Syntax From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search syntax, a subdiscipline of linguistics and an import ant

part of grammatical analysis, is responsible for the study of rules governin g the combination of constituents and the formation of these larger units such a s phrases and sentences. The syntax, therefore, examines the ways in which words are combined, as well as syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations between them. Structural Syntax: Theory Bloomfieldian of syntax [edit] The syntax for Leonard Bloomfield, was the study of free-form composed entirely of free forms. Central to this theory of syntax were the notions of form classes (classes form) and constituent structure. (These notions were also relevant, th ough less central in the theory of morphology.) Bloomfield defined form classes rather imprecisely, in terms of some "feature recognizable phonetic or grammatic al" common and shared by all members. He gave as examples so that classes consis t of "personal substantive terms" of the English language (defined as "forms whi ch, when expressed with exclamatory final pitch, are requirements (called) the p resence or care of a person" For example, "John," "Boy," "Mr. Smith.") so that c lasses consist of "infinite expression" (defined as "forms which, when expressed with exclamatory final pitch, have the meaning of order: for example, "run," "J ump," "come here"), the classes of the form of "nominative substantive expressio ns" (eg "John," "the boys") and so on. It should be clear from these examples, s o that classes are similar but not identical, to traditional parts of speech and that the same form can belong to more than one kind of shape. Substitutability [edit] What Bloomfield had in mind as a criterion for class ore syntactic equivalence) might be better expressed y. The class forms are sets of forms (whether simple from which anyone could be replaced by another in a ngs all the prayers given in a particular language. membership form (and theref in terms of substitutabilit or complex, free or bound), building or group of buildi

Immediate constituents and constituent [edit] The smaller forms in which more broadly can be analyzed are their constituents a nd more broadly is a construction. For example, the phrase "Poor Paul" is analyz able into a building, or composed of, the constituents "poor" and "Paul." Since there is no intermediate unit that "poor" and "Paul" were constituents and that is itself a constituent of the construction "Poor Paul," forms "poor" and "Paul" can be described not only as constituents but also as immediate constituents of "poor Paul." Similarly, the phrase "lost his l ife" consists of three words form ("Lost," "your" and "life") all of which could be described as constituents of the construction. Not all of these constituents , however, are its immediate constituents. The forms "his" and "life" combine to make the construction term "life" is the intermediate unit which is combined wi th "lost" to form the broader phrase "lost his life." The immediate constituents of "lost his life" are "lost" and "life", the immediate constituents of "life" are the forms "your" and "life." On the basic structure of a phrase or sentence means the organization of smaller forms of which were composed (their ultimate c onstituents) in layers of successively more inclusive units. Seen this way, the phrase "Poor Paul, lost his life" is more than simply a sequence of five words a ssociated with a particular entoncaión model. Is analyzable in their immediate constituents and so on, until in the last step of analysis, the last of the pray er contituyentes are achieved. The basic structure of the whole sentence is repr esented by the following scheme: ⠢ (Poor Paul) (lost (your life)) Each form, whether simple or compound, is in a class of shape. Using letters to denote arbitrary selected form of Spanish classes, "poor" may be a class member

is A, "Gonzalo" Class B "lost" in class C, "his" class D " Life Class E. Given t hat "poor Gonzalo" is syntactically equivalent to (or replace with) "Gonzalo", h as been classified as a member of A. So is it can be assumed, "his life." In the case of "lost his life" if there is a problem. There are many ways (including " lost"€"Distributed" and "exported") that may occur, as here, in buildings with a member of B and can also occur alone, for example, "lost" is interchangeable w ith "exported cocaine" as "export" is replaceable together or "lost his life." T his being so, it could decide to classify constructions like "lost his life" as members of C. Moreover, there are forms that are replaceable, but "lost", "repat ió, exported" and so when these forms occur alone, can not be used in combinati on with a member next member of B (cf. "died" "existed") and there are ways that , although they may be used with a following member of B can not occur alone (cf . "owned"). The question is whether or not respecting the traditional distinctio n between forms of transitive and intransitive verb. Could be decided, and who " lost", "distributed", "exported", etc. belong to a class: C (the class to which it belongs "owned"), when they occur "transitive" (ie, with a following member o f B as its object) but to a different class, F (the class to which belongs "died "), when they occur "impassable". Finally, we can say that the entire sentence, "Poor Paul, lost his life" is a member of the kind of form G. Thus, not only the basic structure of "Poor Paul, lost his life" but a whole set of Spanish senten ces can be represented by the following scheme: ⠢ G ([B (AB)] F (CB [DE]) New sentences of the same type can be constructed by replacing real forms of cla ss labels. Building and Exocentric endocentric [edit] Any construction that belongs to the same form class as at least one of its imme diate constituents is listed as endocentric, the only building in prayer endocen tric previous model ("poor Paul lost his life") is "Poor Paul" . All other build ings, according to this analysis, are exocentric. This is clear from the fact th at in the previous scheme, the letters in the upper nodes each sentence differen t from A + B (for example, "Poor Paul", "old Popeye", etc) are different from an y of the points at the ends of the lower branches are directly connected to thes e nodes. For example, the phrase D + E ("your watch", "cocaine", etc.) Is in you r party up a node labeled B, rather than D or E. Endocentric building types [edit] Endocentric constructions are of two types: dependent and coordinated. If the fo cus is, for purposes of simplicity, to constructions composed of no more than tw o immediate constituents, it can be said to subordinate constructions are those in which only one immediate constituent is of the same class so that the entire construction, while that coordinated constructions are those in which both const ituents are of the same class so that the whole construction. Head and switch on the syntactic equivalence [edit] In a conditional construction (for example, "Poor Paul"), the constituent that i s syntactically equivalent to the complete construction is known as the head, an d his companion is known as its modifier: thus in "poor Paul," form " Paul is th e head, and "poor is the switch. An example of coordinated construction is in En glish," men and women ", in which it can be assumed, the immediate constituents are the word" men "and the word" women "each of which is syntactically equivalen t to" men and women ". (It is implicit here that the conjunction" and "is not a component itself, but a factor that, as the relative order of the constituents, indicating the nature of the construction in question. Not all linguists share t his view.)

Ambiguous constructions [edit] One reason for giving theoretical recognition to the notion of constituent is th at it helps explain the ambiguity of certain constructions. A classic example is the English phrase "old men and women", which can be interpreted in two differe nt ways according to whether one associates "old" with "men and women" or simply "men." Under the first of two interpretations, the immediate constituents are " old" and "men and women", under the second, are "old men" and "women." The diffe rence in meaning can not be attributed to one of the ultimate constituents but r esults from a difference in how they are associated with each other. The ambigui ty of this type is called syntactic ambiguity. Not all syntactic ambiguity can b e explained satisfactorily in terms of constituent structure. Generative Syntax [edit] The current paradigm in the discipline of generative grammar,€forms of which hi ghlights the transformational generative grammar that focuses on the analysis of syntax as primitive and fundamental constituent of natural language. Generative grammar, focusing instead on the description of prayers, but in how the human m ind fails to generate and interpret them through a minimal system and intentiona l. The primary goal of generative grammar is the formal design of a device capab le of explaining the generation of all sentences of human languages. In practice , the structural description of the sentences is usually done through brackets o r tree diagrams. Both schemes reflect the structural hierarchy of the constituen ts of the sentence, while justified (especially in the current Minimalist Progra m) the linear order of words. The classic distinction of different syntactic cat egories is usually not redeemed most generative schools (LFG believes that synta ctic functions are primitive syntax). This is because it is considered merely de scriptivist and taxonomic analysis. Almost all current generative operate with d ifferent types of phrases that allow the lexical and functional core of each lan guage. Syntax Features [edit] Functional grammar studies are designed to explain how human language has evolve d as a communicative tool. Therefore, it is assumed that the syntax (and the res t of the linguistic components) should reflect some communicative functionality in its design. Systemic Functional Grammar by Michael Halliday and grammar of th e role and Robert Van Valin reference are examples of such linguistic orientatio n. General Theory [edit] For several authors, both functional and generative, syntax, binary operations o perates through a combination of two different functional elements. Thus all the languages would have a binary operation type that any non-simple syntactic unit is decomposed into two parts, each in different functional principle and struct ure. References [edit] ⠢ ⠢ Eguren, L, and Soriano, O (2004). An introduction to minimalist syntax. Gredos. M.A.K. Halliday (1975). Structure and function of language. Alianza Editorial.