In linguistics, Cartographic syntax, or simply Cartography, is a branch of Generative syntax. The basic assumption of Cartographic syntax is that syntactic structures are built according to the same patterns in all languages of the world. It is assumed that all languages exhibit a richly articulated structure of hierarchical projections with specific meanings. Cartography belongs to the tradition of generative grammar and is regarded as a theory belonging to the Principles and Parameters theory. The founders of Cartography are the Italian linguists Luigi Rizzi and Guglielmo Cinque.
The Cartographic approach was developed with “the emergence of syntactic analyses that identified and implied functional heads” in the literature of the 1980’s.[1] Functional heads are the minimal projection of functional categories such as Agreement (Agr), Tense, Aspect and Mood (TAM).[2] They are different than lexical heads as they are not part of lexical categories such as Verbs (V) and Nouns (N).[3]
In the work of Guglielmo Cinque from 1999 the cartographic method was used to create a detailed map of the structure of a clause. In this book Cinque proposes a “fixed universal hierarchy of clausal functional projections”.[4]
In the literature it is assumed that adverbs are adjuncts in the syntactic structure, but he argues that treating the adverbs in this manner is problematic since adjuncts can take different positions which are not always grammatical. Therefore, he proposes adverbs are in fact “specifiers of distinct maximal projections”. Moreover, after a large cross linguistic analysis one of the observations was that adverbs from seemingly different classes have a fixed order across languages. Another observation was that the morpho-syntactically expressed functional heads also have a fixed hierarchy. When compared, the two hierarchies (namely, the hierarchy of adverbs (AdvPs) and that of functional heads) match for number, type and relative order.[4][5]
(Excerpt from Cinque 2012 [6]representing the two proposed syntactic hierarchies in parallel (for the complete hierarchy please refer to the cited source). The hierarchy in 1a) is made up of functional heads (Mood, Tense, Modality, Aspect and Voice) while the hierarchy in 1b) is made up of Adverbs belonging to different classes.)
Examples from English
In the hierarchy from 1b the durative adverb class (briefly) is closer to the verb while the habitual class (normally) is farther away from it. Therefore, an inversed order of the adverbs would result in ungrammaticality, which is the case for example 2b.[6]
durative > habitual 2 a) John can normally be briefly seen in his office on Mondays. b) *John can briefly be normally seen in his office on Mondays.
The hierarchy is also visible in the examples from 3
completive > frequentative 3 a) John frequently completely forgets his duties. b) *John completely frequently forgets his duties.
retrospective > continuous 4 a) Ogniqualvolta lo incontro, Gianni è sempre appena tornato dall’estero Whenever him (I) meet, Gianni is always just returned from abroad b) *Ogniqualvolta lo incontro, Gianni è appena sempre tornato dall’estero Whenever him (I) meet, Gianni is just always returned from abroad
Hebrew
retrospective > continuous 5 a) Kše-‘ani pogeš ‘oto, John tamid bidiuk xozer me-kul When (I) meet him, John always just returns from abroad b) *Kše-‘ani pogeš ‘oto, John bidiuk tamid xozer me-kul When (I) meet him, John just always returns from abroad
Another influential discovery that has helped in shaping the properties of the cartographic model was the Principles and parameters model introduced by Noam Chomsky.[7] The model tackled the invariance and the variability of natural languages by stating that, while languages seem to exhibit a lot of variability at the surface level, abstracting at a smaller level can reveal “limits on possible variation”. This model has led to new research in previously understudied languages with new empirical claims.[8]
The cartographic method is intended as a heuristic model which can lead to new empirical claims and generalizations.[8] In the view of Cinque & Rizzi the cartographic method can be useful for comparative syntax studies but also in studying uniformity across languages through the patterns observed. In this sense it is said to be a research topic rather than a program because it provides a tool for structural analyses.[9]
Basic principles
The cartographic theory considers the Uniformity Principle proposed by Noam Chomsky:
“In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, assume languages to be uniform, with variety restricted to easily detectable properties of utterances.”[10]
This approach considers languages uniform in structure. It is assumed that even though some languages express or encode grammatical features in a visible way while others do not, the underlying functional sequence would be the same. It is also assumed that variability in the order of the functional elements could be explained by movement operations triggered by other influences (for example information structure or scope).[6]
With the assumption that there is a one-to-one relationship between a syntactic feature and a head, within a hierarchy of functional categories every morphosyntactic feature (covertly or overtly realized) belonging to a functional element would be assigned a head with a fixed order in the hierarchy.[1]
Previous research has shown that the inventory of functional elements is very rich, counting almost 150 separate functional elements.[11] While the position in the hierarchy of functional elements was relatively constant among some studied languages, it has been observed that for other the hierarchy did not hold. For example, in Cinque 1999 it has been shown that some functional categories such as NegP (Negation) and AgrP (Agreement) can have different positions.[4]
The aim of Cartography is then the drawing of structural maps that express syntactic configurations. This is done by observing the properties of the functional elements and the way in which they interact with each other to form seemingly fixed functional hierarchies.[1]
Method
The basic method of Cartography is called 'transitivity method'. This method will be introduced by an abstract and then by means of a concrete English example. The starting point is an observation of two elements A and B and their relative ordering. Usually, languages prefer one order with two elements, in this case, for example, AB, but not *BA (the star indicates that an order is not well-formed). In other cases, BA is not ill-formed, but marked. This means, for example, that one element needs to be stressed and that it can only be used under certain circumstances. This is indicated by a number sign (i.e., #BA). Then, the relative order of other elements is explored, for example, the relative order of the elements B and C. Suppose the relative order of these elements would be BC, but not *CB. This predicts that the order AC should hold, but the order *CA should be ruled out. This can then be tested.
This can be illustrated by the concrete example of English adjective ordering restrictions.[12] In English, evaluative adjectives, used by a speaker to express his/her subjective evaluation of a noun precede size adjectives:[13]
6 a) a great big man b) #a big great man '''evaluation > size'''
Note that it is possible to say (1b), but this either requires a pause or stress. Thus, the neutral order is evaluation > size. Also note that this is not an order concerning the two adjectives great and big, but the whole class of evaluative (e.g., cute or awesome) and size adjectives (e.g., tiny or small). So far, the observation that evaluative adjectives precede size adjectives in English is simply an empirical observation and is theory-neutral.
Now, another class is tested. For example, color adjectives. Comparing color adjectives to size adjectives reveals the order size > color:
7 a) a tiny yellow fish b) #a yellow tiny fish '''size > color'''
Combining these insights predicts the order evaluation > color. This can now be tested:
8 a) a big blue house b) #a blue big house '''evaluation > color'''
As the prediction indeed turns out to be on the right track we can conclude that the order should be:
evaluative adjectives > size adjectives > color adjectives
In fact, it is not only these three classes, but many others that also exhibit similar ordering restrictions not only in English, but in presumably all languages of the world. The question that emerges is how to theoretically account for these facts. In older versions of generative grammar, it was assumed that adjectives are adjuncts. However, an adjunct approach explicitly predicts that the order of the adjectives should be free which is against the empirical facts.
Cartography of the clause
The idea of Cartography is now that such ordering restrictions are hard-wired into the syntactic structures of all languages and that all languages exhibit the same structure. This leads to the assumption of a richly articulated and fixed set of functional projections. This is not only true for adjectives, but also for the structure of whole clauses. Such orders can be made visible by comparing different languages although languages are, of course, different on the surface. However, while languages use different strategies to express syntactic categories (or may not even express them at all) the order is nevertheless visible. As an example, consider the categories epistemic modality which expresses a necessity or a possibility that is made by a speaker based on his/her knowledge, tense (which is a bit of an oversimplification here), ability, and an event description. These categories are expressed in English in exactly this order (and other orders will be ill-formed):[14]
(9) ... because Paula [must] [have] [been able] [to repair her bike]. epistemic tense ability event
Comparing this order to German reveals that this language uses a reverse strategy, i.e., the order is exactly the same, but mirrored (note again, that it is not possible to change the order):
(10) ... weil Paula [ihr Fahrrad reparieren] [gekonnt] [haben] [muss]. because Paula her bike repair can have must event ability tense epistemic
Examples like these are taken to be evidence in favor of the idea that syntactic structures are fixed across languages although there may be surface variation due to the fact that languages may employ different strategies of expressing them (e.g., by concatenating them from right to left or from left to right).
The left periphery of the clause
From the beginning of Cartography, the research of the left periphery of the clause, also called initial periphery was of particular interest. The structure of a syntactic clause is made of three layers. These layers are V-Projection (Verb) which includes the lexical content of the clause, an I-Projection (Inflectional) and a C-Projection (Complementizer) which connects to a matrix sentence or to discourse.[15] The initial periphery refers to the C-Projection, C-system or CP (Complementizer Phrase). It has been proposed that the left periphery is a structurally rich domain “fine grained” with distinct syntactic positions
The study of the left periphery of the clause from a cartographic perspective initially focused on Italian. It has been observed that different types of complementizers have different orders when a Topic element is added. For example, the declarative complementizer “che” is acceptable in different dialects both in front and after the Topic element while the infinitival complementizer “di” is always after the Topic element.[9]
11 a) Ho deciso che, la macchina, la comprerò quest’anno ‘I decided that, the car, I will buy it this year b) Ho deciso, la macchina, di comprarla quest’anno ‘I decided, the car, of to buy it this year’
The former corresponds to the “Force” while the latter corresponds to “Fin”. A “Force” feature selects for a declarative, interrogative or an exclamative sentence while the “Fin” feature according to Rizzi and Bocci “expresses the finite or non-finite character of the clause, agreeing in finiteness with the finite or non-finite morphology of the clause-internal predicate”.[9] This observation led to the simple mapping of functional features from 3 and to the conclusion that the C-system has a complex structure since “che” and “di” occupy different slots in this domain.[16]
(12) Force … Top … Fin …
Another feature that was considered in the analysis of Rizzi 1997 was Focus. In Romance languages the Focus position is usually at the left periphery of the clause. It has been shown that its position relative to Topic is still quite flexible, allowing for several Topic elements in an unrestricted order around Focus (with the appropriate context). The standard order can be seen in the mapping from 13b:[9]
13 a) Credo che, al presidente, QUESTO, nella riunione di domani, gli dovreste dire ‘I believe that, to the president, THIS, in tomorrow’s meeting, you should say to him’ b) [ Force [ Top* [ Foc [ Top* [ Fin [IP … ] ] ] ] ] ]
The interrogative element “se” has been shown to have a similarly flexible order around Top (it can both be preceded and followed by Top) but it must nevertheless be in a higher position than Foc as in the mapping from 14:[16]
(14) che . . . Top . . . se . . . Foc . . . Top . . . di
An explanation for this is the fact that syntactic features delimit the C-system in layers. As such the Force feature represented by the complementizer “que” would belong to the upper part of the C-system, the Int element “se” to the middle part and the “di” complementizer to the lower part. This evidence is believed to strengthen the rich structure hypothesis of the C-system.[16]
Further reading
Benincà, P. & Munaro, N. (2011): Mapping the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Oxford University Press.
Bross, F. & Hole, D. (2017): Scope-taking strategies and the order of clausal categories in German Sign Language. In: Glossa. A Journal of General Linguistics, 76.
Cinque, G. & Rizzi, L. (2008): The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. In: STiL – Studies in Linguistics, 2. 43–59.
Rizzi, L. & Bocci, G. (2017): Left Periphery of the Clause: Primarily Illustrated for Italian. In: Evenaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.): The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Second edition. 2171–2200.
Shlonsky, U. (2010): The Cartographic Enterprise in Syntax. In: Language and Linguistics Compass, 4/6. 417–429
Vincenzo Moscati, Luigi Rizzi. (2021): The Layered Syntactic Structure of the Complementizer System: Functional Heads and Multiple Movements in the Early Left-Periphery. A Corpus Study on Italian
Related Research Articles
In linguistics, syntax is the study of how words and morphemes combine to form larger units such as phrases and sentences. Central concerns of syntax include word order, grammatical relations, hierarchical sentence structure (constituency), agreement, the nature of crosslinguistic variation, and the relationship between form and meaning (semantics). There are numerous approaches to syntax that differ in their central assumptions and goals.
A syntactic category is a syntactic unit that theories of syntax assume. Word classes, largely corresponding to traditional parts of speech, are syntactic categories. In phrase structure grammars, the phrasal categories are also syntactic categories. Dependency grammars, however, do not acknowledge phrasal categories.
In grammar, a phrase—called expression in some contexts—is a group of words or singular word acting as a grammatical unit. For instance, the English expression "the very happy squirrel" is a noun phrase which contains the adjective phrase "very happy". Phrases can consist of a single word or a complete sentence. In theoretical linguistics, phrases are often analyzed as units of syntactic structure such as a constituent.
A noun phrase, or nominal (phrase), is a phrase that has a noun or pronoun as its head or performs the same grammatical function as a noun. Noun phrases are very common cross-linguistically, and they may be the most frequently occurring phrase type.
In linguistics, X-bar theory is a model of phrase-structure grammar and a theory of syntactic category formation that was first proposed by Noam Chomsky in 1970 and further developed by Ray Jackendoff, along the lines of the theory of generative grammar put forth in the 1950s by Chomsky. It attempts to capture the structure of phrasal categories with a single uniform structure called the X-bar schema, basing itself on the assumption that any phrase in natural language is an XP that is headed by a given syntactic category X. It played a significant role in resolving issues that phrase structure rules had, representative of which is the proliferation of grammatical rules, which is against the thesis of generative grammar.
In linguistics, a determiner phrase (DP) is a type of phrase headed by a determiner such as many. Controversially, many approaches, take a phrase like not very many apples to be a DP, headed, in this case, by the determiner many. This is called the DP analysis or the DP hypothesis. Others reject this analysis in favor of the more traditional NP analysis where apples would be the head of the phrase in which the DP not very many is merely a dependent. Thus, there are competing analyses concerning heads and dependents in nominal groups. The DP analysis developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and it is the majority view in generative grammar today.
In linguistics, branching refers to the shape of the parse trees that represent the structure of sentences. Assuming that the language is being written or transcribed from left to right, parse trees that grow down and to the right are right-branching, and parse trees that grow down and to the left are left-branching. The direction of branching reflects the position of heads in phrases, and in this regard, right-branching structures are head-initial, whereas left-branching structures are head-final. English has both right-branching (head-initial) and left-branching (head-final) structures, although it is more right-branching than left-branching. Some languages such as Japanese and Turkish are almost fully left-branching (head-final). Some languages are mostly right-branching (head-initial).
Dependency grammar (DG) is a class of modern grammatical theories that are all based on the dependency relation and that can be traced back primarily to the work of Lucien Tesnière. Dependency is the notion that linguistic units, e.g. words, are connected to each other by directed links. The (finite) verb is taken to be the structural center of clause structure. All other syntactic units (words) are either directly or indirectly connected to the verb in terms of the directed links, which are called dependencies. Dependency grammar differs from phrase structure grammar in that while it can identify phrases it tends to overlook phrasal nodes. A dependency structure is determined by the relation between a word and its dependents. Dependency structures are flatter than phrase structures in part because they lack a finite verb phrase constituent, and they are thus well suited for the analysis of languages with free word order, such as Czech or Warlpiri.
Syntax is concerned with the way sentences are constructed from smaller parts, such as words and phrases. Two steps can be distinguished in the study of syntax. The first step is to identify different types of units in the stream of speech and writing. In natural languages, such units include sentences, phrases, and words. The second step is to analyze how these units build up larger patterns, and in particular to find general rules that govern the construction of sentences.http://people.dsv.su.se/~vadim/cmnew/chapter2/ch2_21.htm
An adpositional phrase, is a syntactic category that includes prepositional phrases, postpositional phrases, and circumpositional phrases. Adpositional phrases contain an adposition as head and usually a complement such as a noun phrase. Language syntax treats adpositional phrases as units that act as arguments or adjuncts. Prepositional and postpositional phrases differ by the order of the words used. Languages that are primarily head-initial such as English predominantly use prepositional phrases whereas head-final languages predominantly employ postpositional phrases. Many languages have both types, as well as circumpositional phrases.
In linguistics, an adverbial phrase ("AdvP") is a multi-word expression operating adverbially: its syntactic function is to modify other expressions, including verbs, adjectives, adverbs, adverbials, and sentences. Adverbial phrases can be divided into two types: complement adverbs and modifier adverbs. For example, in the sentence She sang very well, the expression very well is an adverbial phrase, as it modifies the verb to sing. More specifically, the adverbial phrase very well contains two adverbs, very and well: while well modifies the verb to convey information about the manner of singing, very is a degree modifier that conveys information about the degree to which the action of singing well was accomplished.
In linguistics, nominalization or nominalisation is the use of a word that is not a noun as a noun, or as the head of a noun phrase. This change in functional category can occur through morphological transformation, but it does not always. Nominalization can refer, for instance, to the process of producing a noun from another part of speech by adding a derivational affix, but it can also refer to the complex noun that is formed as a result.
Lucien Tesnière was a prominent and influential French linguist. He was born in Mont-Saint-Aignan on May 13, 1893. As a maître de conférences in University of Strasbourg (1924), and later professor in University of Montpellier (1937), he published many papers and books on Slavic languages. However, his importance in the history of linguistics is based mainly on his development of an approach to the syntax of natural languages that would become known as dependency grammar. He presented his theory in his book Éléments de syntaxe structurale, published posthumously in 1959. In the book he proposes a sophisticated formalization of syntactic structures, supported by many examples from a diversity of languages. Tesnière died in Montpellier on December 6, 1954.
In linguistics, the projection principle is a stipulation proposed by Noam Chomsky as part of the phrase structure component of generative-transformational grammar. The projection principle is used in the derivation of phrases under the auspices of the principles and parameters theory.
In linguistics, coordination is a complex syntactic structure that links together two or more elements; these elements are called conjuncts or conjoins. The presence of coordination is often signaled by the appearance of a coordinator, e.g. and, or, but. The totality of coordinator(s) and conjuncts forming an instance of coordination is called a coordinate structure. The unique properties of coordinate structures have motivated theoretical syntax to draw a broad distinction between coordination and subordination. It is also one of the many constituency tests in linguistics. Coordination is one of the most studied fields in theoretical syntax, but despite decades of intensive examination, theoretical accounts differ significantly and there is no consensus on the best analysis.
In linguistics, subordination is a principle of the hierarchical organization of linguistic units. While the principle is applicable in semantics, morphology, and phonology, most work in linguistics employs the term "subordination" in the context of syntax, and that is the context in which it is considered here. The syntactic units of sentences are often either subordinate or coordinate to each other. Hence an understanding of subordination is promoted by an understanding of coordination, and vice versa.
Nanosyntax is an approach to syntax where the terminal nodes of syntactic parse trees may be reduced to units smaller than a morpheme. Each unit may stand as an irreducible element and not be required to form a further "subtree." Due to its reduction to the smallest terminal possible, the terminals are smaller than morphemes. Therefore, morphemes and words cannot be itemised as a single terminal, and instead are composed by several terminals. As a result, Nanosyntax can serve as a solution to phenomena that are inadequately explained by other theories of syntax.
In linguistics, locality refers to the proximity of elements in a linguistic structure. Constraints on locality limit the span over which rules can apply to a particular structure. Theories of transformational grammar use syntactic locality constraints to explain restrictions on argument selection, syntactic binding, and syntactic movement.
English adverbs are words such as so, just, how, well, also, very, even, only, really, and why that head adverb phrases, and whose most typical members function as modifiers in verb phrases and clauses, along with adjective and adverb phrases. The category is highly heterogeneous, but a large number of the very typical members are derived from adjectives + the suffix -ly and modify any word, phrase or clause other than a noun. Adverbs form an open lexical category in English. They do not typically license or function as complements in other phrases. Semantically, they are again highly various, denoting manner, degree, duration, frequency, domain, modality, and much more.
In syntax, verb-initial (V1) word order is a word order in which the verb appears before the subject and the object. In the more narrow sense, this term is used specifically to describe the word order of V1 languages. V1 clauses only occur in V1 languages and other languages with a dominant V1 order displaying other properties that correlate with verb-initiality and that are crucial to many analyses of V1. V1 languages are estimated to make up 12–19% of the world’s languages.
↑ Similar ordering restrictions were reported by numerous researchers, for example: Whorf, B. L. (1945). Grammatical Categories. Language, 21(1), 1-11.
↑ Example from Bross, F. & Hole, D. (2017): Scope-taking strategies and the order of clausal categories in German Sign Language. In: Glossa. A Journal of General Linguistics, 76.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
