Lecture 2: Categories and Subcategorisation Syntax Lecture 2: Categories and Subcategorisation

Recap All phrases are structurally the same: All phrases differ in their lexical content Lexical content determines the syntactic differences between phrases Particularly the lexical head

Differences in lexical heads So how syntactically different can lexical heads be? There are two way heads differ They have different categories They differ in what complements they select

How many different categories are there? Most syntactic descriptions work with a relatively small number of different categories Noun Verb Adjective Adverb Preposition Pronoun Determiner Particle Subordinator Coordinator Auxiliary verb Degree adverb In fact, some of these collapse into single categories

Collapsing categories: pronouns and determiners Many determiners work as pronouns This book was banned This was banned Some people are sad Some are sad Few aeroplanes crash Few crash Some pronouns work as determiners We humans Them rocks (dialectal) You lot It has been suggested that pronouns should be analysed as determiners

Collapsing categories: subordinators and adverbs Some subordinating particles behave exactly like adverbs Obviously, he had gone He, obviously, had gone He had gone, obviously However, he had gone He, however, had gone He had gone, however There is no reason not to analyse these as adverbs

Collapsing categories: subordinators and adverbs Some subordinating particles don’t behave like adverbs Obviously, he had gone He, obviously, had gone He had gone, obviously ... that he had gone * ... he that had gone * ... he had gone that These are clearly of a different category We call them Complementisers

Collapsing Categories: adverbs and adjectives Many adverbs and adjectives have the same root: obvious: obviously fast: fast great: greatly Adverbs and adjectives are in complementary distribution Adverbs modify verbs, adjectives modify nouns They might be different subcategories of a general category of ‘modifier’ (often called A)

Conclusion So it seems that the number of categories we need to describe language is very small Why is that? Without a theory of categories, we can’t explain this.

Different categories sometimes have things in common Verbs and prepositions take ‘bare’ objects: visited London saw the man shot him to London for the man with him Nouns and Adjectives take objects with ‘of’: Picture of Mary growth of the trees Fond of Mary mindful of the trees How can we explain these facts if categories are completely unconnected?

A theory of categories We know that all categories fall into one of two main types Functional Determiners Auxiliary verbs Complementisers Etc. Thematic Nouns Verbs A (modifiers) Etc.

A theory of categories This suggests a ‘binary feature’ analysis (like distinctive features in phonology: ±voice, ±long) Suppose we assume a feature ±F +F = Functional categories -F = Thematic categories

A theory of categories

A theory of categories But this still isn’t very restrictive One way to restrict the system is to assume that all categories are defined by binary features This would also account for similarities between different categories Distinct categories can share one or more features

A theory of categories How many more binary features do we need? Not too many!: 1 feature = 2 categories - not enough! 2 features = 4 categories - not enough! 3 features = 8 categories - perhaps 4 features = 16 categories - too many! 10 features = 1024 categories - way too many!

A theory of categories Suppose we suggest two extra features: ±N (things which are ‘nounlike’) ±V (things which are ‘verblike’) Assuming nouns and verbs to be opposites to each other we get: Noun = [-F, +N, -V] Verb = [-F, -N, +V] This is supported by the fact that nouns and verbs share very little in common

-F categories There are two more –F categories: [-F, +N, +V] [-F, -N, -V] The first seems appropriate for A They modify both nouns and verbs Adjectives are often used as nouns The good, the bad and the ugly In some languages adjectives are used as verbs Nouns and adjectives don’t take bare objects

-F categories [-F, -N, -V] seems appropriate for prepositions: Prepositions have no morphological properties They can’t be tensed They can’t be plural Like verbs, they take bare objects (both are –N)

-F categories We predict the following possible categories Some categories have some things in common We also predict that there are no other thematic categories

+F categories The theory predicts four functional categories These are the functional equivalents to: Nouns ([+F, +N, -V]) Verbs ([+F, -N, +V]) A ([+F, +N, +V]) Prepositions ([+F, -N, -V])

Functional equivalents The most obvious functional nominal is the determiner Determiner = [+F, +N, -V] The most obvious functional verb is the auxiliary Auxiliary = [+F, -N, +V] Degree adverbs are similar to determiners in APs (the man : so tall) Degree adverbs (Deg) = [+F, +N, +V] Complementisers are similar to prepositions (both introduce arguments) Complementisers = [+F, -N, -V]

+F categories We predict the following possible categories We also predict that there are no other thematic categories

A theory of categories

Subcategories The subcategories of a category are determined by what follows them E.g. Verbs can be transitive (i.e. they are followed by an object) or intransitive (i.e. they are not followed by an object) In other words, subcategories are determined by what appears in the complement position

Complement Position Complement

The complement of functional categories The functional categories do not usually have subcategories – they almost always take the same complements The complement of an auxiliary verb is always a VP may [VP win the race] The complement of a complementiser is always a sentence that [he may win the race]

The complement of functional categories The complement of a degree adverb is always an AP so [AP fond of chocolate] The complement of a determiner is usually an NP The [NP man from Brazil]

The complements of thematic categories Thematic categories can take various types of complement and so have a number of subcategories Verbs can be followed by A DP see [DP the news] A clause think [ that he saw the news] A PP react [PP to the news] An AP feel [AP sorry]

The complements of thematic categories Prepositions can have the same range of complements as verbs, except for clauses DP to [DP the west] PP from [PP under the bed] AP (range) from [AP heavy] to [AP medium]

The complements of thematic categories Nouns can have the same complements as verbs, except for DPs Clauses belief [that he can fly] PP reaction [PP to the news] AP (his) feeling [AP ill]

The complements of thematic categories ‘A’s can take clausal and PP complements Clause likely [that he will fail] PP keen [PP on ice hockey]

Conclusion Heads determine the category of phrases But there are only 8 categories of heads So there can only be 8 different categories of phrases Heads determine the category of their complements Functional heads only take one type of complement Thematic heads take more types of complement, but none of them are unrestricted We still have a restricted theory of phrases