{"id":1234,"date":"2021-05-02T03:05:50","date_gmt":"2021-05-02T03:05:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/psyclanguage\/chapter\/syntax\/"},"modified":"2023-05-09T21:42:17","modified_gmt":"2023-05-09T21:42:17","slug":"syntax","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/opentextbc.ca\/psyclanguage\/chapter\/syntax\/","title":{"raw":"3.4 Syntax","rendered":"3.4 Syntax"},"content":{"raw":"Now that we are familiar with the units of sound, articulation and meaning, let us explore how these are put together in connected speech. [pb_glossary id=\"501\"]Syntax[\/pb_glossary] is the set of rules and process that govern sentence structure in a language. A basic description of syntax would be the sequence in which words can occur in a sentence. One of the earliest approaches to syntactic theory comes from the works of the Sanskrit grammarian P\u0101\u1e47ini (c. 4th century BC) and his seminal work: A\u1e63\u1e6d\u0101dhy\u0101y\u012b. While the field has diversified into many schools, we will look at some basic issues of syntax and look at the contributions of Noam Chomsky.\r\n
\r\n

Living Language<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/header>\r\n

\r\n\r\nLook at these two sentences and decide which one seems normal to you:\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. Paul gave Mary a new book.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Paul new a book Mary gave.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nWhy is one not considered correct even though it contains all the same words? Can you articulate the rules that govern your decision or are they intuitive?\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nGrammar employs a finite set of rules to generate the infinite variety of output in a language. This is the basis for [pb_glossary id=\"502\"]generative grammar[\/pb_glossary]. Chomsky argued for a system of sentence generation that took into account the underlying syntactic structure of sentences. He emphasised the native intuition of any native speaker of a language to identity ill-formed sentences in that language. The speaker may not be able to provide a rationale for why some sentences are acceptable and other are not. However, it cannot be denied that such intuitions exist in every person. While Chomsky\u2019s ideas have evolved over the years, the main conclusions appear to be that language is a rule-based system and a finite set of syntactic rules can capture our knowledge of syntax.\r\n\r\nA key aspect of language is that we can construct sentences with words using a set of finite rules. [pb_glossary id=\"503\"]Phrase-structure rules[\/pb_glossary] are a way to describe how words can be combined into different structures. Sentences are constructed from smaller units. If s sentence is designated as S, we can use rewrite rules to translate other symbols such as [pb_glossary id=\"516\"]noun phrases[\/pb_glossary] (NP) and [pb_glossary id=\"528\"]verb phrases[\/pb_glossary] (VP) as in:\r\n

    S \u2192 NP + VP<\/strong><\/p>\r\nPhrase-structure grammar has word ([pb_glossary id=\"504\"]terminal elements[\/pb_glossary]) and other constituent parts ([pb_glossary id=\"505\"]non-terminal elements[\/pb_glossary]). This means that words usually form the lowest part of a sentences building up towards a sentence. The rules that we use to construct these sentences do not deal with individual words but classes<\/strong> of words. Such classes include words that name objects ([pb_glossary id=\"506\"]nouns[\/pb_glossary]), words for actions ([pb_glossary id=\"507\"]verbs[\/pb_glossary]), words that describe nouns ([pb_glossary id=\"508\"]adjectives[\/pb_glossary]), and words that qualify actions ([pb_glossary id=\"509\"]adverbs[\/pb_glossary]). We can also think of words that determine number such as \u2018the\u2019, \u2018a\u2019 and \u2018some\u2019 ([pb_glossary id=\"510\"]determiners[\/pb_glossary]), words that join constituents such as \u2018and\u2019 and \u2018because\u2019 ([pb_glossary id=\"513\"]conjunctions[\/pb_glossary]), words that substitute for a noun or noun phrase as in \u2018I\u2019 and \u2018she\u2019 ([pb_glossary id=\"512\"]pronouns[\/pb_glossary]), and words that express spatial or temporal relations as in \u2018on\u2019 and \u2018on\u2019 ([pb_glossary id=\"514\"]prepositions[\/pb_glossary]).\r\n\r\nThese types of words combine to form [pb_glossary id=\"515\"]phrases[\/pb_glossary]. Such phrases that can take the part of nouns in sentences are called [pb_glossary id=\"516\"]noun phrases[\/pb_glossary]. So \u2018dog,\u2019 \u2018the dog\u2019 or \u2018the naughty dog\u2019 are all noun phrases because they can fill the gap in a sentence such as \u2018_____ ran through the park\u2019. Phrases combine to form [pb_glossary id=\"517\"]clauses[\/pb_glossary]. These contain a [pb_glossary id=\"518\"]subject[\/pb_glossary] (what we are talking about) and a [pb_glossary id=\"521\"]predicate[\/pb_glossary] (information about the subject). Every clause has to have a verb and sentences can consist of one or more clauses. As we see in Figure 3.6, the sentence \u2018the dog likes John\u2019 consists of one clause composed of a noun phrase and a verb phrase. It contains a subject \u2018the dog,\u2019 a verb \u2018likes,\u2019 and an [pb_glossary id=\"631\"]object[\/pb_glossary] \u2018John.\u2019\r\n\r\nOne way to think about how sentences are organized in the mind is through a notation called a tree diagram. They are called tree diagrams because they branch from a single point into phrases<\/strong> which in turn branch into [pb_glossary id=\"632\"]words[\/pb_glossary]. Each place where the branches come together is called a [pb_glossary id=\"523\"]node[\/pb_glossary]. A node indicates a set of words that act together as a unit or [pb_glossary id=\"524\"]constituent[\/pb_glossary]. Consider Figure 3.6 which illustrates how a sentence can be depicted in a tree diagram.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_457\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"600\"]\"The Figure 3.6 Sentence Structure in English [Image description]<\/a>[\/caption]\r\n

    Word Order in Different Languages<\/h1>\r\nThe order of the syntactic constituents varies between languages. When talking about word order, linguists generally look at 1) the relative order of subject, object and verb in a sentence (constituent order), 2) the order modifiers such as adjectives and numerals in a noun phrase, and 3) the order of adverbials. Here we will focus mostly on constituent word order.\r\n\r\nEnglish sentences generally display a [pb_glossary id=\"525\"]word order[\/pb_glossary] consisting of subject-verb-object (SVO) as in \u2018the dog [noun] likes [verb] John [object]\u2019. Mandarin and Swahili are other examples of SVO. About a third of all languages have this type of word order (Tomlin, 1986). About half of all languages employ subject-object-verb (SOV). Japanese, Turkish as well as the Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages of India are examples of SOV word order. Classical Arabic and Biblical Hebrew as well as the Salishan languages of British Columbia employ verb-subject-object (VSO). Rarer are typologies such as verb-object-subject (VOS) as is found in Algonquin. Unusual word ordering can be employed for dramatic effect as in the object-subject-verb (OSV) word order of Yoda from Star Wars: \u2018Powerful (object) you (subject) have become (verb). The dark side (O) I (S) sense (V) in you.\u2019\r\n

    The Neurolinguistics of Syntax and Semantics<\/h1>\r\nWe know that a sentence\u2019s syntax has an influence on how its meaning is interpreted (semantics of the sentence). Any given string of words can have different meanings if they have different syntactic structures. However, syntax doesn\u2019t necessarily need to be in line with semantics. Chomsky (1957) famously composed a sentence that was syntactically correct but semantically meaningless: \u201ccolorless green ideas sleep furiously.\u201d The sentence is devoid of semantic content, but it is a perfectly grammatical sentence in English. The words \u201c*Furiously sleep ideas green colorless\u201d are the same but their order would not be considered grammatical by a native English speaker.\r\n\r\nWe have psycholinguistic evidence from electroencephalography to support the idea that syntax and semantics are processed independent of each other. In measuring event related potentials (ERPs) for sentences there are some interesting observations. For example, the sentence \u201cHe eats a ham and cheese \u2026\u201d sets up a very strong expectation in your mind about what words comes next. If the word that comes next is in line with your expectations, the ERP signal will be a baseline condition. However, if the next word violates your expectations, then we often see a sudden negative spike in the EEG voltage around 400ms after the unexpected word. This ERP signal is called an [pb_glossary id=\"526\"]N400[\/pb_glossary] (where the N stands for negative and 400 indicates the approximate timing of the ERP after the stimulus). Numerous studies have found an N400 response when a semantically unexpected word is inserted into a sentence.\r\n\r\nHowever, not every unexpected word elicits an N400 response. In some cases, where the unexpected word belongs to an unexpected word category (for example, a verb instead of a noun), we see a positive voltage around 600ms after the unexpected word. This is known as a [pb_glossary id=\"527\"]P600[\/pb_glossary]. Therefore, we see that violations of semantic expectations elicit an N400 while violations of syntactic expectations elicit a P600. This suggests that syntax and semantics are independently processed n our brains.\r\n

    Word Order around the World<\/h2>\r\n
    [h5p id=\"21\"]<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\n\"\" \"\"\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\n\"\"\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Image description<\/h3>\r\n<\/a>Figure 3.6 Sentence Structure in English<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe sentence \"the dog likes John\" consists of a noun phrase \"the dog,\" and a verb phrase \"likes John.\" The noun phrase is consisted of a determiner \"the\" and a noun \"dog.\" The verb phrase is consisted of a verb \"likes,\" and a noun phrase \"John.\"\r\n\r\n[Return to place in the text (Figure 3.6)]<\/a>\r\n

    Media Attribution<\/h3>\r\n