This article or section should specify the language of its non-English content, using {{lang}}, {{transliteration}} for transliterated languages, and {{IPA}} for phonetic transcriptions, with an appropriate ISO 639 code. Wikipedia's multilingual support templates may also be used.See why.(December 2023)
In linguistics, head directionality is a proposed parameter that classifies languages according to whether they are head-initial (the head of a phrase precedes its complements) or head-final (the head follows its complements). The head is the element that determines the category of a phrase: for example, in a verb phrase, the head is a verb. Therefore, head initial would be "VO" languages and head final would be "OV" languages.[1]
Some languages are consistently head-initial or head-final at all phrasal levels. English is considered to be mainly head-initial (verbs precede their objects, for example), while Japanese is an example of a language that is consistently head-final. In certain other languages, such as German and Gbe, examples of both types of head direction occur. Various theories have been proposed to explain such variation.
Head directionality is connected with the type of branching that predominates in a language: head-initial structures are right-branching, while head-final structures are left-branching.[2] On the basis of these criteria, languages can be divided into head-final (rigid and non-rigid) and head-initial types. The identification of headedness is based on the following:[3]
the order of subject, object, and verb
the relationship between the order of the object and verb
In some cases, particularly with noun and adjective phrases, it is not always clear which dependents are to be classed as complements, and which as adjuncts. Although in principle the head-directionality parameter concerns the order of heads and complements only, considerations of head-initiality and head-finality sometimes take account of the position of the head in the phrase as a whole, including adjuncts. The structure of the various types of phrase is analyzed below in relation to specific languages, with a focus on the ordering of head and complement. In some cases (such as English and Japanese) this ordering is found to be the same in practically all types of phrase, whereas in others (such as German and Gbe) the pattern is less consistent. Different theoretical explanations of these inconsistencies are discussed later in the article. There are various types of phrase in which the ordering of head and complement(s) may be considered when attempting to determine the head directionality of a language, including:
Verb Phrase: the head of verb phrase (VP) is a verb, and the complement(s) are most commonly objects of various types. The ordering here is related to one of the chief questions in the word order typology of languages, namely the normal order of subject, verb and object within a clause (languages are classed on this basis as SVO, SOV, VSO, etc.).
head-initial and head-final constructions
Noun Phrase: the head of a noun phrase (NP) is a noun; various kinds of complementizer phrases (CPs) and adpositional phrases (PPs) can be complements.
head-initial and head-final constructions
Adjective Phrase: the head of an adjective phrase (AP) is an adjective, which can take as a complement, for example, an adverbial phrase or adpositional phrase (PP).
head-initial and head-final constructions
Adpositional Phrase: the head of an adpositional phrase (PP) is an adposition. Such phrases are called prepositional phrases if they are head-initial (i.e. headed by a preposition), or postpositional phrases if they are head-final (i.e. headed by a postposition). The complement is a determiner phrase (or noun phrase, depending on analytical scheme followed).
head-initial and head-final constructions
Determiner Phrase: the head of a determiner phrase (DP) is a determiner. DPs were proposed under generative syntax;[4] not all theories of syntax agree that they exist.[5]
Complementizer Phrase: the head of a complementizer phrase (CP) is a complementizer, like that in English. In some cases the C head is covert (not overtly present). The complement of C is generally agreed to be a tense phrase (TP).
head-initial and head-final constructions
Tense Phrase: the head of a tense phrase (TP) is tense; these are phrases in which the head is an abstract category representing tense; the complement is a verb phrase.
Aspect Phrase: the head of an aspect phrase (AspP) is aspect; these are phrases in which the head is an abstract syntactic category representing aspect. In more traditional analysis the entire phrase (including any elements denoting tense or aspect) is considered to be simply a verb phrase.
Head-initial languages
English
English is a mainly head-initial language. In a typical verb phrase, for example, the verb precedes its complements, as in the following example:[6]
English VP structure
eat an apple
[VP [Veat] [DP an apple]]
The head of the phrase (the verb eat) precedes its complement (the determiner phrase an apple). Switching the order to "[VP [DP an apple] [V eat]]" would be ungrammatical.
Nouns also tend to precede any complements, as in the following example, where the relative clause (or complementizer phrase) that follows the noun may be considered to be a complement:[7]
English NP structure
He married a girl who is from Texas.
[NP [Ngirl] [CP who is from Texas]]
Nouns do not necessarily begin their phrase; they may be preceded by attributive adjectives, but these are regarded as adjuncts rather than complements. Adjectives themselves may be preceded by adjuncts, namely adverbs, as in extremely happy.[8] However, when an adjective phrase contains a true complement, such as a prepositional phrase, the head adjective precedes it:[9]
a person happy about her work
[AP [Ahappy] [PP about her work]]
English adpositional phrases are also head-initial; that is, English has prepositions rather than postpositions:[10]
English PP structure
a majority of eligible voters
[PP [Pof] [DP eligible voters]]
On the determiner phrase (DP) view, where a determiner is taken to be the head of its phrase (rather than the associated noun), English can be seen to be head-initial in this type of phrase too. In the following example[11] the head is taken to be the determiner any, and the complement is the noun (phrase) book:
English DP structure
any book
[DP [Dany] [NP book]]
English also has head-initial complementizer phrases, as in this example[12] where the complementizer that precedes its complement, the tense phrase Mary did not swim:
We saw that Mary did not swim
[CP [Cthat] [TP Mary did not swim]]
Grammatical words marking tense and aspect generally precede the semantic verb. This indicates that, if finite verb phrases are analyzed as tense phrases or aspect phrases, these are again head-initial in English. In the example above, did is considered a (past) tense marker, and precedes its complement, the verb phrase not swim. In the following, has is a (perfect) aspect marker;[13] again it appears before the verb (phrase) which is its complement.
English AspP Structure
John has arrived
[AspP [Asphas] [VP arrived]]
The following example shows a sequence of nested phrases in which each head precedes its complement.[14] In the complementizer phrase (CP) in (a), the complementizer (C) precedes its tense phrase (TP) complement. In the tense phrase in (b), the tense-marking element (T) precedes its verb phrase (VP) complement. (The subject of the tense phrase, the girl, is a specifier, which does not need to be considered when analyzing the ordering of head and complement.) In the verb phrase in (c), the verb (V) precedes its two complements, namely the determiner phrase (DP) the book and the prepositional phrase (PP) on the table. In (d), where a picture is analyzed as a determiner phrase, the determiner (D) a precedes its noun phrase (NP) complement, while in (e), the preposition (P) on precedes its DP complement your desk.
You know that the girl will put a picture on your desk.
a. CP: [CP [Cthat ] [TPthe girl will put a picture on your desk ] ]
b. TP: [TP [Twill ] [VPput a picture on your desk ] ]
c. VP: [VP [Vput ] [DPa picture ] [PPon your desk ] ]
d. DP: [DP [Da ] [NPpicture ] ]
e. PP: [PP [Pon ] [DPyour desk ] ]
Indonesian
Indonesian is an example of an SVO head-initial language.[1][15] The characteristic of it being a head-initial language can be examined through a dependency perspective or through a word order perspective. Both approaches lead to the conclusion that Indonesian is a head-initial language.
Dependency perspective
Governor-Dependent relationship in SVO Head-initial languages
When examining Indonesian through a dependency perspective, it is considered head initial as the governor of both constituents are positioned before the dependent.[16]
Placing the head before a dependent minimizes the overall dependency distance, which is the distance between the two constituents.[16] Minimizing dependency distance allows for less cognitive demand as a head-final dependency requires the constituents in the dependent clause to be stored in working memory until the head is realized.[16]
Dependency distance between constituents in Indonesian
In Indonesian, the number of constituencies affects the dependency direction. When there are 6 constituents — which is a relatively short sentence — there is a preference for head initial relation.[16] However, when there are 11-30 constituents, there appears to be a balance of head-initial and head-final dependencies.[16] Regardless, Indonesian displays an overall head-initial preference on all levels of dependency structure as it consistently attempts to position the head as early on in the sentence even though it produces a longer dependency distance rather than placing the head after its dependents.[16] Furthermore, Indonesian has an overall preference towards head-initial when comparing head-initial and head-final relation on all levels of constituent length for both spoken and written data.[16]
Word order perspective
The subject of the sentence followed by the verb, representing SVO order.[17] The following examples demonstrate head-initial directionality in Indonesian (note that perdana menteri "prime minister" is unusually being head-final):
Indonesian head-initial word order in VP
Perdana
Prime
menteri
minister
sudah
already
pulang
home
Perdana menteri sudah pulang
Prime minister already home
"The Prime minister has returned home"
[CP [DP Perdana menteri] [VP sudah pulang]]
Classifiers and partitives can function as the head nouns of noun phrases. Below is an example of the internal structure of a noun phrase and its head-initial word order.
Botol
Bottle
ini
DET-this
retak
crack
Botol ini retak
Bottle DET-this crack
"This bottle is cracked"
[CP[DP botol ini][VP retak]]
Head-initial word order is seen in the internal structure of the verb phrase in the following example where the V is in the head position of the verb phrase and thus appears before its complement:
Indonesian head-initial word order in VP
Dokter
Doctor
memeriksa
checks
mata
eye
saya
PN-my
Dokter memeriksa mata saya
Doctor checks eye PN-my
"The doctor checked my eyes"
[CP[DPDokter][VP[V memeriksa][DPmata saya]]]
In Indonesian a noun can be followed by another modifying noun whose primary function is to provide more specific information about the preceding head noun, such as indicating what the head noun is made of, gender, locative sense, and what the head noun does, etc. However, no other word is able to intervene between a head noun and its following modifying noun. If a word follows the modifying noun, then it provides reference to the head noun and not the modifying noun.[17]
Head noun: [Nguru] + Modifying noun: [Nbahasa]
guru
teacher
bahasa
language
guru bahasa
teacher language
"language teacher"
Head noun: [Nguru] + Modifying noun: [Nsekolah] + Determiner [Ditu]
Japanese is an example of a strongly head-final language. This can be seen in verb phrases and tense phrases: the verb (tabe in the example) comes after its complement, while the tense marker (ru) comes after the whole verb phrase which is its complement.[6]
Japanese VP structure
リンゴを
ringo-o
apple-ACC
食べる
tabe-ru
eat-NPAST
リンゴを 食べる
ringo-o tabe-ru
apple-ACC eat-NPAST
"eat an apple"
[TP [VP [DP ringo-o] [Vtabe]] [Tru]]
Nouns also typically come after any complements, as in the following example where the PP New York-de-no may be regarded as a complement:[18]
Japanese NP structure
ジョンの
John-no
John-GEN
昨日の
kinoo-no
yesterday-GEN
ニューヨークでの
New York-de-no
New York-in-GEN
講義
koogi
lecture
ジョンの 昨日の ニューヨークでの 講義
John-no kinoo-no {New York-de-no} koogi
John-GEN yesterday-GEN {New York-in-GEN} lecture
"John's lecture in New York yesterday"
[NP [PP New York-de-no] [Nkoogi]]
Adjectives also follow any complements they may have. In this example the complement of quantity, ni-juu-meetoru ("twenty meters"), precedes the head adjective takai ("tall"):[19]
この
Kono
this
ビルは
biru-wa
building-TOP
20メートル
ni-juu-meetoru
two-ten-meter
高い
takai
tall
この ビルは 20メートル 高い
Kono biru-wa ni-juu-meetoru takai
this building-TOP two-ten-meter tall
"This building is twenty meters taller."
[AP [Q ni-juu-meetoru] [Atakai]]
Japanese uses postpositions rather than prepositions, so its adpositional phrases are again head-final:[20]
A complementizer (here koto, equivalent to English "that") comes after its complement (here a tense phrase meaning "Mary did not swim"), thus Japanese complementizer phrases are head-final:[12]
メリーが
Mary-ga
Mary-NOM
泳がなかったこと
oyog-ana-katta-koto
swim-NEG-PAST-that
メリーが 泳がなかったこと
Mary-ga oyog-ana-katta-koto
Mary-NOM swim-NEG-PAST-that
"that Mary did not swim"
[CP [TP Mary-ga oyog-ana-katta] [Ckoto]]
Turkish
Turkish is an agglutinative, head-final, and left-branching language that uses a SOV word order.[21] As such, Turkish complements and adjuncts typically precede their head under neutral prosody, and adpositions are postpositional. Turkish employs a case marking system[22] which affixes to the right boundary of the word it is modifying. As such, all case markings in Turkish are suffixes. For example, the set of accusative case marking suffixes -(y)ı-, -(y)i-, -(y)u-, -(y)ü- in Turkish indicate that it is the direct object of a verb. Additionally, while some kinds of definite determiners and postpositions in Turkish can be marked by case, other types also exist as free morphemes.[22] In the following examples, Turkish case marker suffixes are analyzed as complements to the head.
Head-final Tense Phrase
Turkish TP structure
In Turkish, tense is denoted by a case marking suffix on the verb.[23]
In neutral prosody, Turkish verb phrases are primarily head-final, as the verb comes after its complement. Variation in object-verb ordering is not strictly rigid. However, constructions where the verb precedes the object are less common.[24]
In Turkish, definite determiners may be marked with a case marker suffix on the noun, such as when the noun is the direct object of a verb. They may also exist as free morphemes that attach to a head-initial determiner phrase, such as when the determiner is a demonstrative. Like other case markers in Turkish, when the morpheme carrying the demonstrative meaning is a case marker, they attach at the end of the word. As such, the head of the phrase, in this case the determiner, follows its complement like in the example below:[22]
Turkish adpositions are postpositions that can affix as a case marker at the end of a word. They can also be a separate word that attaches to the head-final postpositional phrase, as is the case in the example below:[24]
Turkish employs a case marking system that allows some constituents in Turkish clauses to participate in permutations of its canonical SOV word order, thereby in some ways exhibiting a 'free' word order. Specifically, constituents of an independent clause can be moved around and constituents of phrasal categories can occur outside of the projections they are elements of. As a result, it is possible for the major case-marked constituents of a clause in Turkish to appear in all possible orders in a sentence, such that SOV, SVO, OSV, OVS, VSO, and VOS word orders are acceptable.[25]
This free word order allows for the verbal phrase to occur in any position in an independent clause, unlike other head-final languages (such as Japanese and Korean, in which any variation in word order must occur in the preverbal domain and the verb remains at the end of the clause (see §Japonic: Japanese, above)). Because of this relatively high degree of variation in word order in Turkish, its status as a head-final language is generally considered to be less strict and not absolute like Japanese or Korean, since while embedded clauses must remain verb-final, matrix clauses can show variability in word order.[25]
In the canonical word order of Turkish, as is typical in a head-final language, subjects come at the beginning of the sentence, then objects, with verbs coming in last:
Canonical SOV word order in Turkish
1. Subject-Object-Verb (SOV, canonical word order)
However, several variations on this order can occur on matrix clauses, such that the subject, object, and verb can occupy all different positions within a sentence. Because Turkish uses a case-marking system to denote how each word functions in a sentence in relation to the rest, case-marked elements can be moved around without a loss in meaning. These variations, also called permutations,[26][25] can change the discourse focus of the constituents in the sentence:
In this variation, the subject moves to end of the sentence. This is an example of how verbs in Turkish can move to other positions in the clause, even though other head-final languages, such as Japanese and Korean, typically see verbs coming only at the end of the sentence.
In this variation, the object moves to the end of the sentence and the verb phrase now directly precedes the subject, which remains at the beginning of the sentence. This word order is akin to English word order.
In this variation, the verb phrase moves to the beginning of the sentence, the object moves so that it is directly following the verb, and the subject is at the end of the sentence.
German, while being predominantly head-initial, is less conclusively so than in the case of English. German also features certain head-final structures. For example, in a nonfinite verb phrase the verb is final. In a finite verb phrase (or tense/aspect phrase) the verb (tense/aspect) is initial, although it may move to final position in a subordinate clause. In the following example,[27] the non-finite verb phrase es finden is head-final, whereas in the tensed main clause ich werde es finden (headed by the auxiliary verbwerde indicating future tense), the finite auxiliary precedes its complement (as an instance of a verb-second construction; in the example below, this V2-position is called "T").
German VP structure
Ich
I
werde
will
es
it
finden
find
Ich werde es finden
I will it find
"I will find it."
[TP [DP Ich] [Twerde] [VP [DP es] [Vfinden]]]
Noun phrases containing complements are head-initial; in this example[28] the complement, the CP der den Befehl überbrachte, follows the head noun Boten.
Man
one
beschimpfte
insulted
den
the
Boten,
messenger
der
who
den
the
Befehl
command
überbrachte
delivered
Man beschimpfte den Boten, der den Befehl überbrachte
one insulted the messenger who the command delivered
"The messenger, who delivered the command, was insulted."
[NP [NBoten] [CP der den Befehl überbrachte]]
Adjective phrases may be head-final or head-initial. In the next example the adjective (stolze) follows its complement (auf seine Kinder).[29]
German head-final AP Structure
der
the
auf
of
seine
his
Kinder
children
stolze
proud
Vater
father
der auf seine Kinder stolze Vater
the of his children proud father
"the father (who is) proud of his children"
[AP [PP auf seine Kinder] [Astolze]]
However, when essentially the same adjective phrase is used predicatively rather than attributively, it can also be head-initial:[30]
German head-initial AP Structure
weil
since
er
he
stolz
proud
auf
of
seine
his
Kinder
children
ist
is
weil er stolz auf seine Kinder ist
since he proud of his children is
"since he is proud of his children"
[AP [Astolz] [PP auf seine Kinder]]
Most adpositional phrases are head-initial (as German has mostly prepositions rather than postpositions), as in the following example, where auf comes before its complement den Tisch:[31]
German head-initial PP structure
Peter
Peter
legt
puts
das
the
Buch
book
auf
on
den
the.ACC
Tisch
table
Peter legt das Buch auf den Tisch
Peter puts the book on the.ACC table
"Peter puts the book on the table."
[PP [Pauf] [DP den Tisch]]
German also has some postpositions, however (such as gegenüber "opposite"), and so adpositional phrases can also sometimes be head-final. Another example is provided by the analysis of the following sentence:[32]
Die
the
Schnecke
snail
kroch
crept
das
the
Dach
roof
hinauf
up
Die Schnecke kroch das Dach hinauf
the snail crept the roof up
"The snail crept up the roof"
[PP [DP das Dach] [Phinauf]]
Like in English, determiner phrases and complementizer phrases in German are head-initial. The next example is of a determiner phrase, headed by the article der:[33]
German CP Structure
der
the
Mann
man
der Mann
the man
"the man"
[DP [Dder] [NP Mann]]
In the following example, the complementizer dass precedes the tense phrase which serves as its complement:[34]
dass
that
Lisa
Lisa
eine
a
Blume
flower
gepflanzt
planted
hat
has
dass Lisa eine Blume gepflanzt hat
that Lisa a flower planted has
"that Lisa planted a flower"
[CP [Cdass] [TP Lisa eine Blume gepflanzt hat]]
Chinese
Standard Chinese (whose syntax is typical of Chinese varieties generally) features a mixture of head-final and head-initial structures. Noun phrases are head-final. Modifiers virtually always precede the noun they modify.
In the case of strict head/complement ordering, however, Chinese appears to be head-initial. Verbs normally precede their objects. Both prepositions and postpositions are reported, but the postpositions can be analyzed as a type of noun (the prepositions are often called coverbs).
Gbe
In Gbe, a mixture of head-initial and head-final structures is found. For example, a verb may appear after or before its complement, which means that both head-initial and head-final verb phrases occur.[35] In the first example the verb for "use" appears after its complement:
Kɔ̀jó
Kojo
tó
IMPERF
àmí
oil
lɔ́
DET
zân
use
Kɔ̀jó tó àmí lɔ́ zân
Kojo IMPERF oil DET use
"Kojo is using the oil."
[VP [DP àmí lɔ́] [Vzân]]
In the second example the verb precedes the complement:
Kɔ̀jó
Kojo
nɔ̀
HAB
zán
use-PERF
àmí
oil
lɔ́
DET
Kɔ̀jó nɔ̀ zán àmí lɔ́
Kojo HAB use-PERF oil DET
"Kojo habitually used the oil/Kojo habitually uses the oil."
[VP [Vzán] [DP àmí lɔ́]]
It has been debated whether the first example is due to object movement to the left side of the verb [36] or whether the lexical entry of the verb simply allows head-initial and head-final structures.[37]
Tense phrases and aspect phrases are head-initial since aspect markers (such as tó and nɔ̀ above) and tense markers (such as the future marker ná in the following example, but that does not apply to tense markers shown by verb inflection) come before the verb phrase.[38]
dàwé
man
lɔ̀
DET
ná
FUT
xɔ̀
buy
kɛ̀kɛ́
bicycle
dàwé lɔ̀ ná xɔ̀ kɛ̀kɛ́
man DET FUT buy bicycle
"The man will buy a bicycle."
[TP [Tná] [VP xɔ̀ kɛ̀kɛ́]]
Gbe noun phrases are typically head-final, as in this example:[39]
Gbe NP structure
Kɔ̀kú
Koku
sín
CASE
ɖìdè
sketch
lɛ̀
PL
Kɔ̀kú sín ɖìdè lɛ̀
Koku CASE sketch PL
"sketches of Koku"
[NP [KP Kɔ̀kú sín] [Nɖìdè]]
In the following example of an adjective phrase, Gbe follows a head-initial pattern, as the head yù precedes the intensifiertàùú.[40]
Gbe AP structure
àǔn
dog
yù
black
tàùú
INT
àǔn yù tàùú
dog black INT
"really black dogs"
[AP [Ayù] [Int tàùú]]
Gbe adpositional phrases are head-initial, with prepositions preceding their complement:[41]
The idea that syntactic structures reduce to binary relations was introduced by Lucien Tesnière in 1959 within the framework of dependency theory, which was further developed in the 1960s. Tesnière distinguished two structures that differ in the placement of the structurally governing element (head):[44]centripetal structures, in which heads precede their dependents, and centrifugal structures, in which heads follow their dependents. Dependents here may include complements, adjuncts, and specifiers.
If a language has VO (verb-before-object) ordering, then it will also have prepositions (rather than postpositions), and genitives and adjectives will be placed after the noun they modify.
If a language has OV ordering, then it will also have postpositions, and genitives and adjectives will be placed before the noun they modify.
The first set of properties make heads come at the start of their phrases, while the second set make heads come at the end. However, it has been claimed that many languages (such as Basque) do not fulfill the above conditions, and that Greenberg's theory fails to predict the exceptions.[46]
Fundamental Principle of Placement
Winfred P. Lehmann, expanding upon Greenberg's theory, proposed a Fundamental Principle of Placement (FPP) in 1973. The FPP states that the order of object and verb relative to each other in a language determines other features of that language's typology, beyond the features that Greenberg identified.
Features associated with head-directionality according to Lehmann (1973)[47]
Lehmann also believed that the subject is not a primary element of a sentence, and that the traditional six-order typology of languages should be reduced to just two, VO and OV, based on head-directionality alone. Thus, for example, SVO and VSO would be considered the same type in Lehmann's classification system.
Principles and parameters
Noam Chomsky's Principles and Parameters theory in the 1980s[48] introduced the idea that a small number of innate principles are common to every human language (e.g. phrases are oriented around heads), and that these general principles are subject to parametric variation (e.g. the order of heads and other phrasal components may differ). In this theory, the dependency relation between heads, complements, specifiers, and adjuncts is regulated by X-bar theory, proposed by Jackendoff[49] in the 1970s. The complement is sister to the head, and they can be ordered in one of two ways. A head-complement order is called a head-initial structure, while a complement-head order is called a head-final structure. These are special cases of Tesnière's centripetal and centrifugal structures, since here only complements are considered, whereas Tesnière considered all types of dependents.
In the principles and parameters theory, a head-directionality parameter is proposed as a way of classifying languages. A language which has head-initial structures is considered to be a head-initial language, and one which has head-final structures is considered to be a head-final language. It is found, however, that very few, if any, languages are entirely one direction or the other. Linguists have come up with a number of theories to explain the inconsistencies, sometimes positing a more consistent underlying order, with the phenomenon of phrasal movement being used to explain the surface deviations.
Antisymmetry
According to the Antisymmetry theory proposed by Richard S. Kayne, there is no head-directionality parameter as such: it is claimed that at an underlying level, all languages are head-initial. In fact, it is argued that all languages have the underlying order Specifier-Head-Complement. Deviations from this order are accounted for by different syntactic movements applied by languages. Kayne argues that a theory that allows both directionalities would imply an absence of asymmetries between languages, whereas in fact languages fail to be symmetrical in many respects. Kayne argues using the concept of a probe-goal search (based on the ideas of the Minimalist program), whereby a head acts as a probe and looks for a goal, namely its complement. Kayne proposes that the direction of the probe-goal search must share the direction of language parsing and production.[50] Parsing and production proceed in a left-to-right direction: the beginning of sentence is heard or spoken first, and the end of the sentence is heard or spoken last. This implies (according to the theory) an ordering whereby probe comes before goal, i.e. head precedes complement.
Some linguists have rejected the conclusions of the Antisymmetry approach. Some have pointed out that in predominantly head-final languages such as Japanese and Basque, the change from an underlying head-initial form to a largely head-final surface form would involve complex and massive leftward movement, which is not in accordance with the ideal of grammatical simplicity.[46] Some take a "surface true" viewpoint: that analysis of head direction must take place at the level of surface derivations, or even the Phonetic Form (PF), i.e. the order in which sentences are pronounced in natural speech. This rejects the idea of an underlying ordering which is then subject to movement, as posited in Antisymmetry and in certain other approaches. It has been argued that a head parameter must only reside at PF, as it is unmaintainable in its original form as a structural parameter.[51]
Some linguists have provided evidence which may be taken to support Kayne's scheme, such as Lin,[52] who considered Standard Chinese sentences with the sentence-final particlele. Certain restrictions on movement from within verb phrases preceding such a particle are found (if various other assumptions from the literature are accepted) to be consistent with the idea that the verb phrase has moved from its underlying position after its head (the particle le here being taken as the head of an aspect phrase). However, Takita (2009) observes that similar restrictions do not apply in Japanese, in spite of its surface head-final character, concluding that if Lin's assumptions are correct, then Japanese must be considered to be a true head-final language, contrary to the main tenet of Antisymmetry.[53] More details about these arguments can be found in the Antisymmetry article.
Gradient classification
Some scholars, such as Tesnière, argue that there are no absolute head-initial or head-final languages. According to this approach, it is true that some languages have more head-initial or head-final elements than other languages do, but almost any language contains both head-initial and head-final elements. Therefore, rather than being classifiable into fixed categories, languages can be arranged on a continuum with head-initial and head-final as the extremes, based on the frequency distribution of their dependency directions. This view was supported in a study by Haitao Liu (2010), who investigated 20 languages using a dependency treebank-based method.[54] For instance, Japanese is close to the head-final end of the continuum, while English and German, which have mixed head-initial and head-final dependencies, are plotted in relatively intermediate positions on the continuum.
Polinsky (2012) identified the following five head-directionality sub-types:
She identified a strong correlation between the head-directionality type of a language and the ratio of verbs to nouns in the lexical inventory. Languages with a scarcity of simple verbs tend to be rigidly head-final, as in the case of Japanese, whereas verb-rich languages tend to be head-initial languages.[55]
↑ Lehmann, Winfred P. (March 1973). "A Structural Principle of Language and Its Implications". Language. Linguistic Society of America. 49 (1): 47–66. doi:10.2307/412102. JSTOR412102.
Crysmann, Berthold (2005). "Relative Clause Extraposition in German: an efficient and portable implementation". Research on Language and Computation. 3 (1): 61–82. doi:10.1007/s11168-005-1287-z. S2CID17250437.
Dopke, Susanne (1998). "Competing language structures: the acquisition of verb placement by bilingual German-English children". Journal of Child Language. 22 (3): 555–584. doi:10.1017/S0305000998003584. PMID10095325. S2CID11270532.
Dryer, Matthew S. (2009). "The Branching Direction Theory of Word Order Correlations Revisited". In Scalise, S.; Magni, E.; Bisetto, A. (eds.). Universals of Language Today. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Springer. pp.185–207.
Fukui, Naoki (1993). "Parameters and optionality". Linguistic Inquiry. 24 (3): 399–420. JSTOR4178821.
Gillion, Brendan (1992). "Towards a Common Semantics for English Count and Mass Nouns". Linguistics and Philosophy. 15 (6): 597–639. doi:10.1007/BF00628112. S2CID50730562.
Graffi, Giorgio (2001). 200 Years of Syntax: A critical survey. John Benjamins Publishing.
Hinterhölzl, Roland (2010). "Collapsing the Head Final Filter and the Head Complement Parameter". Linguistics. 20: 35–66.
Hinterhölzl, Roland; Svetlana, Petrova (2009). Information structure and language change: New approaches to word order variation in Germanic. Mouton de Gruyter.
Huang, C-T. J. (1982). "Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar". PhD Dissertation, MIT.
Jackendoff, Ray (1977). X Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kathol, Andreas (2001). "Positional Effects in a Monostratal Grammar of German". Journal of Linguistics. 37 (1): 35–66. doi:10.1017/s0022226701008805.
Kayne, Richard S. (2011). "Why Are There No Directionality Parameters?"(PDF). Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. pp.1–23. Retrieved 13 November 2014.
Kratzer, Angelika. "More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses". Proceedings of SALT. 8 (92–110).
Kroch, Anthony. "Morphosyntactic Variation". Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. 2: 180–210.
Lasnik, Howard (2010). "Government-binding/principles and parameters theory". Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. 1 (1): 40–50. doi:10.1002/wcs.35. PMID26272837.
Lin, Chienjer (2003). "Aspect is result: Mandarin resultative constructions and aspect incorporation". Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Linguistics (WECOL).
Lin, Tzong-Hong J. (2006). "Complement-to-specifier movement in Mandarin Chinese". Ms., National Tsing Hua University.
Liu, Haitao (2010). "Dependency direction as a means of word-order typology: A method based on dependency treebanks". Lingua. 120 (6): 1567–1578. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2009.10.001.
Onozuka, Hiromi (2008). "On the Resultative Reading of the Imperfective Aspect in English". Australian Journal of Linguistics. 28 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1080/07268600701877465. S2CID56964107.
Sportiche, Dominique; Koopman, Hilda; Stabler, Edward (2014). An Introduction to Syntactic Analysis and Theory. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Smith, Carlota S. (1964). "Determiners and Relative Clauses in a Generative Grammer of English". Language. 40 (1): 37–52. doi:10.2307/411923. ISSN0097-8507. JSTOR411923.
Van Riemsdijk, Henk (2007). "Case in spatial adpositional phrases: The dative-accusative alternation in German". Pitar Mos: A Building with a View. Festschrift for Alexandra Cornilescu: 1–23.
Vinka, Mikael (2009). "The syntax of three Japanese postpositions". Lund Working Papers in Linguistics. 40: 229–250.
Watanabe, Akira (2011). "Adjectival inflection and the position of measure phrases". Linguistic Inquiry. 42 (3): 490–507. doi:10.1162/ling_a_00055. S2CID57565727.
Related Research Articles
An adjective is a word that describes or defines a noun or noun phrase. Its semantic role is to change information given by the noun.
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. There is a difference between the common use of the term phrase and its technical use in linguistics. In common usage, a phrase is usually a group of words with some special idiomatic meaning or other significance, such as "all rights reserved", "economical with the truth", "kick the bucket", and the like. It may be a euphemism, a saying or proverb, a fixed expression, a figure of speech, etc.. In linguistics, these are known as phrasemes.
English grammar is the set of structural rules of the English language. This includes the structure of words, phrases, clauses, sentences, and whole texts.
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.
Prepositions and postpositions, together called adpositions, are a class of words used to express spatial or temporal relations or mark various semantic roles.
In linguistics, the partitive is a word, phrase, or case that indicates partialness. Nominal partitives are syntactic constructions, such as "some of the children", and may be classified semantically as either set partitives or entity partitives based on the quantifier and the type of embedded noun used. Partitives should not be confused with quantitives, which often look similar in form, but behave differently syntactically and have a distinct meaning.
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, the head or nucleus of a phrase is the word that determines the syntactic category of that phrase. For example, the head of the noun phrase boiling hot water is the noun water. Analogously, the head of a compound is the stem that determines the semantic category of that compound. For example, the head of the compound noun handbag is bag, since a handbag is a bag, not a hand. The other elements of the phrase or compound modify the head, and are therefore the head's dependents. Headed phrases and compounds are called endocentric, whereas exocentric ("headless") phrases and compounds lack a clear head. Heads are crucial to establishing the direction of branching. Head-initial phrases are right-branching, head-final phrases are left-branching, and head-medial phrases combine left- and right-branching.
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).
In linguistics, wh-movement is the formation of syntactic dependencies involving interrogative words. An example in English is the dependency formed between what and the object position of doing in "What are you doing?" Interrogative forms are sometimes known within English linguistics as wh-words, such as what, when, where, who, and why, but also include other interrogative words, such as how. This dependency has been used as a diagnostic tool in syntactic studies as it can be observed to interact with other grammatical constraints.
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, antisymmetry is a syntactic theory presented in Richard S. Kayne's 1994 monograph The Antisymmetry of Syntax. It asserts that grammatical hierarchies in natural language follow a universal order, namely specifier-head-complement branching order. The theory builds on the foundation of the X-bar theory. Kayne hypothesizes that all phrases whose surface order is not specifier-head-complement have undergone syntactic movements that disrupt this underlying order. Others have posited specifier-complement-head as the basic word order.
In linguistic typology, a verb–object–subject or verb–object–agent language, which is commonly abbreviated VOS or VOA, is one in which most sentences arrange their elements in that order. That would be the equivalent in English to "Drank cocktail Sam." The relatively rare default word order accounts for only 3% of the world's languages. It is the fourth-most common default word order among the world's languages out of the six. It is a more common default permutation than OVS and OSV but is significantly rarer than SOV, SVO, and VSO. Families in which all or many of their languages are VOS include the following:
In linguistics, a small clause consists of a subject and its predicate, but lacks an overt expression of tense. Small clauses have the semantic subject-predicate characteristics of a clause, and have some, but not all, properties of a constituent. Structural analyses of small clauses vary according to whether a flat or layered analysis is pursued. The small clause is related to the phenomena of raising-to-object, exceptional case-marking, accusativus cum infinitivo, and object control.
This article describes the grammar of the Scottish Gaelic language.
In linguistics, an empty category, which may also be referred to as a covert category, is an element in the study of syntax that does not have any phonological content and is therefore unpronounced. Empty categories exist in contrast to overt categories which are pronounced. When representing empty categories in tree structures, linguists use a null symbol (∅) to depict the idea that there is a mental category at the level being represented, even if the word(s) are being left out of overt speech. The phenomenon was named and outlined by Noam Chomsky in his 1981 LGB framework, and serves to address apparent violations of locality of selection — there are different types of empty categories that each appear to account for locality violations in different environments. Empty categories are present in most of the world's languages, although different languages allow for different categories to be empty.
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.
The syntax of the Welsh language has much in common with the syntax of other Insular Celtic languages. It is, for example, heavily right-branching, and the verb for be is crucial to constructing many different types of clauses. Any verb may be inflected for three tenses, and a range of additional tenses are constructed with auxiliary verbs and particles. Welsh lacks true subordinating conjunctions, and instead relies on special verb forms and preverbal particles to create subordinate clauses.
The term equative is used in linguistics to refer to constructions where two entities are equated with each other. For example, the sentence Susan is our president, equates two entities "Susan" and "our president". In English, equatives are typically expressed using a copular verb such as "be", although this is not the only use of this verb. Equatives can be contrasted with predicative constructions where one entity is identified as a member of a set, such as Susan is a president. This view has been contrasted by Otto Jespersen in the first part of the XX century and by Giuseppe Longobardi and Andrea Moro in the second. In particular, Andrea Moro in 1988 proved that either demonstrative phrases (DP) must be non referential in the sense of Geach (1962) by exploiting arguments based on binding theory. The idea is that when a DP plays the role of predicate it enlarges its binding domain: for example, in John met his cook the pronoun can refer to the subject John but in John is his cook it cannot. The key-step was to admit that the DP following the copula can be referential whereas the one preceding must not, in other words the key-step was to admit that there can be inverse copular sentences, namely those where the subject, which is referential, follows the predicate. For a discussion starting from Moro's data see Heycock (2012). For a historical view of the development of the analysis of the copula see Moro
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.
Portal 
