Week 2b. Categories and features CAS LX 522 Syntax I

Where we were… Lexical categories: Lexical categories: N: nounA: adjectiveAdv: adverb N: nounA: adjectiveAdv: adverb V: verbP: preposition V: verbP: preposition Functional categories: Functional categories: I: inflection/aux/modalD: determiner I: inflection/aux/modalD: determiner C: complementizerPRN: Pronoun C: complementizerPRN: Pronoun

Not all nouns are the same We’re trying to describe syntactic behavior of words, and we tried to put words into categories based on differences and similarities in behavior (distribution). We’re trying to describe syntactic behavior of words, and we tried to put words into categories based on differences and similarities in behavior (distribution). But we already know that there are differences even between members of the same category, for example count vs. mass nouns. But we already know that there are differences even between members of the same category, for example count vs. mass nouns.

Count and Mass We could just say, fine, we have two categories: Count, and Mass. We could just say, fine, we have two categories: Count, and Mass. [ Mass furniture], [ Mass freedom] [ Mass furniture], [ Mass freedom] [ Count chair], [ Count pinnacle] [ Count chair], [ Count pinnacle] But then we miss the fact, essentially, that they’re all nouns. E.g., what do adjectives modify? But then we miss the fact, essentially, that they’re all nouns. E.g., what do adjectives modify? Comfortable furniture makes me happy. Comfortable furniture makes me happy. Comfortable chairs make me happy. Comfortable chairs make me happy.

Commonalities and differences Basically, mass nouns have something in common with count nouns (namely, they’re nouns), while also having differences (count nouns are countable, mass nouns are not). Basically, mass nouns have something in common with count nouns (namely, they’re nouns), while also having differences (count nouns are countable, mass nouns are not). Nouns have the property of being a noun. Nouns have the property of being a noun. Count nouns have the property of being countable, mass nouns do not. Count nouns have the property of being countable, mass nouns do not.

Features A “feature” is a fancy name for “property”, and is used to express these similarities and differences. Features are generally binary [+F] or [-F]. A “feature” is a fancy name for “property”, and is used to express these similarities and differences. Features are generally binary [+F] or [-F]. Count nouns have the feature [+count]. Count nouns have the feature [+count]. Mass nouns have the feature [-count]. Mass nouns have the feature [-count]. Both have the feature [+N]. Both have the feature [+N]. So things that are true of nouns we can say are true of words with the feature [+N]. Things that are true of count nouns are true of things that are [+N, +count]. So things that are true of nouns we can say are true of words with the feature [+N]. Things that are true of count nouns are true of things that are [+N, +count].

Proper and common nouns We can similarly distinguish proper nouns (names) from common nouns (types). We can similarly distinguish proper nouns (names) from common nouns (types). Boston, Chomsky, September Boston, Chomsky, September park, linguist, month park, linguist, month Proper nouns don’t occur with determiners (or if they do, they are interpreted as if they were common nouns: I met every Chomsky at the picnic, I go to classes every September, the Boston I remember was cleaner than this. Proper nouns don’t occur with determiners (or if they do, they are interpreted as if they were common nouns: I met every Chomsky at the picnic, I go to classes every September, the Boston I remember was cleaner than this.

[±Common] So, Boston is a [+N, -Common] and park is a [+N, +Common]. But they are both [+N]. So, Boston is a [+N, -Common] and park is a [+N, +Common]. But they are both [+N]. These “secondary” features define subclasses of categories, and are sometimes referred to as subcategorial features. These “secondary” features define subclasses of categories, and are sometimes referred to as subcategorial features.

Feature matrices We can in fact encode many of the grammatical properties words can have as features, which will be useful in formulating our theory. The features will be anything that our grammatical rules/generalizations can “refer to”. We can in fact encode many of the grammatical properties words can have as features, which will be useful in formulating our theory. The features will be anything that our grammatical rules/generalizations can “refer to”. The dog [+N, +Count, -Plural] is hot. The dog [+N, +Count, -Plural] is hot. The dogs [+N, +Count, +Plural] are hot. The dogs [+N, +Count, +Plural] are hot. The soup [+N, -Count, -Plural] is hot. The soup [+N, -Count, -Plural] is hot. The scissors [+N, -Count, +Plural] are hot. The scissors [+N, -Count, +Plural] are hot.

Feature matrices The dog [+N, +Count, -Plural] is hot. The dog [+N, +Count, -Plural] is hot. The dogs [+N, +Count, +Plural] are hot. The dogs [+N, +Count, +Plural] are hot. The soup [+N, -Count, -Plural] is hot. The soup [+N, -Count, -Plural] is hot. The scissors [+N, -Count, +Plural] are hot. The scissors [+N, -Count, +Plural] are hot. The auxiliary be shows plural agreement: it is are when the subject is [+Plural] and is when the subject is [-Plural]. It doesn’t refer to (care about) [±Count]. The auxiliary be shows plural agreement: it is are when the subject is [+Plural] and is when the subject is [-Plural]. It doesn’t refer to (care about) [±Count].

Adjectives and adverbs Adjectives and adverbs are a lot alike. Most adjectives have an adverb form, and can in nonstandard speech in fact be used as adverbs. They both can be modified by very. Adjectives and adverbs are a lot alike. Most adjectives have an adverb form, and can in nonstandard speech in fact be used as adverbs. They both can be modified by very. Suggests that maybe this is more like the difference between mass and count nouns than like the difference between nouns and verbs— perhaps [±ADV] is a subcategorial feature. Suggests that maybe this is more like the difference between mass and count nouns than like the difference between nouns and verbs— perhaps [±ADV] is a subcategorial feature. quick: [+A, -ADV]quickly: [+A, +ADV] quick: [+A, -ADV]quickly: [+A, +ADV]

Verbal features Like for nouns, we can think of the different forms that verbs take as being differentiated by features: Like for nouns, we can think of the different forms that verbs take as being differentiated by features: (Note: I’m diverging a bit from Radford here, but I’m right.) (Note: I’m diverging a bit from Radford here, but I’m right.) He has shown improvement [+V, +Participle, -Past, +Perfect] He has shown improvement [+V, +Participle, -Past, +Perfect] He had shown improvement [+V, +Participle, +Past, +Perfect] He had shown improvement [+V, +Participle, +Past, +Perfect] He is showing improvement [+V, +Participle, -Past, -Perfect] He is showing improvement [+V, +Participle, -Past, -Perfect] He showed improvement [+V, -Participle, +Past] He showed improvement [+V, -Participle, +Past] He shows improvement [+V, -Participle, -Past, +3sg] He shows improvement [+V, -Participle, -Past, +3sg] You show improvement [+V, -Participle, -Past, -3sg] You show improvement [+V, -Participle, -Past, -3sg] So, -s is usually [-Participle, -Past, +3sg], -en is [+Participle, +Perfect], -ed is [+Past], -ing is [+Participle, -Perfect]. So, -s is usually [-Participle, -Past, +3sg], -en is [+Participle, +Perfect], -ed is [+Past], -ing is [+Participle, -Perfect].

Crosscategorial features Consider what un can attach to. Consider what un can attach to. untie, unfold, unwrap, unpack untie, unfold, unwrap, unpack unhappy, unfriendly, undead unhappy, unfriendly, undead *uncity, *uncola, *unconvention *uncity, *uncola, *unconvention *unupon, *unalongside, *unat *unupon, *unalongside, *unat Basically, it applies to reversible verbs and adjectives, but not to nouns or prepositions. How can we state that? Basically, it applies to reversible verbs and adjectives, but not to nouns or prepositions. How can we state that?

Crosscategorial features Suppose that nouns and verbs are the most basic categories. A noun is a noun and not a verb, and verb is a verb and not a noun. Suppose that nouns and verbs are the most basic categories. A noun is a noun and not a verb, and verb is a verb and not a noun. Noun: [+N, -V]. Noun: [+N, -V]. Verb: [-N, +V]. Verb: [-N, +V]. A conceptual reason to separate nouns and verbs is that verbs are basically predicates— they attribute some property to the noun. Nouns are basically arguments, to be assigned properties by verbs. A conceptual reason to separate nouns and verbs is that verbs are basically predicates— they attribute some property to the noun. Nouns are basically arguments, to be assigned properties by verbs.

Crosscategorial features Looked at this way, adjectives are kind of “verby” in that they are also attributing properties. Looked at this way, adjectives are kind of “verby” in that they are also attributing properties. It’s hard to make that really precise, but we have a more concrete syntactic similarity between verbs and adjectives too: both can take un-, while nouns and prepositions cannot. It’s hard to make that really precise, but we have a more concrete syntactic similarity between verbs and adjectives too: both can take un-, while nouns and prepositions cannot.

Supercategories Chomsky (1970) proposed that we explain this by supposing that [±N] and [±V] are the two basic features that determine the four lexical categories (N, V, A, P). Chomsky (1970) proposed that we explain this by supposing that [±N] and [±V] are the two basic features that determine the four lexical categories (N, V, A, P). N: [+N, -V]V: [-N, +V] N: [+N, -V]V: [-N, +V] P: [-N, -V]A: [+N, +V] P: [-N, -V]A: [+N, +V] Given that, what does un attach to? Given that, what does un attach to?

Russian Case Other languages can give us evidence of this as well. For example, Russian nouns (all nouns) are marked for Case (like English pronouns are: me vs. I), but when they are modified by an adjective, the adjective is also marked for case. Other languages can give us evidence of this as well. For example, Russian nouns (all nouns) are marked for Case (like English pronouns are: me vs. I), but when they are modified by an adjective, the adjective is also marked for case. What gets marked for Case in Russian? What gets marked for Case in Russian? Krasivaya dyevushka vsunula chornuyu koshku v pustuyu korobku beautifulgirlputblackcatinemptybox ‘The beautiful girl put the black cat in the empty box’

Functional and lexical That takes care of N, V, A, P, but what about our functional categories? That takes care of N, V, A, P, but what about our functional categories? In fact, the functional categories (C, I, D, PRN) each seem a little like a lexical category. In fact, the functional categories (C, I, D, PRN) each seem a little like a lexical category. Auxiliaries seem a lot like verbs (have, be, do), and inflect like verbs do. Auxiliaries seem a lot like verbs (have, be, do), and inflect like verbs do. Complementizers and infinitival to seem a bit like prepositions (e.g., for, to). Complementizers and infinitival to seem a bit like prepositions (e.g., for, to). Pronouns are kind of nouny. Pronouns are kind of nouny. Determiners are a bit adjectivey. Determiners are a bit adjectivey.

[+F]? Perhaps we can add a third binary feature, [±F] to capture this: Perhaps we can add a third binary feature, [±F] to capture this: [-F][+N][-N] [+V]AV [-V]NP[+F][+N][-N][+V]DAux [-V]PRN C, I

Grammatical category So what, then is a grammatical category? So what, then is a grammatical category? A grammatical category is a set of elements which have the same value(s) for a given set of grammatical features. A grammatical category is a set of elements which have the same value(s) for a given set of grammatical features. Category labels like “N”, or “Aux” are really just shorthand for feature matrices like [+N, -V, -F], or [-N, +V, +F]. Notationally convenient. Category labels like “N”, or “Aux” are really just shorthand for feature matrices like [+N, -V, -F], or [-N, +V, +F]. Notationally convenient.

The morphology of be Consider the following. How can we write an efficient set of rules to give us the correct form of be? Consider the following. How can we write an efficient set of rules to give us the correct form of be? [-Past][+Past] [-Pl][+Pl][-Pl][+Pl] [+1]1amarewaswere [-1, +2] 2arearewerewere [-1, -2] 3isarewaswere

The morphology of be Ok, let’s test it out. Ok, let’s test it out. I [+1, -2, -Pl, -Past, -N, +V, +F] ecstatic. I [+1, -2, -Pl, -Past, -N, +V, +F] ecstatic. They [-1, -2, +Pl, +Past, -N, +V, +F] leaving. They [-1, -2, +Pl, +Past, -N, +V, +F] leaving. Y’all [-1, +2, +Pl, +Past, -N, +V, +F] late. Y’all [-1, +2, +Pl, +Past, -N, +V, +F] late. In general, we might suppose that’s all there is to auxiliary be: a bundle of properties (auxiliary be: -N, +V, +F; subject agreement: ±1, ±2, ±Pl; tense: ±Past) and some rules to pronounce the bundles. In general, we might suppose that’s all there is to auxiliary be: a bundle of properties (auxiliary be: -N, +V, +F; subject agreement: ±1, ±2, ±Pl; tense: ±Past) and some rules to pronounce the bundles.

Separating the underlying from the pronounced This is a worthwhile point to remember. There is an underlying feature bundle, the auxiliary is an auxiliary be, with a tense, and some agreement features. We know the rules about pronouncing those features. Sometimes two feature bundles end up being pronounced in the same way. This is a worthwhile point to remember. There is an underlying feature bundle, the auxiliary is an auxiliary be, with a tense, and some agreement features. We know the rules about pronouncing those features. Sometimes two feature bundles end up being pronounced in the same way. In a real sense, the are in You are happy and the are in We are happy are different words, that just happen to be pronounced the same way. But they could have been pronounced distinctly. In a real sense, the are in You are happy and the are in We are happy are different words, that just happen to be pronounced the same way. But they could have been pronounced distinctly.

                      