LIN476H5 F 2024

Language Diversity and Language Universals

Homework Assignment 4

Due: Thursday 11/28 by 11:59p

Recommended: complete at least a full draft by Tuesday, 11/26, before class (1pm)

Submit your homework on Quercus. Neat typing is required.

To type IPA symbols, consider one of the following tools:

- Online IPA keyboards, e.g.https://ipa.typeit.org/full/

- Install an IPA keyboard on your computer: (supports Windows, Mac OS, Ubuntu Linux)

https://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?item_id=UniIPAKeyboard

To draw nice trees, try out one of these tools.

- https://ironcreek.net/syntaxtree/

- https://mshang.ca/syntree/

Cross-categorial generalizations in the generative syntax (“Chomsky-style” syntax) theoretical framework. With Greenberg’s Universals 2-4, we introduced one of the earliest research interests in typology: what correlations across different syntactic categories exist across the world’s languages? As you saw, Greenberg did discover some non-trivial cross-categorial generalizations that are not immediately obvious, and therefore scientifically interesting. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, now is a good time to go back and review. Read a few of Greenberg’s Universals to remind yourself.)

At different points in the course, we also briefly touched on the distinction between description, and explanation. The universals that Greenberg has formulated are ultimately descriptive, because they tell facts about human language. However, at least according to some linguists, facts are not theories. Facts only tell us what things are like, but they do not tell us why things are the way they   are: knowing that feature A in one category correlates strongly with feature B in a different category does not mean that we know why that correlation exists.

Linguists have attempted to formulate theoretical explanations. Among them is Chomsky, whose theoretical framework (“generative syntax,” which you learned in LIN232) is very much represented by many North American linguists today, including here at the UofT.

I introduced a little bit of how Chomsky attempted to incorporate Greenberg’s cross-categorial universals into his generative syntax framework. I would like you to read more about it in this task, and give a summary of some key insights of it.

Background review

The basic theoretical tool that Chomsky employs from his framework is the idea that different syntactic categories are modelled as different phrases—so book is an NP, a book or the book or John’s book is a DP, in a book is a PP, etc.

And, in addition, every phrase (no matter what kind of phrase it is) has a head, and a complement—so the head of an NP is the N, the head of a DP is the D, the head of a PP is the P, etc., and the thing that is sister to the head, is the complement.

(Yes, aside from the head and the complement, there is also the specifier. But we won’t have to worry about that for now.)

With this, you are now in a position to read about Chomsky’s proposal to explain Greenberg’s cross- categorial universals. He calls this proposal “the head directionality parameter,” or often also called “the head parameter” for short.

Wikipedia is not always reliable—but, luckily for us, the article on the head directionality parameter is actually very well-written, and, if you read it carefully, not hard to understand.

Don’t read the whole thing at once. Let me guide you step by step.

1.   Read the section on English (under “head-initial languages”)—focusing first on the paragraphs, as well as the tree structure, on the VP in English.

a.   “English is head-initial in its VPs.” Explain what this statement means—you can do it in 1-2 sentences.

b.   What would a language that is head-final in its VPs be like?

2.   Then, read the paragraphs, and the tree structure, on the PP in English. The questions are the same:

a.   “English is head-initial in its PPs.” Explain what this statement means (again, 1-2 sentences!)

b.   What would a language that is head-final in its PPs be like?

3.   Then, read about the DP in English.

a.   State the head directionality of DPs in English. Explain this head directionality, using the example given in the article.

b.   Now think back to a genitive structure like John’s book. As you learned in LIN232, we will take a genitive element like John’s to also be a D in syntax. Do “genitive DPs” in English have the same head directionality as “determiner DPs” used in the article?

c.   What would a language that is head-final in its DPs be like?

4.   Now you know what this is about! Read through the remaining parts about English, and

a.   State the head directionality of the other syntactic phrases that English has. Explain each with an example.

b.   On NPs in English: I am supposed to say ‘a redapple’ and ‘a stormy day,’ and not ‘an

apple red’ and ‘a day stormy’ . Therefore, NPs in English are right-headed, right?

5.   Now, review what you have read about head directionality in all these different kinds of syntactic phrases (or syntactic categories) in English.

If I ask you to summarize the head directionality using a cross-categorial (i.e. not about any of the specific kinds of phrases, but about PHRASES in general) phrase, called XP, whose head is X, and whose complement is YP—how would you draw “the cross-categorial XP” with a tree structure?

6.   Finally, consider the sentence John reads a book. You know that the dominant word order for English main clauses is SVO.

a.   Draw the syntax tree for this sentence, up to the TP level. (i.e. you don’t need to include the CP level).

b.   Does the cross-categorial XP structure in English explain the “VO” part of SVO?

c.   Does the cross-categorial XP structure in English explain the “SV” part of SVO?