Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

TYPOLOGY > Constituent order > Flashcards

Constituent order Flashcards

1
Q

What is constituent order?

A
  • intuitive notion
  • “word order”
  • Last night [the oldest friend I ever had] met [Jane’s younger brother].
  • S, V,and O
    #SAO #universal primitives
S = S, A 
O = O
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Fixed constituent order

A

In some languages it is clear what the order should be.
> As in English.

Children like lollies
S V O
?Lollies like Children

with some variation 
> Marked constituent order.
> Licensed by discourse structure.
         >CONTRASTIVE FOCUS:
Children like lollies. [SVO]
Lollies, children like. [OSV]

Children hate spinach. Lollies, children like.

> Lexicalised formula
Believe you me.
*Stop you talking

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Dominant constituent order

A

Languages can allow more variation than English.
> And still have a prevalent basic constituent order.

Russian (Slavic, Russia)
> Languages w rich morphology (case marking).
> Avoids confusion between participants.
- NOT English where word order is a primary clue.
> (Often the only clue.)

  • clear preferred order
  • ALL LANGS have more than one order
    » EVEN when treated as “fixed constituent order” (eng, russian)

Deviations exploited for special functions in discourse.
>One of the orders is dominant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Six logical possibilities of constituent order, in order

A 
SOV - 45%
SVO - 42%
VSO - 9%
VOS - 3%
OVS - 1%
OSV - 0%

all attested in at least one lang.
Not evenly distributed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Why is constituent order not evenly distributed?

A

Random distribution = c. 16%.
There must be other factors.
> EXTERNAL factors.
> So far no clear understanding of what they are.

But we do have a good idea of the distribution.
> And elaborate INTERNAL explanations for it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Further observation of constituent order distribution

GREENBERG’s Universal 1

A

96% have S before O.

Greenberg 1:
In declarative sentences with nominal SUBJECT and
OBJECT, the dominant order is almost always one in
which the S precedes O

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Functional explanation for Greenbergs Universal 1?

A

Comrie’s (1989) ‘subject saliency.’
> Subject is Agent: initiates and controls the action.
> Object is Patient: being acted on and affected by the event.

> Agency makes subjects salient (most noticeable/important) to human cognition.

- Cognition reflected in syntactic organisation.
 - In prototypical transitive clauses S comes before O.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Further observations: Is there a preference for contiguity of V and O? Why?

A

91% have O next to V (left or right).

Syntactic explanation?
Rules of phrase structure
> in Govt and Binding Theory
> Generative grammar

S –> NP(subject); VP
VP –> V; NP(object)

ultimately also a cognitive explanation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What about OSV ?

A

OSV violates both the subject saliency principle. And Govt and Binding postulates.
> And it’s the rarest of all.
> But it does occur.

But no psycholinguistic
tests on these matters.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Implicational Universal 5.

A

If a language has a dominant SOV order and the genitive follows the governing noun, then the adjective likewise follows the noun

Jane yogurt eat
+ yogurt of jane # of jane yogurt
» yogurt fresh # fresh yogurt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Predictions from V,S, and O

A

we can predict ordering of other pairs:

 Nouns and adjectives
     >Gberg's Universal 5
 Nouns and genitives
 Adpositions and nouns
 Affixes and roots, etc.

Languages tend to be
consistent in the way they
order different components

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Lehmann’s correlations

1973, 1978

A 
Generalised based on order of O/V pair - Leaks ! v general
- see table 
VO              vs         OV
prefix                      suffix
?word first              ?word after
noun +gen/adj       gen/adj+noun
Main v + aux v        Aux v+main v
Neg + v                   v + neg
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Venneman : heads and dependents (1973, 1978)

A

The predictions run both ways
Verbs => nouns
- If verb dependents are BEFORE the verb,
then noun dependents are BEFORE the noun.

Nouns => verbs
- If noun dependents are BEFORE the noun,
then verb dependents are BEFORE the verb.

> Etc.

MORE GENERAL PRINCIPLE (improved degree of generalisation)
Consistency in ordering these pairs:
> Some languages always place heads before dependents.
> Some languages always place dependents before heads.

Verbs: heads for objects, adverbs, negatives dependents.

Nouns: heads for genitives, adjectives, relative clauses dependents

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Hawkins: category harmony (1983)

A

Becomes a matter of proportion.
>If MOST of the verb dependents are BEFORE the verb
then MOST of the noun dependents are BEFORE the noun.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What langs have OSV word order?

A 
4 languages cited in WALS
1. Kxoe (Zimbabwe)
2.  Nädeb (Brazil)
3. Tobati (PNG)
4. Wik Ngathana (Australia, near PNG),
 + Warao, isolate, Venezuela
>>>> Yoda’s language
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Leaks in Lehmanns/Vennemans theory

A

> Unproblematic variation.
More general problem with relative clauses.
The head-dependent principle leaks.
Relative clauses in particular.

VO languages tend to place relative clauses after nouns.
> OV languages also place relative clauses after nouns.
Or: relative clauses are always after nouns.
> Notion of ‘heavy constituent’ always to the right.

Not meant to NOT have exceptions?

observation stands, but empirically not valid for relative clauses

17
Q

Branching Direction theory

A

Dryer’s (1992) alternative solution (to leaks in rel clauses)
> Eliminates the notions of head and dependent.
Instead:
> NON-phrasal components: NON-branching.
- Or atomic. (V)
> Phrasal components: branching. (NP)

The girl hit (V) [the boy] NP

Principle:
Languages consistently:
> Either put branching to the right of non-branching.
> Or to the left of non-branching.

E.g. English is right-branching

Hit [NP:(the boy)]
man [RelCl:(whom i hit)]

Oroqen (Manchu-Tungus: China) is left-branching

18
Q

Benefits of Branching Direction Theory

A
  1. Avoids theory-informed notions of head/dependent.
  2. Improved explanatory power.
  3. Better accounts for the placement of adjectives.

> Students [HEAD: attend] [DPT: linguistic courses]
vs
The [DPT: tired] [HEAD: student]

under head/dep theory, no explanation for this. branching theory has explanantion:

Students [NB: attend] [B: linguistic courses.]
The [NB: tired] student
The [NB: student] [B: tired to work so hard]

probably still leaks though ****

19
Q

Internal vs external explanation of branching direction theory?

A

This is very much an internal explanation.
> I.e. reveals the internal logic of the system.
> External factors are not in focus.

We need more insight about linguistic factors.
> Historical developments (Givon 1977).
> & Effects of contact
impact on typology of constituent order.

has been discussed by venneman
VSOSVO
VSO ---> FWO
FWO ---> SOV
SOV----> SVO
20
Q

Take home point about constituent order

A

Languages follow consistent principles

of word-ordering.

21
Q

flexible constituent order

A
  • no dominant order
    EG:
    Warlpiri (australia)
  • Anything goes as long as auxiliary is in second position
  • NON-CONFIGURATIONAL LANGUAGES.
  • Word order in NPs is also flexible.
  • NPs can even be discontinuous.
  • typically allow prodrop
22
Q

Determining Constituent order

A

there R Competing constituent orders - variation (eg. russian) but clear dom.
How do we know?:

1. Native speaker's intuition
    > dont always have access
2. Frequency
    > work from texts
    > count, find highest figure
3. Markedness
    > basic order likely unmarked (less formal marking than other orders)
    > true for all levels of grammar
23
Q

Determining constituent order from Native Speaker’s intuition

A

Native speakers don’t always have the ‘right’ intuitions.
>We don’t always succeed is understanding their intuitions.

Believe you me.
Lollies, children like.

> Methods of elicitation.
Field and language description methods!

24
Q

Determining constituent order from Frequency

A

count > highest freq likely dominant

PROBLEMS: if no obv dominance, lang likely “flexible”

In some languages/texts
most clauses will not contain S and O as full NPs.
» Counts will be less useful.
 Or: hard to find enough data.

ALSO: Genres and Registers
Certain orders can be stylistically dominant in your corpus.
&raquo_space; Narrative texts often employ different order.
&raquo_space; VS preferred in temporal sequencing, SV elsewhere.
&raquo_space; Highly informative elements occur pre-verbally.

Same as above: need more data.

25
Q

Determining constituent order from Markedness

A

LEAST RELIABLE TEST: lots of guessing
Basic constituent order likely to be unmarked/less formal marking than other orders

  1. PHONOLOGICALmarkedness
    > Neutral intonation.
    Children like lollies. (slowly falling pitch, drops sharply at end)
    Lollies, Children like. (short intense pitch, brief pause, neutral intonation)
  2. MORPHOLOGICALmarkedness
    EG Kutenai (canada)
    Sentence 1 VOS
    Sentence 2-inverse suffix VSO
    Sentence 2 has an inverse suffix, not present in 1.
    »>Basic constituent order is as in VOS in 1.
3. SYNTACTICmarkedness
EG German
sentence 1 - main clause SVO
Sentence 2 - relative clause SOV
Sentence 2 is a relative clause.
>>> Basic constituent order in main clause as in 1 (SVO)
26
Q

Summary of determining constituent order

A
  • Ideally a grammar may state the answer.
  • Or we may ask a linguist.
    > Often the data is FRAGMENTARY.
    > Information must be inferred from what we have.

Each mistake introduces a bias in the typology.

27
Q

Theoretical complications of determining constituent order

A

> > ‘Subject’ and ‘Object’ are theoretical constructs.
- Syntactic analysis is needed before we can decide.

DIFF ANALYSIS may lead to DIFF CONCLUSIONS

TYPOLOGY (15 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions