1 Introduction to WG syntax Richard Hudson Joensuu 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, ) –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 [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 LucyAlice Peter father mother brother father daughter 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 taxonomy word noun verbadjective …. auxiliary common 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 hierarchy dependent valentadjunct subjectcomplement objectpredicative

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 subject complement 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

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 from For more on Word Grammar, see My home page, with address: