Syntax

For other uses, see Syntax (disambiguation). Not to beconfused with Sin tax. See also Syntaxis.“Sentence structure” redirects here. For sentence typesin traditional grammar, see Sentence clause structure.

In linguistics, syntax is the set of rules, principles, andprocesses that govern the structure of sentences in a givenlanguage. The term syntax is also used to refer to thestudy of such principles and processes.[1] The goal ofmany syntacticians is to discover the syntactic rules com-mon to all languages.In mathematics, syntax refers to the rules governing thebehavior of mathematical systems, such as formal lan-guages used in logic. (See logical syntax.)

1 Etymology

FromAncient Greek: σύνταξις “coordination” from σύνsyn, “together,” and τάξις táxis, “an ordering”.

2 Early history

Works on grammar were written long before modern syn-tax came about; the Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini (c. 4th centuryBC) is often cited as an example of a premodern workthat approaches the sophistication of a modern syntactictheory.[2] In the West, the school of thought that came tobe known as “traditional grammar” began with the workof Dionysius Thrax.For centuries, work in syntax was dominated by a frame-work known as grammaire générale, first expounded in1660 by Antoine Arnauld in a book of the same title.This system took as its basic premise the assumption thatlanguage is a direct reflection of thought processes andtherefore there is a single, most natural way to express athought.However, in the 19th century, with the development ofhistorical-comparative linguistics, linguists began to real-ize the sheer diversity of human language and to questionfundamental assumptions about the relationship betweenlanguage and logic. It became apparent that there was nosuch thing as the most natural way to express a thought,and therefore logic could no longer be relied upon as abasis for studying the structure of language.The Port-Royal grammar modeled the study of syntax

upon that of logic. (Indeed, large parts of the Port-Royal Logic were copied or adapted from theGrammairegénérale.[3]) Syntactic categories were identified with log-ical ones, and all sentences were analyzed in terms of“Subject – Copula – Predicate.” Initially, this view wasadopted even by the early comparative linguists such asFranz Bopp.The central role of syntax within theoretical linguisticsbecame clear only in the 20th century, which could rea-sonably be called the “century of syntactic theory” as faras linguistics is concerned. (For a detailed and criticalsurvey of the history of syntax in the last two centuries,see the monumental work by Giorgio Graffi (2001).)[4]

3 Modern theories

There are a number of theoretical approaches to thediscipline of syntax. One school of thought, foundedin the works of Derek Bickerton,[5] sees syntax as abranch of biology, since it conceives of syntax as thestudy of linguistic knowledge as embodied in the humanmind. Other linguists (e.g., Gerald Gazdar) take a morePlatonistic view, since they regard syntax to be the studyof an abstract formal system.[6] Yet others (e.g., JosephGreenberg) consider syntax a taxonomical device to reachbroad generalizations across languages.

3.1 Generative grammar

Main article: Generative grammar

The hypothesis of generative grammar is that languageis a structure of the human mind. The goal of gener-ative grammar is to make a complete model of this in-ner language (known as i-language). This model couldbe used to describe all human language and to predictthe grammaticality of any given utterance (that is, to pre-dict whether the utterance would sound correct to nativespeakers of the language). This approach to language waspioneered by Noam Chomsky. Most generative theories(although not all of them) assume that syntax is basedupon the constituent structure of sentences. Generativegrammars are among the theories that focus primarilyon the form of a sentence, rather than its communicativefunction.Among the many generative theories of linguistics, theChomskyan theories are:

1

2 3 MODERN THEORIES

• Transformational grammar (TG) (Original theory ofgenerative syntax laid out by Chomsky in SyntacticStructures in 1957)[7]

• Government and binding theory (GB) (revised the-ory in the tradition of TG developed mainly byChomsky in the 1970s and 1980s)[8]

• Minimalist program (MP) (a reworking of the the-ory out of the GB framework published by Chomskyin 1995)[9]

Other theories that find their origin in the generativeparadigm are:

• Arc pair grammar

• Generalized phrase structure grammar (GPSG; nowlargely out of date)

• Generative semantics (now largely out of date)

• Head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG)

• Lexical functional grammar (LFG)

• Nanosyntax

• Relational grammar (RG) (now largely out of date)

3.2 Categorial grammar

Main article: Categorial grammar

Categorial grammar is an approach that attributes the syn-tactic structure not to rules of grammar, but to the proper-ties of the syntactic categories themselves. For example,rather than asserting that sentences are constructed by arule that combines a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase(VP) (e.g., the phrase structure rule S→NPVP), in cate-gorial grammar, such principles are embedded in the cat-egory of the head word itself. So the syntactic categoryfor an intransitive verb is a complex formula representingthe fact that the verb acts as a function word requiring anNP as an input and produces a sentence level structure asan output. This complex category is notated as (NP\S)instead of V. NP\S is read as “a category that searchesto the left (indicated by \) for an NP (the element on theleft) and outputs a sentence (the element on the right).”The category of transitive verb is defined as an elementthat requires two NPs (its subject and its direct object) toform a sentence. This is notated as (NP/(NP\S)) whichmeans “a category that searches to the right (indicated by/) for an NP (the object), and generates a function (equiv-alent to the VP) which is (NP\S), which in turn representsa function that searches to the left for an NP and producesa sentence.”Tree-adjoining grammar is a categorial grammar thatadds in partial tree structures to the categories.

3.3 Dependency grammar

Main article: Dependency grammarDependency grammar is an approach to sentence struc-

A syntactic parse of “Alfred spoke” under the dependency for-malism

ture where syntactic units are arranged according to thedependency relation, as opposed to the constituency re-lation of phrase structure grammars. Dependencies aredirected links between words. The (finite) verb is seen asthe root of all clause structure and all the other words inthe clause are either directly or indirectly dependent onthis root. Some prominent dependency-based theories ofsyntax are:

• Recursive categorical syntax, or Algebraic syntax

• Functional generative description

• Meaning–text theory

• Operator grammar

• Word grammar

Lucien Tesnière (1893–1954) is widely seen as the fa-ther of modern dependency-based theories of syntax andgrammar. He argued vehemently against the binary divi-sion of the clause into subject and predicate that is asso-ciated with the grammars of his day (S → NP VP) andwhich remains at the core of most phrase structure gram-mars. In the place of this division, he positioned the verbas the root of all clause structure.[10]

3.4 Stochastic/probabilistic gram-mars/network theories

Theoretical approaches to syntax that are based uponprobability theory are known as stochastic grammars.One common implementation of such an approach makesuse of a neural network or connectionism. Some theoriesbased within this approach are:

• Optimality theory

• Stochastic context-free grammar

4.1 Syntactic terms 3

3.5 Functionalist grammars

Main article: Functional theories of grammar

Functionalist theories, although focused upon form, aredriven by explanation based upon the function of a sen-tence (i.e. its communicative function). Some typicalfunctionalist theories include:

• Cognitive grammar

• Construction grammar (CxG)

• Emergent grammar

• Functional discourse grammar (Dik)

• Prague linguistic circle

• Role and reference grammar (RRG)

• Systemic functional grammar

4 See also

4.1 Syntactic terms

• Adjective

• Adjective phrase

• Adjunct

• Adpositional phrase

• Adverb

• Anaphora

• Answer ellipsis

• Antecedent

• Antecedent-contained deletion

• Appositive

• Argument

• Article

• Aspect

• Attributive adjective and predicative adjective

• Auxiliary verb

• Binding

• Branching

• c-command

• Case

• Category

• Catena

• Clause

• Closed class word

• Comparative

• Complement

• Compound noun and adjective

• Conjugation

• Conjunction

• Constituent

• Coordination

• Coreference

• Crossover

• Dangling modifier

• Declension

• Dependency grammar

• Dependent marking

• Determiner

• Discontinuity

• Do-support

• Dual (form for two)

• Ellipsis

• Endocentric

• Exceptional case-marking

• Expletive

• Extraposition

• Finite verb

• Function word

• Gapping

• Gender

• Gerund

• Government

• Head

• Head marking

• Infinitive

• Inverse copular construction

4 4 SEE ALSO

• Inversion

• Lexical item

• m-command

• Measure word (classifier)

• Merge

• Modal particle

• Modal verb

• Modifier

• Mood

• Movement

• Movement paradox

• Nanosyntax

• Negative inversion

• Non-configurational language

• Non-finite verb

• Noun

• Noun ellipsis

• Noun phrase

• Number

• Object

• Open class word

• Parasitic gap

• Part of speech

• Particle

• Periphrasis

• Person

• Personal pronoun

• Pied-piping

• Phrasal verb

• Phrase

• Phrase structure grammar

• Plural

• Predicate

• Predicative expression

• Preposition and postposition

• Pronoun

• Pseudogapping

• Raising

• Relation (Grammatical relation)

• Restrictiveness

• Right node raising

• Sandhi

• Scrambling

• Selection

• Sentence

• Separable verb

• Shifting

• Singular

• Sluicing

• Small clause

• Stripping

• Subcategorization

• Subject

• Subject-auxiliary inversion

• Subject-verb inversion

• Subordination

• Superlative

• Tense

• Topicalization

• Tough movement

• Uninflected word

• V2 word order

• Valency

• Verb

• Verb phrase

• Verb phrase ellipsis

• Voice

• Wh-movement

• Word order

• X-bar theory

5

5 Notes[1] Chomsky, Noam (2002) [1957]. Syntactic Structures. p.

11.

[2] Fortson IV, Benjamin W. (2004). Indo-European Lan-guage and Culture: An Introduction. Blackwell. p. 186.ISBN 978-1405188968. [TheAṣṭādhyāyī ] is a highly pre-cise and thorough description of the structure of Sanskritsomewhat resembling modern generative grammar...[it]remained the most advanced linguistic analysis of anykind until the twentieth century.

[3] Arnauld, Antoine (1683). La logique (5th ed.). Paris:G. Desprez. p. 137. Nous avons emprunté...ce quenous avons dit...d'un petit Livre...sous le titre de Grammairegénérale.

[4] Giorgio, Graffi (2001). 200 Years of Syntax: A CriticalSurvey (googlebook preview). John Benjamins Publish-ing.

[5] See Bickerton, Derek (1990). Language and Species.University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-04610-9. and,for more recent advances, Derek Bickerton; Eörs Szath-máry, ed. (2009). Biological foundations and origin ofsyntax. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-01356-7.

[6] Ted Briscoe, 2 May 2001, Interview with Gerald Gazdar.Retrieved 2008-06-04.

[7] Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. TheHague/Paris: Mouton, p. 15.

[8] Chomsky, Noam (1981/1993). Lectures on Governmentand Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Mouton de Gruyter.

[9] Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. MITPress.

[10] Concerning Tesnière’s rejection of the binary division ofthe clause into subject and predicate and in favor of theverb as the root of all structure, see Tesnière (1969:103–105).

6 References

• Brown, Keith; Jim Miller (eds.) (1996). ConciseEncyclopedia of Syntactic Theories. New York: El-sevier Science. ISBN 0-08-042711-1.

• Carnie, Andrew (2006). Syntax: A Generative Intro-duction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN1-4051-3384-8.

• Freidin, Robert; Howard Lasnik (eds.) (2006). Syn-tax. Critical Concepts in Linguistics. New York:Routledge. ISBN 0-415-24672-5.

• Graffi, Giorgio (2001). 200 Years of Syntax. A Crit-ical Survey. Studies in the History of the LanguageSciences 98. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ISBN 90-272-4587-8.

• Mieszko Talasiewicz (2009). Philosophy ofSyntax—Foundational Topics. Springer. ISBN 978-90-481-3287-4. An interdisciplinary essay on theinterplay between logic and linguistics on syntactictheories.

• Tesnière, Lucien 1969. Éleménts de syntaxe struc-turale. 2nd edition. Paris: Klincksieck.

7 Further reading• Martin Everaert, Henk Van Riemsdijk, Rob Goede-mans and Bart Hollebrandse, ed. (2006). TheBlackwell companion to syntax. Blackwell. ISBN978-1-4051-1485-1. 5 Volumes; 77 case studies ofsyntactic phenomena.

• Brian Roark; Richard William Sproat (2007). Com-putational approaches to morphology and syntax.Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-927477-2. part II: Computational approaches to syntax.

• Isac, Daniela; Charles Reiss (2013). I-language:An Introduction to Linguistics as Cognitive Science,2nd edition. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199660179.

• Edith A. Moravcsik (2006). An introduction to syn-tax: fundamentals of syntactic analysis. Contin-uum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8264-8945-6. Attempts to be a theory-neutralintroduction. The companion Edith A. Moravcsik(2006). An introduction to syntactic theory. Contin-uum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8264-8943-2. surveys the major theories. Jointlyreviewed in The Canadian Journal of Linguistics54(1), March 2009, pp. 172–175

8 External links• The syntax of natural language: An online introduc-tion using the Trees program—Beatrice Santorini &Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania, 2007

6 9 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

9 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

9.1 Text• Syntax Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax?oldid=677794820 Contributors: Mav, RoseParks, Andre Engels, Karl E. V. Palmen,Youssefsan, Vaganyik, William Avery, Ben-Zin~enwiki, Hannes Hirzel, Hirzel, Stevertigo, K.lee, Michael Hardy, Kwertii, Looxix~enwiki,Ahoerstemeier, Darkwind, Glenn, Cadr, Hectorthebat, Chronotox, Charles Matthews, Haukurth, Hyacinth, Ed g2s, PuzzletChung, Rob-bot, RedWolf, Altenmann, Dittaeva, Sverdrup, Academic Challenger, Rursus, Ojigiri~enwiki, Hippietrail, Hadal, Spellbinder, Rik G.,Giftlite, Marnanel, Raymond Meredith, Linguizic, Jdavidb, Neilc, Physicist, Andycjp, Sonjaaa, Beland, OverlordQ, MarkSweep, Muker-jee, Oneiros, Karl-Henner, Tooki, Robin klein, N-k, D6, Poccil, Haggen Kennedy, Skal, Discospinster, Rich Farmbrough, El C, Cherryblossom tree, Joanjoc~enwiki, Bobo192, Beige Tangerine, Viriditas, Dungodung, Kappa, Joe Jarvis, Kjkolb, Morganiq, Jonsafari, AnthonyAppleyard, Mark Dingemanse, Atlant, CR7, Ciceronl, Cromwellt, Ish ishwar, RJFJR, Mikeo, Axeman89, Stemonitis, Nuno Tavares, Angr,Simetrical, Woohookitty, Mindmatrix, Bellenion, Kokoriko, JeremyA, Keta, Eilthireach, Pasta Salad, Palica, Mrcool1122, Graham87,FreplySpang, Mayumashu, NatusRoma, TheRingess, Wooddoo-eng, Krash, Nguyen Thanh Quang, Whimemsz, Malhonen, CJLL Wright,Chobot, Martin Hinks, KEJ, YurikBot, Wavelength, RobotE, RussBot, Hyad, Pigman, Polyvios, Anomalocaris, Cquan, Zarel, Bayle Shanks,Pdblues, Action potential, Maunus, Wknight94, Donald Albury, Miguelmrm~enwiki, JoanneB, CWenger, Thomas Blomberg, TuukkaH,Torgo, SmackBot, David Kernow, Jasy jatere, KnowledgeOfSelf, Zerida, David.Mestel, Unyoyega, Aurista25, C.Fred, Mgreenbe, Neutral-en, BiT, Niro5, Jwestbrook, Gilliam, Jcarroll, Rmosler2100, Bluebot, Mazeface, Thom2002, MalafayaBot, J. Spencer, Rlevse, Can'tsleep, clown will eat me, Mr.Z-man, Allan McInnes, SundarBot, Stevenmitchell, Ghiraddje, RandomP, Jon Awbrey, Fuzzypeg, FlyHigh,Byelf2007, SashatoBot, Derek farn, Rijkbenik, Tim Q.Wells, Minna Sora no Shita, 16@r, J Crow, Slakr, Novangelis, Kvng, Joseph Solis inAustralia, Joshuagross, Stifynsemons, Macetw, Thomasmeeks, Gregbard, FilipeS, Icek~enwiki, Cydebot, Kallerdis, Robzy213, Thijs!bot,Epbr123, Jobber, ClosedEyesSeeing, John254, Adw2000, Nick Number, Angryafghan, Pprabhakarrao, KrakatoaKatie, AntiVandalBot,Luna Santin, Prabhakar P Rao, Comhreir, Wayiran, Bogger, JAnDbot, Leuko, FromFoamsToWaves, MER-C, Rollred15, Freedomlinux,VoABot II, Pleckaitis, Rivertorch, Yaxu, Glen, DerHexer, CapnPrep, Kornfan71, Anaxial, R'n'B, Dwspig2, Smokizzy, J.delanoy, Hippasus,EscapingLife, Bogey97, Numbo3, Jerry, McSly, Rwessel, SJP, Hulten, Idioma-bot, VolkovBot, Semmelweiss, Johan1298~enwiki, Jeff G.,Gbouzon, TXiKiBoT, Guillaume2303, PaulTanenbaum, ^demonBot2, Yannis1962, Synthebot, Cnilep, Wiredrabbit, Jimbo2222, SieBot,Mycomp, Nihil novi, Space Dracula, Sky1er, Yerpo, Hexham, Oxymoron83, Tautologist, ClueBot, JonnybrotherJr, Pi zero, Mike Klaassen,CyrilThePig4, Wutsje, ChandlerMapBot, Zack wadghiri, Rhododendrites, Divespluto, Fattyjwoods, SchreiberBike, Acabashi, Aitias, Ver-sus22, Will Hen, Cc116, XLinkBot, Jbeans, Starfire777, Nyoro n, Addbot, Xp54321, ConCompS,Willking1979, Rmalouf, Vishnava, Cof-feeassured, Numbo3-bot, Lpjurca, Erutuon, Tide rolls, OlEnglish, Jarble, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ptbotgourou, Denispir, RaimundoPastor, AnomieBOT, Quangbao, Rjanag, Springindd, IRP, JackieBot, Glenfarclas, Materialscientist, Citation bot, ArthurBot, TwigsCog-ito, Jchthys, Xqbot, Triplejo2, Dr Oldekop, Omnipaedista, RibotBOT, MarkkuP, Acb4341, LucienBOT, Airborne84, Mundart, Sopher99,Pinethicket, Jonesey95, Full-date unlinking bot, Dude1818, Jauhienij, Æk, Lotje, Tjo3ya, Reaper Eternal, Kajervi, Brian the Editor, Tb-hotch, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, 2bluey, Ripchip Bot, Jmonk95, EmausBot, RA0808, Mainstreet27, Goudron, Neddy1234, Tijfo098, ClueBotNG, AK IM OP, Iloveandrea, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, CityOfSilver, Solomon7968, AdventurousSquirrel, CitationCleanerBot, Qe-tuth, Nuyhij, ChrisGualtieri, Grahas02, ComfyKem, BigBangTheoryLad, Kevin12xd, Beatrice57, BreakfastJr, JKJasmineWongLaiKwan,Cmckain14, Wikiuser13, Werddemer, ANALYN AYCOCHO, Monkbot, Boblamus, YeOldeGentleman and Anonymous: 303

9.2 Images• File:A_syntactic_parse_of_\char"0022\relax{}Alfred_spoke\char"0022\relax{}_under_the_dependency_formalism..pngSource: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/A_syntactic_parse_of_%22Alfred_spoke%22_under_the_dependency_formalism..png License: CC BY-SA 4.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Christian Nassif-Haynes

• File:Accusative_alignment.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Accusative_alignment.svg License:Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:RedHotHeat

• File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Originalartist: ?

9.3 Content license• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0