1. Between dependency structure and phrase structure
Dick Hudson
UCL June 2018

2. How’s theoretical syntax doing?
Where are we coming from?
Did it all start in 1957?
Where are we now?
Have we got the basics sorted?
Are we converging on a single theory?
Where would we like to be?
Will we still be here in 40 years?

3. My plan I’ll give some historical context I’ll introduce Word Grammar
Focusing on one issue: the nature of sentence structure.
Phrase structure (PS):
only phrases and their parts; no direct links between words
Dependency structure (DS):
only relations between words; no phrases
I’ll introduce Word Grammar
Relevant because it assumes DS
Started in 1984 but still evolving
I’ll admit to a crucial weakness in DS
But I’ll offer a solution.
Which is half-way between DS and PS.

4. For example For example S J N V J NVP o a s a NP NP
J N V J N
syntactic theory attracts good students JP JP
dependency relation
J N V J N
syntactic theory attracts good students
whole-part relation

5. 1. History of syntax: in a nutshell
The mainstream is a search for a single relation throughout the sentence.
Progress was gradual and erratic
bits of the wheel were rediscovered several times
The mainstream solution is DS (dependency structure)
The single relation includes:
adjuncts, complements, subjects
head = verb, noun, any word
PS is a historical aberration introduced by
a philosopher: Aristotle
a psychologist: Wundt
relation
adjuncts
complements
subjects
head class
verb
noun
any

6. 1. History of syntax: the birth of grammar
A > B = ‘B depends on A’
1. History of syntax: the birth of grammar
relation
adjuncts
complements
subjects
head class
verb
noun
any
-2,000 Babylon: word paradigms, no syntax
-500 India; Panini: DS (V > semantically defined kārakas)
but only applies to dependents of verbs.
-384 Greece; Aristotle: PS (proposition/sentence = subject/noun + predicate/verb) S
relation
adjuncts
complements
subjects
head class
verb
noun
any N V

7. 1. History of syntax: the Arabic grammarians
-2,000 Babylon: word paradigms, no syntax
-500 India; Panini: DS (A > B = ‘B depends on A’: V > semantically defined kārakas)
-384 Greece; Aristotle: PS (proposition = subject + predicate)
+350 Greece, Italy; Donatus, etc.: little syntax
+760 Baghdad; Sibawayh: DS (verb/prep > governed cases)
relation
adjuncts
complements
subjects
head class
verb
noun
any
Basra and Kufa argued about grammatical theory:
Agreed:
Nouns and verbs have ‘case’ chosen by a ‘governor’.
This dependency also predicts word order.
Disputed: is mutual dependency possible?
Kufa: yes.
Basra: no.

8. 1. History of syntax: Medieval Europe
+350 Greece, Italy; Donatus, etc.: little syntax
+760 Baghdad; Sibawayh: DS (verb/prep > governed cases)
+1150 France; Peter Helias: DS (verb/prep > governed case)
+1310 Germany; Thomas of Erfurt: DS (N > Adj, but subject/object N > V!) o s
J N V J N
relation
adjuncts
complements
subjects
head class
verb
noun
any

9. 1. History of syntax: 18th century France
+1310 Germany; Thomas of Erfurt: DS (N > Adj, but subject/object N > V!)
1765 France; Beauzée: DS+PS (N>…+V>…)
For evidence of the effect, see Google N-grams ‘analyse de la phrase’, ‘analyse des phrases’
max % = 8/100,000,000
Already visible by 1800
relation
adjuncts
complements
subjects
head class
verb
noun
any

10. 1. History of syntax: 19th century Germany
+1310 Germany; Thomas of Erfurt: DS (N > Adj, but subject/object N > V!)
1765 France; Beauzée: DS+PS (N>…+V>…)
+1826 Germany; Becker: DS+PS
(first syntactic analysis table)
relation
adjuncts
complements
subjects
head class
verb
noun
any

11. 1. History of syntax: the first ‘tree’
+1310 Germany; Thomas of Erfurt: DS (N > Adj, but subject/object N > V!)
+1765 France; Beauzée: DS+PS (N>…+V>…)
+1826 Germany; Becker: DS+PS (first syntactic analysis table)
+1834 Germany; Billroth: DS+PS (first syntactic diagram)
relation
adjuncts
complements
subjects
head class
verb
noun
any

12. Google N-grams again: German ‘Satzbau’
From 1820
Peak is 10 times French peak (max = 9/10,000,000)
Apparently no influence from or on France.

13. 1. History of syntax: verb-rooted trees
+1765 France; Beauzée: DS+PS (N>…+V>…)
+1826 Germany; Becker: DS+PS (first syntactic analysis table)
+1834 Germany; Billroth: DS+PS (first syntactic diagram)
Hungary, Russia, Germany: pure DS (verb > dependents > dependents)
Hungarian (Brassai) and German (Kern) also produced verb-centred tree diagrams.
NB 86 years before Tesnière (1959).
relation
adjuncts
complements
subjects
head class
verb
noun
any

14. 1. History of syntax: American trees
relation
adjuncts
complements
subjects
head class
verb
noun
any
Hungary, Russia, Germany: pure DS (verb > dependents > dependents)
+1845 USA; Barrett: DS (first DS diagram, but rooted in the subject)
+1877 USA, Reed and Kellogg: DS+PS diagrams patented
Diagram by Sentence Diagrammer App!
relation
adjuncts
complements
subjects
head class
verb
noun
any

15. Google N-grams: English ‘sentence structure’
Not before 1880, but steep rise – NOT due to linguistics!
But maybe this rise prepared a new generation of syntax-ready linguists?
No influence from Germany

16. 1. History of syntax: Bloomfield’s Germany
+1877 USA; Reed and Kellogg: DS+PS diagrams patented
+1900 Germany; Wundt: PS (whole-part relations)
structure for: A sincerely thinking person scorns deception.
G = ‘total meaning’
A = subject, B = predicate
A1 = a person
B1 = thinks sincerely
A3 = thought
B3 = is sincere
A2 = deception
B2 = is scorned
relation
adjuncts
complements
subjects
head class
verb
noun
any

17. 1. History of syntax: Bloomfield and followers
+1877 USA; Reed and Kellogg: DS+PS diagrams patented
+1900 Germany; Wundt: PS (whole-part relations)
+1933 USA; Bloomfield: DS+PS (IC analysis = whole-part analysis )
First trees in Nida 1943
head < dependent
adjuncts
complements
subjects
verb
noun
any
relation
adjuncts
complements
subjects
head class
verb
noun
any
x = exocentric (no head)

18. 1. History of syntax: Chomsky
+1933 USA; Bloomfield: DS+PS (IC analysis = whole-part analysis )
+1957 USA; Chomsky: pure PS (survived only 13 years)
+1970 USA; Chomsky: PS with DS (X-bar syntax)
+1995 USA; Chomsky: DS? (Bare Phrase Structure)
No unary branching, so (3a) is replaced by (3b) NP VP
This is a dependency.
the
book
But what is this?
the

19. 2. Word Grammar 1961: SOAS, then UCL: Halliday vs Chomsky
DS wasn’t mentioned.
1964: PhD applying Halliday’s ‘Systemic Grammar’: very PS.
1971: First formal grammar using Systemic Grammar.
1976: ‘Daughter-Dependency Grammar’: PS + DS
1984: ‘Word Grammar’: pure DS
relation
adjuncts
complements
subjects
head class
verb
noun
any

20. The strengths of DS A cognitive argument: A linguistic argument:
We can recognise relations between individual people, so why not between words?
A linguistic argument:
Words can select other words directly, e.g.
must + infinitive, but ought + to
give + to, present + with, bestow + upon
So we should at least allow DS in syntactic structure.
but if we have DS do we also need PS?
But simple DS is inadequate for the same reasons as simple PS.

21. For example: What did he stop doing?
Mutual dependency! p c s p
What did he stop doing? x s
x,o x

22. But DS also needs extra nodes
the
book
the
e.g. typical French houses needs distinct nodes for:
house – copied from the lexical entry
F-house – modified by French
t-F-house – modified by typical applied to ‘French house’
pointed out by Oesten Dahl in 1980.
t-F-houses – affected by inflection: a set each of whose members is a typical French house.
plural
t-F-houses
typical
t-F-house
inheritance
French
F-house
house
house
But what is this?
inheritance

23. The mystery relation: what is it?
isa
Not whole-part:
Nothing can be part of itself.
Not set-member:
Chomsky’s two the’s are both individuals, not sets.
Maybe: ‘isa’, the general-specific relation that carries inheritance.
book-the (the as combined with book) isa the
t-F-houses isa plural and t-F-house isa F-house isa house
But:
‘isa’ is the basis for grammatical competence
and these ‘sub-tokens’ are part of performance.
book-the
house
house
F-house
French
typical
t-F-house
plural
t-F-houses

24. So competence meets performance
word
Every token isa some stored type.
But a typical type isa some more general type.
And some tokens become permanent types.
So tokens are a transient fringe on the edge of the permanent grammar.
Moreover, tokens can isa each other
by grammatical modification
by deliberate repetition
by accidental repetition
by anaphora
noun
house
plural
house
F-house
t-F-house
very
very
the
t-F-houses
the
Is (it raining?)
Yes.

25. So what? Historically, DS is the mainstream.
Pure PS only lasted for 13 years.
Grammarians aren’t good at learning from the past and from other countries.
Maybe we’re all converging on DS?
If so, we need a combination of
DS between individual words
‘isa’ between different analyses of the same word.
Maybe we can find a unified theory covering both competence and performance.

26. Thank you This talk is available for download at