1

Introduction to WG syntax

Richard HudsonJoensuu November 2010

Word-word relations are concepts

2

The challenge

• How to go beyond single words – to combinations of words– to general patterns

• This is the domain of syntax– the study of how words combine– including general rules

3

Influences on Word Grammar syntax

• Tesnière (France, 1893-1954)– dependency structure, not phrase structure

• Halliday (UK, 1925-)– labeled grammatical functions

• Chomsky (USA, 1928-)– abstract structures

4

An example

Try using dependency structures!

predic-ative

object

pre-adjunct

subject

subject

[you]

5

Dependency grammar

• History– Panini (350 BC)– Arabic grammarians (700s+)– Some traditional school grammar (1800s)– Russia (e.g. Mel’cuk)– Germany (e.g. Kunze)– Finland (e.g. Karlsson)

6

Why not phrase structure?

• Basic assumption of PS:– We cannot relate words directly to each other.

• Why not?• What about other areas of thought?

– Social relations: we relate people to each other.– Spatial relations: we relate objects to each

other.

7

My family network

me

JohnGretta

Colin Gaynor

Lucy Alice

Peter

fathermother

brother father

daughterdaughter

grandson

son

mother

8

Relations in WG

• Relations are classified– ‘mother’, ‘son’, etc.

• Each relation is a concept– just like entities such as ‘dog’ or ‘running’– but relations have an ‘argument’ and a ‘value’

• Similarly, we classify dependencies– ‘subject’, ‘adjunct’, etc.– Traditional 'grammatical functions'.

9

Generalising in syntax

• Words are classified by word classes• Dependencies are classified by functions• Each of these classifications forms a

taxonomy– a hierarchy of increasingly specific categories

10

The word-class taxonomyword

noun verb adjective ….

auxiliarycommon

DOG CAN

BIG

11

Generalising in a network

• A 'rule' is a property applied by inheritance– e.g. 'A word has a meaning'

• Rules are more or less general, but combine freely by inheritance– A verb has a subject– TAKE has an object– So: takes has a subject and an object

• and a meaning

12

The grammatical-function hierarchydependent

valent adjunct

subject complement

object predicative

13

Generalising across dependencies

• Again, rules may be more or less general – a word stands before its dependents– a verb stands after its subject– an interrogative auxiliary verb stands before its

subject.• Thanks to default inheritance, the most

specific rule always wins.– In other words, rules have exceptions.

14

Abstract relations in syntax

• Syntax is abstract!• Dependencies are very abstract

– defined by many different properties• Dependencies can also be complex

– One word may depend on many others.– Mutual dependency is possible.

15

A complex syntactic network

What did you say?

extractee subject predicative

subjectcomplement

extractee & object

16

Simple syntax

a book about the idea of a life after death

17

Abstract words in syntax

• Maybe a complete analysis should recognise abstract, unrealised, words?

• E.g. [you] as the subject of an imperative?– Why not, if words are concepts?– We have a concept for 'Superman'– But we also know he doesn't exist – Similarly for the realisation of [you].

18

Researching syntax

Here too, networks are everywhere.• Inside syntax

– What about constructions?• Between syntax and morphology• Between syntax and semantics• Between syntax and sociolinguistics• Between syntax and psycholinguistics• Between syntax and education

19

Constructions are dependency networks

W hat is it do ing rain ing?s u b j

s h a re r

e xt ra c t e e

s h a re r

e xt ra c t e e & o b j

s u b j

s u b j

c o m p

20

Researching syntax and morphology

• Syntactic words are realized by morphological structures– e.g. 'WALK, past' realized by {{walk}{ed}}

• Words usually have their own morphology.• But clitics are different

– e.g. for 'YOU' + 'BE, present': {{you}{'re}}

21

French pronouns

Paul mange la pomme

{Paul} {mange} {pomme}

P eats the apple

{la} {Paul} { {mange}}

22

Researching syntax and semantics

• Each word token inherits a sense – e.g. 'dog', 'eating', 'in'

• But this sense is modified by the dependents– e.g. 'big dog', 'eating breakfast', 'in bed'

• Exactly how do dependents modify senses?

23

Simple syntax, complex meaning

I ate breakfast.

speaker eating breakfast

eating breakfast

me eating breakfast

me eating breakfast then then < now

24

Researching syntax and sociolinguistics

• Syntactic patterns may have social meaning– Professor Hudson ~ Dick ~ Dad ~ Grandpa– he is ~ he's– which I live in ~ in which I live– we were ~ we was– I didn't do anything ~ I didn't do nothing.

• How does syntax relate to social context?

25

local person

Inherent variability

we were

•speaker

•speaker educated person

BE, past

we was

26

Researching syntax and psycholinguistics

• Syntactic structure influences processing• Some structures are harder than others

– That Finland has the best schools in the world is generally agreed.

• Simpler but harder– It is generally agreed that Finland has the best

schools in the world. • More complex but easier

27

Extraposition

That Finland has the best schools in the world is certain.

It is certain that Finland has the best schools in the world.

8 words

1 word

28

Researching syntax and education

• Our syntactic knowledge grows all through life:– new constructions

• Try as he might, he couldn't open it.– new details of existing constructions

• possibility of, opportunity to

• Much of this growth happens at school.

29

Subordinate clauses per 100 words:influence of age and grade

30

Research questions for education

• What causes growth in syntax?– general cognitive growth, e.g. memory– growth in the language network

• Can grammatical analysis improve writing?– Yes!– recent research by Debra Myhill

• How can teachers help?

31

Kiitos

• This slideshow can be downloaded fromwww.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/talks.htm• For more on Word Grammar, seewww.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/wg.htm• My home page, with email address: www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm