PSYC3331 Lecture Notes - Lecture 15: Pragmatics, The World Academy Of Sciences, Affix
Sentences have
internal structures
Words can be grouped together into different
constituents
So any theory of
grammatical competence
must include an account of the constituent structure of
sentences whereby some words go together more closely than others.
The fact that some words go together more closely than others is captured in traditional theories of
grammar, capture by representing a sentence as a tree diagram
A theory of grammar must describe a finite set of
rules
The tree diagram is actually a pictorial representation of a set of rules called "
phrase structure rules
":
Certainly we are aware on reflection that some words go together more closely than others, but it this
fact relevant when we process sentences on
-
line?
Early psycholinguistic experiment of Fodor, Bever & Garrett in the mid
-
60s.
Click location task (auditory presentation)
Click migrated to the constituent boundary
--
> processing of sentence in terms of constituents.
Are phrase structure rules that group into constituents all that is needed for our theory of grammar?
NO.
Phrase structure rules describe the
structure
of the constituents of a sentence, but it can be shown that
the logical
function
of these constituents is also important.
The sentences THE GIRL CHOPS THE WOOD and THE WOOD IS CHOPPED BY THE GIRL are structurally
different, but have the same logical subject and object (GIRL and WOOD respectively). And we know
that when we understand those sentences.
In addition, two sentences might have the same structure, but have constituents with a different logical
function.
So what we see is that syntactic information is extracted from the sentence that has nothing to do with
internal constituent structure.
Syntax
Monday, 18 June 2018 2:52 PM
Lecture 15 Page 1
Seen clearly in ambiguous sentences where the ambiguity cannot be revealed by grouping the words
into different constituents:
THE HUNTING OF THE TIGERS WAS DESCRIBED
SHE KNOWS A TALLER MAN THAN HARRY
The two meanings cannot be differentiated by different grouping of constituents.
(different to Lexical ambiguity: e.g., SHE COULDN'T BEAR CHILDREN)
How can the underlying relationships that exist between words of a sentence be incorporated into a
theory of syntactic competence?
The solution: A major revolution in the study of language beginning in the late 50s and brought about by
Noam Chomsky. This was the notion of
Transformational Grammar
, or
Generative Grammar
.
Every sentence has two levels of syntactic representation: A
surface structure
and a
deep structure
. The
surface structure (SS) is the form of the sentence that is actually produced. The deep structure (DS)
conveys the logical relationships that underlie the surface form and is more abstract.
DS and SS are linked by a set of
transformational rules
. That is, SS generated from DS by transformation
rules. This can be best illustrated by looking at two situations that can arise:
Sometimes two different DS can end up fortuitously as having the same SS after transformations
have been applied:
1.
Example:
The ambiguous sentence: THE HUNTING OF THE TIGERS WAS DESCRIBED
DS
1
= a combination of the ideas:
(TIGERS HUNT X) and THIS IS DESCRIBED
Ds
2
= a combination of the ideas
(X HUNT TIGERS) and THIS IS DESCRIBED
It just so happens that when various transformations are applied to the two different underlying
DS's they end up with the same SS (and same lexical items). Called "
deep structure ambiguity
"
because the SS gives no guidance as to which meaning was intended.
Different SS can be generated from the same DS
2.
Two structurally different sentences that have the same logical make
-
up are seen as coming from
the same underlying representation.
THE GIRL CHOPS THE WOOD
THE WOOD IS CHOPPED BY THE GIRL
The
active
and
passive
versions of the sentence are both derived from the same DS.
Generation of passive form involves transformation rules that are complex:
Exchange NPs, insert the verb TO BE before the V which becomes a participle (+ED), and insert the
preposition BY before the second NP.
Lecture 15 Page 2
Document Summary
Words can be grouped together into different constituents. So any theory of grammatical competence must include an account of the constituent structure of sentences whereby some words go together more closely than others. The fact that some words go together more closely than others is captured in traditional theories of grammar, capture by representing a sentence as a tree diagram. A theory of grammar must describe a finite set of rules. The tree diagram is actually a pictorial representation of a set of rules called "phrase structure rules": Early psycholinguistic experiment of fodor, bever & garrett in the mid-60s. Click migrated to the constituent boundary --> processing of sentence in terms of constituents. Phrase structure rules describe the structure of the constituents of a sentence, but it can be shown that the logical function of these constituents is also important.
