Operator (linguistics)

Last updated

In generative grammar, the technical term operator denotes a type of expression that enters into an a-bar movement dependency. [1] [2] [3] One often says that the operator "binds a variable". [4]

Contents

Operators are often determiners, such as interrogatives ('which', 'who', 'when', etc.), or quantifiers ('every', 'some', 'most', 'no'), but adverbs such as sentential negation ('not') have also been treated as operators. [5] It is also common within generative grammar to hypothesise phonetically empty operators whenever a clause type or construction exhibits symptoms of the presence of an a-bar movement dependency, such as sensitivity to extraction islands. [1] [2] [4] [6]

Examples

The following examples illustrate the use of the term operator within generative grammatical theory.

Wh-operators

The following example is a case of so-called "wh-movement":

1. What did Bill say he wants to buy __ ?

Here, "what" is an operator, binding a phonetically empty "variable" indicated here as "__".

Quantifier raising

In the generative model of the syntax-semantics interface, a quantifier must move to positions higher in the structure, leaving behind a trace which it then binds. When this movement leaves the spoken word order unchanged, it is said to be "covert". [7] This process of covert quantifier raising (QR) can create scope ambiguities as in the following example.

2. I didn't do something.

This sentence is ambiguous between an "I did nothing" reading and another, "there's something I didn't do" reading. On the latter reading, one would represent the sentence as follows within generative grammar (omitting irrelevant details): [7]

3. Somethingx [I didn't do x]

Here, "x" is the variable, and "somethingx" is the operator binding that variable.

Tough constructions

The following is an example which is treated within generative grammar in terms of an invisible operator binding an invisible variable: [1] [4]

4. John is easy to please.

The relevant aspects of this sentence are represented as follows:

5. John is easy [OPx to please x].

Here, "Opx" is the empty operator and "x" is the variable bound by that operator, functioning as the object of the verb "please". Part of the reason to assume the empty operator—variable dependency in such sentences is that they exhibit sensitivity to extraction islands. For example, the following attempt to create a similar example results in an ungrammatical sentence. The theoretical representation of the sentence is given right below, [2] omitting, again, irrelevant details.

6. Bad: John is easy to decide whether to please.

7. John is easy [Opx to decide whether to please x]

Here, "whether" creates an island for a-bar movement. This means that the operator Opx is unable to bind its variable "x", and this is thought to be the reason why the sentence is ungrammatical. One popular theoretical implementation of this is called "relativized minimality". [6] Roughly, it states that a variable of a given kind must be bound by the closest available operator of the same kind. In (6,7), "x" can't be bound by "Opx", because there is a closer operator of the same kind as "Opx": "whether". [6] The sentence (4) with its representation (5) is grammatically acceptable because there's no intervening operator between "Opx" and "x" which blocks the dependency in that sentence.

See also

Related Research Articles

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 linguistics, transformational grammar (TG) or transformational-generative grammar (TGG) is part of the theory of generative grammar, especially of natural languages. It considers grammar to be a system of rules that generate exactly those combinations of words that form grammatical sentences in a given language and involves the use of defined operations to produce new sentences from existing ones. The method is commonly associated with American linguist Noam Chomsky.

In mathematics, and in other disciplines involving formal languages, including mathematical logic and computer science, a free variable is a notation (symbol) that specifies places in an expression where substitution may take place and is not a parameter of this or any container expression. Some older books use the terms real variable and apparent variable for free variable and bound variable, respectively. The idea is related to a placeholder, or a wildcard character that stands for an unspecified symbol.

In linguistics, X-bar theory is a theory of syntactic category formation that was first proposed by Chomsky (1970) and further developed by Jackendoff (1977), along the lines of the theory of generative grammar put forth in the 1950s by Noam 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, 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 posited by many modern theories of syntax. Many other approaches, however, reject the DP analysis in favor of the more traditional NP analysis of nominal groups. Thus, there are competing analyses concerning heads and dependents in nominal groups. For example in the phrase the car, the is a determiner and car is a noun; the two combine to form a phrase. On the DP analysis, the determiner the is head over the noun car, while on the NP analysis, the noun car is the head, which means the phrase is an NP, not a DP.

Government and binding is a theory of syntax and a phrase structure grammar in the tradition of transformational grammar developed principally by Noam Chomsky in the 1980s. This theory is a radical revision of his earlier theories and was later revised in The Minimalist Program (1995) and several subsequent papers, the latest being Three Factors in Language Design (2005). Although there is a large literature on government and binding theory which is not written by Chomsky, Chomsky's papers have been foundational in setting the research agenda.

In linguistics, the minimalist program (MP) is a major line of inquiry that has been developing inside generative grammar since the early 1990s, starting with a 1993 paper by Noam Chomsky.

In generative grammar and related frameworks, a node in a parse tree c-commands its sister node and all of its sister's descendants. In these frameworks, c-command plays a central role in defining and constraining operations such as syntactic movement, binding, and scope. Tanya Reinhart introduced c-command in 1976 as a key component of her theory of anaphora. The term is short for "constituent command".

In generative grammar and related approaches, the logical Form (LF) of a linguistic expression is the variant of its syntactic structure which undergoes semantic interpretation. It is distinguished from phonetic form, the structure which corresponds to a sentence's pronunciation. These separate representations are postulated in order to explain the ways in which an expression's meaning can be partially independent of its pronunciation, e.g. scope ambiguities.

In linguistics, grammaticality is determined by the conformity to language usage as derived by the grammar of a particular speech variety. The notion of grammaticality rose alongside the theory of generative grammar, the goal of which is to formulate rules that define well-formed, grammatical, sentences. These rules of grammaticality also provide explanations of ill-formed, ungrammatical sentences.

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.

Donkey sentences are sentences that contain a pronoun with clear meaning but whose syntactical role in the sentence poses challenges to grammarians. Such sentences defy straightforward attempts to generate their formal language equivalents. The difficulty is with understanding how English speakers parse such sentences.

A resumptive pronoun is a personal pronoun appearing in a relative clause, which restates the antecedent after a pause or interruption, as in This is the girli that whenever it rains shei cries.

A bound variable pronoun is a pronoun that has a quantified determiner phrase (DP) – such as every, some, or who – as its antecedent.

Sloppy identity

In linguistics, sloppy identity is an interpretive property that is found with verb phrase ellipsis where the identity of the pronoun in an elided VP is not identical to the antecedent VP.

<i>Lectures on Government and Binding</i>

Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures (LGB) is a book by American linguist Noam Chomsky, published in 1981. It is based on the lectures Chomsky gave at the GLOW conference and workshop held at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa, Italy in 1979. In this book, Chomsky presented his government and binding theory of syntax. It had great influence on the syntactic research in early 1980s, especially among the linguists working within the transformational grammar framework.

In linguistics, crossover effects are restrictions on possible binding or coreference that hold between certain phrases and pronouns. Coreference that is normal and natural when a pronoun follows its antecedent becomes impossible, or at best just marginally possible, when "crossover" is deemed to have occurred, e.g. ?Who1 do his1 friends admire __1? The term itself refers to the traditional transformational analysis of sentences containing leftward movement, whereby it appears as though the fronted constituent crosses over the expression with which it is coindexed on its way to the front of the clause. Crossover effects are divided into strong crossover (SCO) and weak crossover (WCO). The phenomenon occurs in English and related languages, and it may be present in all natural languages that allow fronting.

Formal semantics is the study of grammatical meaning in natural languages using formal tools from logic and theoretical computer science. It is an interdisciplinary field, sometimes regarded as a subfield of both linguistics and philosophy of language. It provides accounts of what linguistic expressions mean and how their meanings are composed from the meanings of their parts. The enterprise of formal semantics can be thought of as that of reverse-engineering the semantic components of natural languages' grammars.

Subjacency is a general syntactic locality constraint on movement. It specifies restrictions placed on movement and regards it as a strictly local process. This term was first defined by Noam Chomsky in 1973 and constitutes the main concept of the Government and Binding Theory. The revised definition of subjacency from Chomsky (1977) is as follows: "A cyclic rule cannot move a phrase from position Y to position X in … X … [α… [β… Y … ] … ] … X …, where α and β are cyclic nodes. Cyclic nodes are S and NP",.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Chomsky, Noam. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
  2. 1 2 3 Haegeman, Liliane (1994) Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Blackwell.
  3. ↑ Koopman, H., & Sportiche, D. (1982). Variables and the Bijection Principle. The Linguistic Review, 2, 139-60.
  4. 1 2 3 Cinque, Guglielmo (1991) Types of A-Bar Dependencies. MIT Press.
  5. ↑ Zanuttini, R. (1997) Negation and Clausal Structure: A Comparative Study of Romance Languages, Oxford University Press.
  6. 1 2 3 Rizzi, Luigi. (1990) Relativized Minimality. MIT Press.
  7. 1 2 May, Robert. (1977) "Logical Form and Conditions on Rules." In Kegl, J. et al. eds. Proceedings of NELS VII, pp. 189 - 207. MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
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.