Pro | We NP | N Comp | | Alice that NP | Pro | we VP | Aux V | | were going V | told S VP S ¯ S NP | Pro | We NP | N | Bill NP | N Comp | | notice that NP | Pro | we VP | Aux V | | were going V | gave Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 83 S VP S ¯ PP NP | Pro | We NP | N | word NP | N Comp | | Jane that NP | Pro | we S VP | Aux V | | were going V | sent P | to ——————————————————————————————— The rule for S needs to let Comp be optional, since we have sentences like: ¯ We said we were going. Note that the tree for this sentence must have a “vacuous” S node, at least under the phrase ¯ structure rules we’ve got, since with those rules only S, not S, can be a daughter of VP. ¯ S VP S ¯ | S VP NP | Pro | We NP | Pro | we NP | N | Fred V | said V | like 18. Recursive application of phrase structure rules I mentioned above that the speaker’s knowledge of syntax is large but finite (that is, it fits somehow encoded in a single brain), yet permits the creation of an infinite number of sentences (p. 52). The following partial list was meant as a demonstration: Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 84 Alice likes Fred John said that Alice likes Fred Bill believes that John said that Alice likes Fred …etc. This infinity results, by and large, from a particular property of phrase structure rules, namely that they permit application in loops. Below, I demonstrate one of these loops, taken from the phrase structure rules given so far. With this more interesting grammar, we arrive at a crucial property: the rules in our grammar can apply recursively. That is, by following the appropriate procedure it is possible to make the same rule apply over and over, “recurring” in the derivation. The procedure requires finding a repeating loop, such as the following: S NP (Aux) VP VP V (NP) (NP) (PP) (S) ¯ S (Comp) S ¯ If we employ this loop in deriving a sentence and lexically insert appropriate words, we can generate a sentence as long as we like: S NP VP | N V ¯ S | | Fred announced Comp S | that NP VP | N V | | Bill told NP | N | Mary ¯ S Comp | that S NP | N | Sam VP V | thinks ¯ S Comp | that S ... Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 85 This is because there an infinite number of places where we could stop the loop. Thus there are an infinite number of possible sentences that the grammar can generate. As far as we know, every human language allows an infinite number of sentences. In every case, the principal reason is the same: the phrase structure rules of all languages contain recursive loops, which allow infinitely long syntactic trees to be generated. The recursive loop of phrase structure rules is the device that allows a finite number of rules to generate an infinite number of structures. 19. Relating syntax to inflectional morphology We are now in a position to tie together our two course units so far (morphology and syntax). The crucial notion is the morphosyntactic representation, covered earlier. You can think of the morphosyntactic representation as the means by which the syntax communicates with the inflectional morphology. The features in a morphosyntactic representation can have three sources. 19.1 Inherent features First, some features of a morphosyntactic representation are inherent. They are properties of particular words or stems. It is conventional to use the word lexicon to refer to the speaker’s mental dictionary; their store of memorized stems, words, and other entities.36 Since a feature like [Gender] on nouns is memorized, it must be listed in the lexicon. Here are three examples of inherent inflectional features. I. The German word Messer (knife) is inherently, and arbitrarily, neuter. Its lexical entry must look something like this: Messer [Gender:Neuter] That is, attached to Messer is a partial morphosyntactic representation that indicates that Messer is a neuter noun. II. The English pronoun his is inherently [Case:Genitive,Gender:Masculine]. his [Case:Genitive,Gender:Masculine] III. All nouns derived by the English word formation rule [ X ]Adj [[ X ]Adj]Noun (example: The French care a lot about food) are inherently [Number:Plural].37 This is also true for a small number of words for “pairlike” things, such as trousers, scissors, and so on. 36 37 We also memorize a great number of word sequences, often called idioms. Thus, a fully explicit version of the conversion rule would actually attach a partial morphosyntactic representation: [ X ]Adj [[ X ]Adj ]Noun,[Number:Plural]. Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 86 19.2 Speaker-selected features Other features of the morphosyntactic representation are meaningful; they represent choices made by the speaker. When we say book in English we are implicitly conveying the partial morphosyntactic representation [Number:singular], and similarly [Number:plural] when we say books. (This raises the question of how linguistic entities bear meaning, a question we will postpone to Chapter 9.) 19.3 Features derived by syntactic rules The remaining source for the features in morphosyntactic is syntactic rules. These attach the features that depend on what else occurs in the tree. There are (at least) two kinds of rule of this sort: rules of case marking and rules of agreement 20. Case marking 20.1 Genitive case in English Genitive case in English is the case that we spell with the suffix -’s. Semantically, it denotes the relationship of possession. To derive it, we need a syntactic case marking rule, and a morphological suffixation rule. Here is a tree to serve as an example. The phrase structure rules given so far generate this: NP1 NP2 | Art AP N | | | the A student | tall AP N | | A books | heavy Art NP (NP )(AP) N (PP) (S) Choices employed: for NP1: for NP2: NP Art (NP )(A) N (PP) (S) The syntactic rule of case marking that is needed is as follows: Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 87 Genitive Case Marking In NP2 where NP2 is leftmost in NP1, assign the feature [Case:Genitive] to the rightmost word of NP2. Genitive Case Marking can be applied to the above as shown. I use dotted lines to show what part of the rule matches up to what part of the form Genitive Case Marking In NP2 where NP2 is leftmost in NP1, assign the feature [Case:Genitive] to the rightmost word of NP2. Genitive Case Marking can be applied to the above as shown. I use dotted lines to show what part of the rule matches up to what part of the form NP NP | Art A | | the tall NP1 NP1 N A N | | | student heavy books [Case:Gen] where [Case:Genitive] is the morphosyntactic representation of student. That is the most complicated part. Once we have the feature [Case:Genitive] sitting on the word student, it is straightforward to get the suffix in place, with an ordinary rule of inflectional suffixation, as follows: Genitive Inflection Suffix -s if [Case:Genitive]. Thus the full NP the tall student’s is the combined result of syntactic and morphological rules. Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 88 20.2 Where to inflect? Edges vs. heads The rule of Genitive Case Marking in English perhaps unusual for putting the relevant feature on the rightmost word of NP. We need this for cases like [ the king of England’s ]NP hat, where England is the rightmost word of its NP. The matchup is shown below: Genitive Case Marking In NP2 where NP2 is leftmost in NP1, assign the feature [Case:Genitive] to the rightmost word of NP2. NP1 NP NP Art | the N | king PP P | of NP | N | England [Case:Gen] N | hat The other major form of case marking targets the head of the NP that is to bear case. Let us consider an example from German. On German Amazon I found an entry for a book with this title: Schliemanns Erben, Von Schliemann’s legacy from zu to den the den Herrschern der the ruler-dative-plural the Hethiter Hittite-genitive plural Königen der Khmer king-dative plural the Khmer-genitive plural ‘Schliemann’s legacy: from the rulers of the Hittites to the kings of the Khmers’38 We’re interested in zu den König-en der Khmer, meaning ‘to the kings of the Khmers’.39 Prior to case marking, the structure looks like this (for this particular construction, the relevant phrase structure rules of German are the same as in English): 38 Hermann Schliemann was the archaeologist who excavated the ruins of Troy. Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 89 PP P | zu NP | Art N NP | | den König Art N [Num:Pl] | | der Khmer [Number:Plural] is already attached to König ‘king’; this reflects a semantic choice made by the person who made up this title. A crucial fact about German is that the various prepositions take (more formally: govern) different cases. The preposition zu, pronounced [tsu] and meaning ‘to’, is one of the prepositions that governs the dative case. A partial dative-case marking rule for German can be written as follows: German Dative Case Marking In the configuration shown: PP P NP where P is one of { zu, aus, ausser, bei, mit, nach, seit, von },40 assign [Case:Dative] to the morphosyntactic representation of the head of NP. This rule targets the head of NP for dative case realization, hence applies to our example as follows: 39 40 The Khmers are the Cambodians. ‘to’, ‘from’, ‘except’, ‘at X’s home’, ‘with’, ‘after’, ‘since’, ‘of’ Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 90 PP P NP where P is one of { zu, aus, ausser, bei, mit, nach, seit, von }, assign [Case:Dative] to the morphosyntactic representation of the head of NP. This rule targets the head of NP for dative case realization, hence applies to our example as follows: PP P | zu NP | Art N NP | | den König Art N Num:Pl Case:Dat der Khmer The dative plural is then realized in the morphology with suffixation: Inflection morphology: Dative Plural Realization (German) Num:Pl Suffix -en if morphosyntactic representation contains Case:Dat , This will derive the boldfaced material in zu den Königen der Khmer. There are further details about German we’ll pass over here quickly. Case is generally also realized, through additional agreement rules (see below), on the Article beginning a Noun Phrase. Thus, den is in fact the dative plural form of the definite article. The crucial distinction illustrated here is the edge-based case marking of the English genitive vs. the head-based marking of German datives. If each language used the opposite language’s strategy, we’d get very different results: *the king’s of England hat (marking of genitive on the head), and * zu den König der Khmeren (marking of dative on the rightmost word). There are other differences between edge-based and head-based case marking. Marking on heads tends to get complicated, with different affixes for different nouns and so on; marking on edges tends to be a simple, single morpheme like English -‘s. Marking on heads probably is more often accompanied by agreement on modifying adjectives and articles. Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 91 21. Agreement Features also get assigned in syntax when one phrase agrees with another. For instance, in English we have a very simple agreement paradigm in verbs. I jump you jump he/she/it jumps we jump you jump they jump There is only one ending, -s, which occurs when the subject is [Person:3, Number: singular]. Note, however, that for the special verb be there is a richer system, with difference between all three persons in the singular and a separate form for the plural: I am you are he/she/it is we are you are they are The point at hand is that agreement with the subject is inherently syntactic; the verb needs to “know,” as it were, what the subject is in order to bear the right inflectional features. Again, our strategy is to write a syntactic rule that assigns the features of the morphosyntactic representation, then a rule of inflectional morphology to add the appropriate affix. The syntactic rule can be written provisionally as follows: Verbal Agreement (English) In NP S VP assign the [Person] and [Number] features of the head of NP to the head of VP. Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 92 An application is shown as follows. Verbal Agreement (English) In NP S VP assign the [Person] and [Number] features of the head of NP to the head of VP. S NP | N | Fred Number:sg Person:3 VP | V | jump [Tense:pres] NP | N | Fred S VP | V | jump Tense:Pres Number:sg Number:sg Person:3 Person:3 The rule of inflectional morphology that generates the -s suffix is given below: 3rd Singular Present Rule Suffix -s if the morphosyntactic representation contains: [Tense:Pres, Person:Singular, Number:3] which will produce convert the stem jump in the tree above to the correct form jumps. Compare: I jump, they jump, etc. 21.1.1 Agreement in general In languages with rich inflection, agreement rules like the above copy a great deal of information around the tree: verbs agree with their subjects (and sometimes their objects, too), adjectives and articles agree with the nouns they modify, and in at least one language (Lardil, Australia) nouns agree with the verb of their clause in tense. Summing up, agreement and case marking are the main phenomenon in which syntax determines morphosyntactic representation, and hence the inflectional form of the words of the sentence. Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 93 22. An example of phrase structure rules in another language: Hittite Languages differ quite a bit in their word order, a fact which can be describe in grammars by writing different phrase structure rules. One kind of analytic skill to be developed here is to formulate the phrase structure rules needed to analyze any particular language. Assuming you have a representative batch of sentences to work with, this involves two steps: Parse all the sentences Look at all the trees, and see which daughters any given type of node can have. Express what you find with a reasonably economical set of rules. The data below involve sentences in Hittite, taken from an exercise created by Jay Jasanoff of Harvard University. The transcription and syntactic analysis were guided by input from my UCLA colleague Prof. Craig Melchert; both are top experts on this language. Hittite was spoken in early ancient times in what is now Turkey. It is known from a hoard of about 25,000 cuneiform tablets discovered early in the last century and deciphered in the decades that followed. Some of the texts date back to about 1700 B.C. and thus count as the oldest attestation of any Indo-European language.41 We accept here on Jasanoff’s authority that the sentences below, which he made up, would be grammatical to real Hittite speakers if we could somehow bring them back. 1. nu xassus salli parn-i comp king big-dative house-dative ‘The king is in the big house.’ anda estsi in is 2. nu antuxsas akuwakuwan istamastsi comp man-nominative frog-accusative hears ‘The man hears the frog.’ 3. nu antuxsas sallin akuwakuwan parn-a pexutetsi comp man-nominative big-accusative frog-accusative house-allative brings ‘The man brings the big frog home.’ 4. nu akuwakuwas westar-i assun memijan tetsi comp frog-nominative shepherd-dative good-accusative word-acc. says ‘The frog says a good word to the shepherd.’ 5. nu westaras sallin akuwakuwan pir-i anda comp shepherd-nom. big-acc. frog.-acc. house-dative in ‘The shepherd hears the big frog in the house with the queen.’ 41 xassussar-i katta istamastsi queen-dative with hears Indo-European is the very large language family that includes (for example) English, Russian, Hindi, Latin, Irish, etc. See Chapter 13. Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 94 6. nu akuwakuwas antuxsan natta comp frog-nominative man-accusative not ‘The frog doesn’t hear the man.’ istamastsi hears 7. nu xassussaras xassui piran salli akuwakuwi katta tijatsi comp queen-nom. king-dat. before big-dative frog-dative with comes ‘The queen comes before the king with the big frog.’ 8. nu westaras assui xassui akuwakuwan pexutetsi comp shepherd good-dative king-dative frog-accusative brings ‘The shepherd brings the frog to the good king.’ One can do both syntactic and morphological analysis on these texts. At the level of morphology, it is possible to collect some partial noun paradigms, as follows. xassu-s xassu-i antuxsa-s antuxsa-n akuwakuwa-s akuwakuwa-n akuwakuw-i westara-s westar-i memija-n parn-i parn-a xassussara-s xassussar-i king nominative king-dative man-nominative man-accusative frog-nominative frog-accusative frog-dative shepherd-nominative shepherd-dative (a drops before i? not known) word-accusative house-dative home-allative queen-nominative queen-dative It looks at least roughly that the nominative suffix is -s, the accusative suffix is -n, and the dative suffix is -i. This predicts *akuwakuwa-i and *xassussara-i for the datives of “frog” and ‘queen’; in fact, there’s a bit of phonology going on: the vowel a is dropped before this suffix. We expres the rules of inflectional morphology as follows. Hittite Nominal Inflection (sketch) Suffix -s when [Case:nominative] Suffix -n when [Case:accusative] Suffix -i when [Case:dative] Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 95 There also appears to be verbal inflection, for which we can conjecture this rule: Suffix -tsi when [Person:3, Number:singular, Tense:present] But in fact we know almost nothing about -tsi from these few data. Turning now to the phrase structure rules, the idea is to inspect the sentences, parse them according the principles of the theory, and generalize over what we see to produce the rules. An intriguing aspect of the sentences is that they all begin with nu. This is most likely a complementizers: Hittites usually spoke in S’s, not S’s, though it certain contexts it was possible ¯ to say just a plain S. Thus we will start our derivations with S and assume this phrase structure ¯ rule: S Comp S ¯ NP could be derived by the following rule: NP (A) N42 Probably the A should be an AP, but we will skip this for brevity. Another simple rule is for PP, which is this language is evidently not a phrase for prepositions but for postpositions, which are just like prepositions but come after their NP rather than before. The phrase structure rule needed is: PP NP P In sentences, the subject evidently comes before the predicate, justifying the rule S NP VP The trickiest phrase structure rule to write here is for VP. Below are all of the data aligned in a format that places similar phrases vertically underneath one another. 42 In truth we cannot know the relative order of Art and A; they never appear together in the data. Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 96 NP 1 2 NP PP salli piri anda big-dat. house-dat. in PP Adv V estsi is akuwakuwan frog-acc. istamastsi hears 3 sallin akuwakuwan parn-a big-acc. frog-acc. house-dative pehutetsi brings 4 westari shepherd-dat. assun memijan good-acc. word-acc. tetsi says 5 6 7 8 assui hassui good-dat. king-dat. sallin akuwakuwan big-acc. frog.-acc. piri anda house-dat. in hassussari katta queen-dat. with not istamastsi hears antuhssan man-acc. natta istamastsi hears hassui piran king-dat. before salli akuwakuwi katta big-dat. frog-dat. with tijatsi comes akuwakuwan frog-acc. pehutetsi brings If we collect all of the various items that evidently fit within a VP, and (going out on a limb) put them in a single rule, we get: VP (NP)(NP)(PP)(PP)(Adv) V This completes the set of phrase structure rules, stated all in one place thus: Phrase structure rules for Hittite S NP VP VP (NP)(NP)(PP)(PP)(Adv) V NP (Art) (A) N PP NP P “P” must be read “postposition”, rather than “preposition.” 22.1 Example diagrammed sentence The rules suffice to generate all the sentences; here is one particularly long example. Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 97 S VP PP NP Art N | | nu westara-s tsi the shepherd-nom. big-acc. frog.-acc. house-dative in ‘The shepherd hears the big frog in the house with the queen.’ NP | A N N | | | salli-n akuwakuwa-n pir-i NP PP NP | P N | | anda xassussar-i P V | | katta istamas- queen-dative with hears Study Exercise #14 Parse the Hittite sentence nu akuwakuwas westari assun memijan tetsi the frog-nominative shepherd-dative good-accusative word-acc. says ‘The frog says a good word to the shepherd.’ Answer on next page. Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 98 Answer to Study Exercise #14 S ¯ S VP NP NP NP | | Comp N N Adj N V | | | | | | nu akuwakuwas westari assun memijan tetsi the frog-nominative shepherd-dative good-accusative word-acc. says ‘The frog says a good word to the shepherd.’ 22.2 Hittite as a head-final language It can be seen that, at least in these data, Hittite is a head-final language: N is last in NP, P is last in PP, V is last in VP (and we don’t know about AdjP). Some other well-known head-final languages are Japanese, Korean, Bengali, and Turkish. The Bantu languages, such as Swahili and Zulu, tend to be strongly head-initial. English tends towards being head-initial, but is conflicted, in the sense that it puts adjectives before the head noun in NP. Hence some English noun phrases have the head noun in the middle: [ the long [ book ]N about linguistics ]NP 22.3 Case marking in Hittite Hittite has a richer case system than English, with overt suffixes marking the Nominative, Dative, and Accusative. We can write syntactic rules that place the appropriate value for the the feature [Case], based on the configuration of the tree. For instance, Dative case is assigned in Hittite by postpositions. It can be attached by a similar rule: Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 99 Dative Case Marking In the configuration PP NP P add [Case:Dative] to the morphosyntactic representation of the head of NP. Getting Accusative and Dative objects right is trickier, and we also have very few data, so the following is really something of a guess: Case Marking for Objects In verb phrases containing one or more NP, then if there are two NP, assign [Case:Dative] to the head of the first and [Case:Accusative] to the head of the second. if there is just one NP, assign [Case:Accusative] to its head. Here is an example with two NP’s inside the VP: S VP NP NP | Art N N A N V | | | | | | nu akuwakuwa-s westar-i assu-n memija-n te-tsi [Case:Nom] [Case:Dat] [Case:Acc] the frog-nominative shepherd-dative good-accusative word-acc. says ‘The frog says a good word to the shepherd.’ “assign [Case:Dative] to the head of the first and [Case:Accusative] to the head of the second” A further rule, not stated here, would cause adjectives (such as assun above) to agree with their head nouns in case. 23. A bit more on phrase structure rules: Kleene star Let us beef up the system of phrase structure rules once more. Some phrase structure rules allow for any number of daughters of a certain type. For example, the rule for NP allows for an unlimited number of Adjectives preceding the noun, as in ‘a long, dull, NP Hayes Introductory Linguistics p. 100 boring movie’. A formalism for this often employed is to enclose in brackets the element that can be repeated indefinitely, and place an asterisk after the right bracket (the asterisk is known as “Kleene star”, after the mathematician who proposed the notation). For example, the phrase structure rule for NP can be written as follows: NP (Art) (A)* N (PP)*. An NP that uses both (A)* and (PP)* would be ‘the big blue book about linguistics on the counter’. Quite a few of the items on our previous phrase structure grammar would be more accurately depicted with Kleene star; the following is a list: S NP NP AP VP PP S NP VP PP S S V NP (Aux) VP Art NP (AP)* N (PP)* Pronoun (Adv) A V (NP) (NP) (PP)* (S) ¯ P NP (Comp) S NP (Conj NP)* VP (Conj VP)* PP (Conj PP)* S (Conj S)* Ex. Alice and Sally and Bill left. Ex. We sang the song and danced the dance. Ex. We tossed it over the fence and through the window. Ex. He said that he was sick and he would go. Ex. He said that he was sick and that he would go. Ex. They washed and diced the vegetables. Example: his noble, inspiring gift of $1,000,000 to X Ex.: sold books to students for $50 S (Conj S)* V (Conj V)* ...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online