DOC PREVIEW
UW-Madison LINGUIS 101 - Syntax 6
Type Lecture Note
Pages 5

This preview shows page 1-2 out of 5 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 5 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 5 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 5 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Lecture 23Syntax part 6What syntax doesPS rules- build phrases from the lexicon (describe word order and constituency)Syntactic selection constraints can filter out additional ungrammatical sentencesSyntactic parameters such as head parameter describe cross linguistic variationSyntactic structure plays a role in determining allowable relationships between certain phrases in a sentenceExample of syntactic relationsWe use syntactic structures to explain why (1) and (4) are grammatical, but (2) and (3) are ungrammatical1. John’s sister laughed at him2. * john’s sister laughed at himself3. * john’s sister laughed at her4. John’s sister laughed at herselfpronouns and anaphorspronouns: words like he, she, you, they, itanaphors: reflexive and reciprocals- words like himself, ourselves, each othermeanings of pronouns and anaphorspronouns sometimes get their meanings from another NP in the sentenceconnie’s friend ignored herher= connieher= some female other than connieanaphors always get the meaning from another NP in the sentenceconnie’s friend hurt himselfhimself= connie’s friend*himself= some male other than connie’s friend (impossible)antecedents and bindinga phrase which gives pronoun or anaphor its meaning is called its antecedent. The antecedent binds pronoun/anaphor1. Connie’s friend ignored herin 1 on the reading where her= Connie, the NP Connie is the antecedent of her2. Connie’s friend hurt himselfin 2, NP Connie’s friend is the antecedent of himselfrestrictionsnot every NP can be an antecedentanaphors- only larger NP can be antecedent3. That boy’s teacher admires himselfhimself= that boy’s teacher*himself= that boypronouns- only more deeply embedded NP can be antecedent4. That boy’s teacher admires him*him= that boy’s teacherhim= that boyc-commandwe need to define a structural relation in order to explain these facts. A structural relation describes the relationship between different nodes in the treec-command- a node c-command its sisters, and all nodes contained inside its sistersbinding principles (version 1)binding principle a- an anaphor must have an antecedent that c-commands itbinding principle b- a pronoun must not have an antecedent the c-commands ita problem- embedded clausesour binding principles work for the data we have seen so far. However, the following examples involving embedded clauses are problematic, can you see why?Claire knew that (Alexis trusted her)Her= Claire*her= alexisClaire knew that (Alexis trusted herself)*herself= Claireherself= Alexisbinding principle (version 2)binding principle A (revised)an anaphor must have an antecedent that bothc-commands it andis in the same minimal S with itbinding principle B (revised)a pronoun must not have an antecedent that bothc-commands it andis in the same minimal S with itsources of ungrammaticalitya PS rule could be violatedin English *VP  NP Vselectional restriction of the verb might not be met*we devouredBPA- antecedent might not c-command the anaphorBPA- antecedent might be outside minimal S of anaphorBPB- antecedent of pronoun might c-command it inside same SLINGUIS 101 1st Edition Lecture 23 Syntax part 6What syntax does -PS rules- build phrases from the lexicon (describe word order and constituency) -Syntactic selection constraints can filter out additional ungrammatical sentences -Syntactic parameters such as head parameter describe cross linguistic variation -Syntactic structure plays a role in determining allowable relationships between certain phrases in a sentence Example of syntactic relations -We use syntactic structures to explain why (1) and (4) are grammatical, but (2) and (3) are ungrammatical o1. John’s sister laughed at himo2. * john’s sister laughed at himself o3. * john’s sister laughed at hero4. John’s sister laughed at herselfpronouns and anaphors -pronouns: words like he, she, you, they, it -anaphors: reflexive and reciprocals- words like himself, ourselves, each other meanings of pronouns and anaphors -pronouns sometimes get their meanings from another NP in the sentence oconnie’s friend ignored her her= connieher= some female other than connie-anaphors always get the meaning from another NP in the sentenceoconnie’s friend hurt himself himself= connie’s friend *himself= some male other than connie’s friend (impossible) antecedents and binding -a phrase which gives pronoun or anaphor its meaning is called its antecedent. The antecedent binds pronoun/anaphor o1. Connie’s friend ignored her in 1 on the reading where her= Connie, the NP Connie isthe antecedent of her o2. Connie’s friend hurt himself in 2, NP Connie’s friend is the antecedent of himself -restrictionsonot every NP can be an antecedent oanaphors- only larger NP can be antecedent 3. That boy’s teacher admires himself himself= that boy’s teacher *himself= that boyopronouns- only more deeply embedded NP can be antecedent 4. That boy’s teacher admires him*him= that boy’s teacher him= that boy c-command -we need to define a structural relation in order to explain these facts. A structural relation describes the relationship between different nodes in the tree oc-command- a node c-command its sisters, and all nodes contained inside its sisters binding principles (version 1) -binding principle a- an anaphor must have an antecedent that c-commands it -binding principle b- a pronoun must not have an antecedent the c-commands it a problem- embedded clauses-our binding principles work for the data we have seen so far. However, the following examples involving embedded clauses are problematic, can you see why?oClaire knew that (Alexis trusted her) Her= Claire*her= alexisoClaire knew that (Alexis trusted herself) *herself= Claire herself= Alexis binding principle (version 2) -binding principle A (revised) oan anaphor must have an antecedent that both c-commands it and is in the same minimal S with it -binding principle B (revised) oa pronoun must not have an antecedent that both c-commands it andis in the same minimal S with it sources of ungrammaticality -a PS rule could be violated oin English *VP  NP V-selectional restriction of the verb might not be met o*we devoured -BPA- antecedent might not c-command the anaphor -BPA- antecedent might be outside minimal S of anaphor -BPB- antecedent of pronoun might c-command it inside same S


View Full Document

UW-Madison LINGUIS 101 - Syntax 6

Type: Lecture Note
Pages: 5
Download Syntax 6
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Syntax 6 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Syntax 6 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?