Schwa
PHONOLOGY: a vowel often described as a mid central unrounded vowel of
brief duration. Phonetic symbol is [@].
EXAMPLE: the final vowel in koper 'copper'.
LIT.
Halle & Clements (1983).
Schwa insertion
PHONOLOGY: °epenthesis of
°schwa between two consonants.
EXAMPLE: Dutch melk 'milk' may be pronounced as [mel@k].
Scope
SEMANTICS: that part of a °formula to
which an operator is prefixed.
EXAMPLE: phi is the scope of Neg in Neg phi and of All(x) in All(x) [ phi ].
The scope of an operator in complex formulas is determined by brackets. In the
formula in (i) the subformula P(x) -> Q(y) is the scope of All(x), but R(x) is
outside the scope of All(x).
(i) All(x) [ P(x) -> Q(y) ] & R(x)LIT. Gamut (1991).
Scope ambiguity
SYNTAX/SEMANTICS: the kind of ambiguity that arises when an operator can
enter into different scope relations with other scoped elements.
EXAMPLE: (i)a has the two readings (i)b and c. In (ib) every farmer
is construed as having scope over a donkey and in (ic) a donkey is
construed as having scope over every farmer:
(i) a Every farmer loves a donkey
b For every farmer there is a donkey such that he loves him
c There is a donkey such that every farmer loves him
LIT.
Montague (1974),
May (1977).
Scrambling
SYNTAX: cover term for specific kind of word order variation. In the
study of Germanic SOV-languages the term is used to refer to word order variation
of argument NPs with respect to each other and/or with respect to adverbial phrases.
EXAMPLE: in German an object may follow or precede an adverb (object
and adverb may be scrambled):
(i) a Er hat ihr vielleicht dieses Buch gegeben
he has her maybe this book given
b Er hat ihr dieses Buch vielleicht gegeben
Two objects may be scrambled as well:
(ii) Er hat dieses Buch vielleicht ihr gegebenAnd sometimes an object - den Max in (iii) - may even scramble over the subject, as in (iii)b:
(iii) a ... dass jeder den Max kennt
that everyone (the) Max knows
b ... dass den Max jeder kennt
It seems that °definiteness is a factor
interfering with scrambling. Nonspecific indefinite NPs cannot be scrambled and
neither can particles or small clause predicates. One point of controversy is
whether scrambling is a case of movement (of NP) and if so whether it is
°A-bar movement or not.
Segment
PHONOLOGY: °phoneme.
SYNTAX: structural/configurational notion. In an
°adjunction structure like (i),
the category A consists of two segments, the upper A and the lower A.
(i) A /| / | B ACf. °Exclusion, °Dominance.
Selectional restrictions
SEMANTICS: the semantic restrictions that a word imposes on the
environment in which it occurs.
EXAMPLE: a verb like eat requires that its subject refers to an
animate entity and its object to something concrete. A violation of the selectional
restrictions of a word results in °anomaly: in
the mountain eats sincerity both restrictions are violated, rendering the
sentence anomalous. The question whether selectional restrictions should be treated
in syntax or semantics, or even outside grammar, as a matter of knowledge of the
world, has been a point of debate.
LIT.
Chomsky (1965).
Semantic Coherence
MORPHOLOGY: a notion introduced in Aronoff (1976) which entails that the
meaning of a derivative is transparently a composition of the meaning of the base
and that of the affix.
EXAMPLE: all English words of the form Xousness mean:
(i) 'the fact that Y is Xous' (ii) 'the extent to which Y is Xous' (iii) 'the quality or state of being Xous'Hence, the meaning of Xousness words is fully compositional in meaning. This is not true for rival words of the form Xosity which have additional idiosyncratic meanings.
Semantic component
That part of grammar which contains the rules that provide syntactic structures
with a °semantic interpretation.
Semantic compositionality
MORPHOLOGY: we speak of semantic compositionality if the meaning of a
complex word is a function of the meanings of its constituents.
EXAMPLE: the meaning of English °gerunds
is fully compositional ('the state, action named by V').
Semantic interpretation
SEMANTICS: the process by which syntactic structures are associated with
their meaning. This can be done in terms of a
°semantic representation or in
terms of values in a model. When taken as a result nominal, the term 'semantic
interpretation' is used synonymously with
°semantic representation.
LIT.
Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet (1990).
Semantic reference
°Speaker's reference.
Semantic representation
SEMANTICS: an abstract (formal) language in which meanings can be
represented. Opinions differ about whether semantic representation is sufficient
or necessary, about its form and about how it relates to syntactic representations.
Mentalistic, representational theories of meaning claim that a mental semantic
representation is necessary to account for the fact that language users grasp
meanings. Denotational theories of meaning, on the other hand, claim that meaning
can only be explicated in terms of denotations in the world. Semantic representation
can take the form of a structure of semantic features (in the
°Katz-Fodor-semantics and in
Jackendoff's °conceptual structure)
or formulas of a logical system. In the theory of
°Generative semantics, semantic
representations were identified with syntactic deep structures. In almost all other
theories, semantic representations are an autonomous level of representation related
to deep structure, surface structure and/or LF. See
°meaning theories.
LIT.
Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet
(1990),
Jackendoff (1983).
Sense
SEMANTICS: the sense (German: Sinn) of an expression is, according
to Frege (1892), the way in which its °reference
(German: Bedeutung) is presented.
EXAMPLE: the sentences (i) and (ii) both have the same truth value (i.e.
the same reference), but differ in sense.
(i) The Morning Star is the Evening Star (ii) The Morning Star is the Morning StarSee °intension and °extension.
Sentential Subject Constraint
SYNTAX: one of the constraints on movement proposed by Ross (1967). It
states that
No element dominated by an S may be moved out of that S if that S
is dominated by an NP which itself is immediately dominated by S,
and is meant to capture the fact that categories cannot be moved out of a sentential
subject.
EXAMPLE: consider (i) and (ii), both containing a sentential subject
(the for-clause and the that-clause respectively).
(i) [for Haarhuis to beat Becker] is easy (ii) [that Haarhuis beat Becker] pleased usThe Sentential Subject Constraint now correctly predicts that wh-movement of Becker out of the sentential subject leads to ungrammaticality:
(i') * Who is [for Haarhuis to beat t] easy? (ii') * Who did [that Haarhuis beat t] please us?The Sentential Subject Constraint falls under the °Subject Condition of Huang's (1982) °Condition on Extraction Domain.
Separation Hypothesis
MORPHOLOGY: a hypothesis due to Robert Beard, which entails that the form
of inflectional and derivational affixes is separated from their function. Beard
distinguishes L-rules and M-rules, and assumes that L-rules are grammatical processes
which change or add information about grammatical functions (e.g. 'plural' or 'agent
noun'), while M-rules are affixation rules which spell out the grammatical functions.
EXAMPLE: English plurals are formed in a number of ways, as is shown in (i):
(i) cat-cats, bus-busses, alga-algae, paramecium-paramecia, goose-geeseUnder the separation hypothesis there is a single L-rule of pluralization which simply adds the feature [plural]. The resulting abstract morpheme is input to different M-rules, and these rules spell out the actual phonological form of the plurals in (i). On the other hand, °conversion can be seen to be simply the situation which arises when an L-rule applies, but no M-rule gets the chance of giving phonological content to the function supplied by the L-rule.
Shape Component
MORPHOLOGY: a component in the grammar proposed in the work of Arnold
Zwicky. This component contains the lexicon, together with separate sets of
inflectional rules and derivational rules. Moreover, this component houses the
Shape Conditions which govern the selection of different allomorphs postlexically,
that is, in the syntax.
EXAMPLE: the distribution of the English a/an allomorphs (a
book vs. an apple) is handled by a Shape Condition.
LIT.
Zwicky (1977,
1986,
1987).
Shape Condition
°Shape Component.
Signification
SEMANTICS: the structuralist notion for being a sign, i.e. the property
of expressions that they stand for other things. A sign is viewed as a composite
unit consisting of a relation between an overt signal (the signifier) and the
information that this overt signal evokes (the signified). The notions 'signifier'
and 'signified' are also known as (French) 'signifiant' and 'signifié' from
De Saussure (1959).
See °Denotation,
°Reference.
LIT.
Lyons (1977),
Frawley (1992).
Simple determiner
SEMANTICS: a simple determiner is a determiner which is not a boolean
combination of two or more determiners.
EXAMPLE: at least two and at most four are simple
determiners; at least two and at most four is not a simple determiner.
LIT.
Gamut (1991).
Sister
SYNTAX: two °nodes A and B are sisters
iff there is a node C (their mother) which
°immediately dominates both A and B.
Sisterhood Condition
SYNTAX: condition on °theta-role
assignment which requires the theta-marker and the target of theta-marking to be
°sisters. This condition is proposed in
Chomsky (1986b).
Sloppy identity
SYNTAX: an interpretive phenomenon found in
°deletion contexts. If part of a syntactic
structure is not overtly realized, and has its interpretation determined as a
copy of the interpretation of a constituent elsewhere in the structure or in the
discourse, and if the structure whose interpretation is copied into the covert
constituent contains an anaphoric element whose interpretation depends on an
element not contained in the copied material, then the anaphor's counterpart in
the copy may either have the same reference as the original, or pick up an
(anaphoric) reference independently. The former case is called "strict identity",
the latter case "sloppy identity". EXAMPLE: Consider (i):
(i) Johni [VP likes hisi mother ], and Peter tooThe missing VP in the right conjunct is interpreted as a copy of the VP in the left conjunct. However, two distinct interpretations may result:
(ii) a Johni [VP likes hisi mother ], and Peterj too
[VP likes hisi mother ]
b Johni [VP likes hisi mother ], and Peterj too
[VP likes hisj mother ]
The b-interpretation is a case of sloppy identity: the index on his is not identical.
Syntactic conditions on sloppy identity have been argued to mirror conditions on
°bound variable anaphora (Reinhart 1983).
Sluicing
SYNTAX: reducing a wh-question to its wh-phrase(s) in
a context where the omitted part can be reconstructed from the preceding sentence.
EXAMPLE: in (i) the content of the complement clause of know is
understood as which sonata's Susan has played.
(i) Susan has played some sonata's, but I don't know which sonata's __Sentences like (i) raise the question whether there is an °empty category following which sonata's, and if so, how it is °licensed.
Small Clause
SYNTAX: subject-predicate construction without a finite verb.
EXAMPLE: the PP in (i) and the NP in (ii) are analyzed as small clauses
with him the subject.
(i) I want [PP him out of my sight] (ii) They consider [NP him a fine teacher]In general a small clause is an XP with a subject, where X = N, A, V or P. It is a point of debate whether the subject is in the °specifier position of XP, or adjoined to XP at D-structure.
Sole Argument Generalization
MORPHOLOGY: a generalization proposed in Levin & Rappaport (1986) which
says that an argument that may stand as a sole NP complement to a verb can be
externalized by Adjectival Passive Formation. This generalization is meant to
account for the difference between (ii) and (iii):
(i) Dick sold Tom the car. (ii) The car remained unsold. (iii) *Tom remained unsold.In (ii), the internal argument of sell is externalized. This is allowed since the NP the car can be the sole argument of sell (cf. Dick sold the car). In (iii), on the other hand, the second internal argument of sell is externalized, but this NP cannot be the sole argument (cf. *Dick sold Tom in the reading Dick sold something to Tom), and externalization therefore is not possible.
Sonorant
PHONOLOGY: a °feature which
characterizes sounds that are produced in such a way that the vocal cords
vibrate spontaneously (i.e. °vowels,
°glides,
°liquids and
°nasals).
Sonority
PHONOLOGY: a perceptual property referring to the loudness (audibility)
and propensity for spontaneous voicing of a sound relative to that of other sounds
with the same length.
Sonority hierarchy
PHONOLOGY: a hierarchy representing the
°sonority of classes of sounds.
Cf. Katamba (1989) (refinements
can be added):
least sonority greatest sonority voiceless obstruents voiced obstruents nasals glides vowelsThe sonority hierarchy can be used, to explain distributions of segments in syllables. The °nucleus (i.e. vowel) of a syllable is the most sonorous element. The sonority of the surrounding consonants must decrease to the left and to the right starting from the vowel. Put differently: the more sonorous a segment, the closer to the nucleus of the syllable. EXAMPLE: in English the syllables matl, lkon are impossible since in matl the sonority in the sequence tl increases (must be: decreasing) and in lkon the sonority of the sequence lk decreases (must be increasing).
Source
SEMANTICS: one of the possible
°thematic roles of a verb, indicating
the place or object where the movement expressed by the verb starts.
EXAMPLE: in John received a book from Mary Mary is the source of
the movement of the book (the °theme) to John (the
°goal).
LIT.
Fillmore (1968),
Gruber (1965),
Jackendoff (1983,
1990).
Speaker's reference
SEMANTICS: the reference that a noun phrase has in virtue of what the
speaker chooses it to be, as distinguished from the semantic reference, that it
has in virtue of its meaning. Kripke (1977) argued that
°referential and
°attributive noun phrases
have the same semantic reference but possibly different speaker's references.
LIT.
Kripke (1977).
Specific reading
SEMANTICS: the reading that an indefinite noun phrase has when there is a
particular referent of that noun phrase. In the sentence John seeks a
unicorn, a unicorn has a specific reading when there is a particular
unicorn that John is looking for. This reading entails the existence of unicorns
in the domain of discourse. A unicorn has a nonspecific reading when John
is looking for an arbitrary unicorn. This does not entail the existence of unicorns.
The specificity-contrast is often analyzed in terms of the relative scope of the
indefinite with respect to an °opaque
context. The specific reading, then, corresponds with the
°wide scope (or de re) reading, while the
nonspecific reading corresponds with the °narrow
scope (or de dicto) reading.
Specificity Condition
SYNTAX: condition on movement which states that movement out of
°specific NP's leads to worse results than
movement out of non-specific NP's. This is shown by the contrast in (i) (showing
wh-movement out of a definite NP) and (ii) (wh-movement out of a
non-specific indefinite NP). Also known as Specificity Constraint.
(i) a *who did you see [that picture of t]
b *who did you see [John's picture of t]
(ii) a who did you see [three pictures of t]
b who did you see [more pictures of t]
LIT.
Chomsky (1973,
1986b),
Fiengo & Higginbotham (1981).
Specified Subject Condition (SSC)
SYNTAX: condition introduced in Chomsky (1973) which states that:
(i) No rule can involve X, Y in the structure
... X ... [a ... Z ... -WYV ... ] ...
where Z is the specified subject of WYZ in a
Informally, a subject is specified if it is overt. Therefore, the reciprocal
each other can be bound by the men in (ii), but not in (iii):
(ii) The men saw [NP the pictures of each other] (iii) *The men saw [NP John's pictures of each other]The specified subject John in (iii) blocks the binding relation between the men and each other. In later work, the SSC is subsumed under the °binding theory.
Specifier
SYNTAX: in terms of the °X-bar
theory the specifier is the position which is directly dominated by the maximal
projection of X: [XP specifier X]. Many different functions are being assigned to
this position, depending on the category of X, such as Determiner of NP, degree
element of AP, subject of IP, or modifier (adverb or even auxiliary) of VP. (One
version of) the VP-internal Subject Hypothesis holds that Spec,VP is the D-structure
position of the verb's external argument. In many analyses of movement (
°bounding theory), the specifier position
plays an important role as an intermediate landing site (or
°escape hatch) for
°A-bar movement.
LIT.
Chomsky (1986b).
Specifier-Head agreement
SYNTAX: notion introduced in
Chomsky (1986b) to describe
the sharing of
°phi-features between the head and the
specifier of IP. In later work
(cf. Chomsky (1991)) the domain
of spec-head agreement has been extended to °functional categories other than
IP. See °Agreement.
Speech act
SEMANTICS: what a speaker does in uttering a sentence. According to
Austin (1962), when uttering a sentence, a speaker is involved in three different
speech acts: a locutionary act, an illocutionary act and a
perlocutionary act. The locutionary act is the act of uttering a sentence
with a certain meaning. The speaker also may intend to constitute a certain act of
praise, criticism, threat etc., which is called the illocutionary act (not to be
confused with °illocutionary force).
The perlocutionary act is the act of trying to bring about a certain change in the
addressee (e.g. making him/her believe something). The last type of act is
linguistically not relevant. Within a truth-conditional approach, only the
locutionary act is seen to be relevant with respect to the
°truth conditions.
LIT.
Austin (1962),
Lyons (1977),
Chierchia & McConnell-Ginet
(1990).
Speech time
SEMANTICS: the time of utterance of a sentence relative to which tenses
are interpreted. In Reichenbach's theory of tense the speech time is represented
by a time point S. The °reference time
and °event time are ordered with respect to S.
LIT.
Reichenbach (1947),
Gamut (1991).
Spell-out
SYNTAX: (minimalist theory) instruction to switch to PF. After Spell-out
no lexical material can be inserted.
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).
Split antecedent
SYNTAX: antecedent which consists of more than one NP.
EXAMPLE: in:
(i) Peter proposed to Mary [PRO to have dinner together]°PRO refers to both Peter and Mary. It is said that PRO has the two NPs Peter and Mary as a split antecedent.
Split-Morphology Hypothesis
MORPHOLOGY: hypothesis which entails that derivation and inflection are
distinct, and belong to separate components of the grammar. Derivation is handled
by lexical rules, while (regular) inflection is handled by syntactic rules. The
Split-Morphology Hypothesis has been endorsed by
Anderson (1977,
1982,
1988ab)
Scalise (1984,
1988), and
Perlmutter (1988).
S-selection
SYNTAX: the conditions which a °head
imposes on its immediate context through its
°argument structure, i.e. the
°theta-roles it assigns, is called
s(emantic)-selection.
EXAMPLE: the fact that the verb to persuade selects a subject
denoting an actor (or °agent), and two complements,
one denoting the person who is the action's target and one denoting a proposition
(cf. he persuaded me to go), is considered a matter of s-selection.
S-selection is distinguished from c(ategorial)-selection, the conditions imposed
in terms of categorical features (e.g. N,V). It is a point of debate whether and
to what extent c-selection can be derived from s-selection (e.g. by rules of
canonical structural realization). Next to s- and c-selection, some assume
m(orphological)-selection, which applies word-internally.
LIT.
Pesetsky (1982),
Chomsky (1986a),
Chomsky & Lasnik (1992),
Ouhalla (1990).
S-structure
SYNTAX: level of representation derived from
°d-structure by
°transformational rules, and
input to the rules deriving °PF and
°LF. S-structure is the
°T-model equivalent of
°surface structure in the
°Standard theory. S-structure is
putatively defined by conditions such as the
°subjacency condition.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981).
Stage
SEMANTICS: a model-theoretic entity, introduced in Carlson (1977),
which represents the manifestation of an object or kind in time and space (a
'spatiotemporal slice'). The subjects in (i)a refer to stages of the object John
and the kind dog, respectively, to which a transient, temporary predicate applies.
(i) a John was running
b dogs were running
A stage level interpretation is distinguished from an individual level
interpretation: in (ii) John and dogs refer to an object and
a kind rather than a spatiotemporal instance.
(ii) a John is intelligent
b dogs are smarter than cats
LIT.
Carlson (1977).
Standard theory (ST)
The theory of grammar proposed in
Chomsky (1965).
Stem
MORPHOLOGY: a term which is commonly used for the uninflected part of a
word.
EXAMPLE: if we take the plural form disagreements, the form
disagreement is called the stem. In languages such as Ancient Greek,
in which words belong to different declensional or conjugational classes (marked
by a theme or extension), the stem includes these extensions. For example, Ancient
Greek declension I nouns are formed by adding the vowel a to the root
géphur+a- 'bridge', while declension II nouns are formed by adding
the vowel o to the root hípp+o- 'horse'. The inflectional
endings for case and number are added to these forms. Traditionally, the forms
géphura- and hippo- are called stems, while
géphur- and hipp- are called
°roots.
Stranding
°Preposition stranding.
Stray adjunction
PHONOLOGY: a universal convention by which
°extrametrical units are incorporated
into the representation of stress. By convention the extrametrical unit is weak.
EXAMPLE: in English the final syllable of a noun is extrametrical. After
foot construction and word tree construction, the extrametrical syllable is
incorporated into the adjacent foot as a weak member by stray adjunction.
/\
s \
/\ /\ |
| s | s |
| /\ | /\ |
w s w w s w w
| | | | | |
ameri<ca> -> america
LIT.
Liberman & Prince (1977),
Hayes (1981)).
Strength
SEMANTICS: a property of °determiners
and °generalized quantifiers in
°Generalized Quantifier
Theory. An NP is positive strong if and only if its denotation (a set
of sets) always contains the denotation of the CN (common noun). An NP is negative
strong if and only if its denotation never contains the denotation of the CN. An NP
which is neither positive nor negative strong is called weak. Sentences of the form
in (i) provide a test for strength of a determiner D:
(i) [S [NP DET CN] is a CN/are CN's]If the sentence is true in every model, D is positive strong (Every dog is a dog); if it is false in every model, D is negative strong (Neither dog is a dog); and if it is true depending on the domain, D is weak (At least two dogs are dogs is only true if there are at least two dogs in the domain E). The distinction between strong and weak determiners can be used to account for the contrast in (ii)-(iv) (due to the °definiteness restriction).
(ii) *There is every dog in the garden. (iii) *There is neither dog in the garden. (iv) There are at least two dogs in the garden.Also °weak and °strong noun phrases.
Stress lowering convention
°Stress subordination
principle.
Stress neutral affix
PHONOLOGY/MORPHOLOGY: a term which refers to one of the most
characteristic properties of °Class II
affixes: the property of not having any effect on the stress pattern of the base.
EXAMPLE: if we add the affix -ness to the word
prodúctive, the stress is unaffected (prodúctiveness).
Stress neutral affixes are distinguished from
°stress shifting affixes.
LIT.
Chomsky & Halle (1968),
Siegel (1974).
Stress shifting affixes
PHONOLOGY/MORPHOLOGY: a term which refers to one of the most
characteristic properties of °Class I
affixes: the property of having effect on the stress pattern of the base.
EXAMPLE: if we add the affix -ity to the word
prodúctive, the suffix attracts stress to the syllable immediately
preceding it (productívity). Stress shift to the last
syllable of the base is a prone characteristic of this type of affixes. Stress
shifting affixes are distinguished from
°stress neutral affixes.
LIT.
Chomsky & Halle (1968),
Siegel (1974).
Stress subordination principle
PHONOLOGY: a universal convention proposed by
Chomsky & Halle (1968)
in the linear analysis of stress assignment. In this analysis stress assignment
rules assign the °feature [1stress] to vowels.
The operation of subsequent stress rules is subject to stress lowering in the
following way (Chomsky & Halle (1968:17)):
When primary stress is placed in a certain position then all other stresses in the string under consideration at that point are automatically weakened by one.EXAMPLE: Consider the assignment of stress in the °compound black-board. The main stress rule applies in a °cyclic fashion, reassigning [1stress]; the previously assigned [1stress] is weakened to [2stress] by stress lowering:
1 1 1 2 black + board --> black board
Strict Cyclicity
PHONOLOGY: A rule may apply to a string x just in case either of the
following holds:
a. The rule makes crucial reference to information in the
representation that spans the boundary between the current
cycle and the preceding one.
b. The rule applies solely within the domain of the previous cycle but
crucially refers to information supplied by a rule operating on the
current cycle. (formulation of Kenstowics (1994))
From this condition on the application of cyclic rules important theoretical
consequences have been drawn. It follows form this condition that cyclic rules
can not operate on underived lexical items.
EXAMPLE: in English the rule Trisyllabic shortening shortens the
underlying vowel of sane [e] to [æ] in the derived word
san-ity. This rule does not apply in the underived item nightingale.
Strict subcategorization
SYNTAX: °subcategorization
of heads (in particular V) in terms of the phrasal categories (NP, PP, etc.) which
they select as a complement. Sometimes strict subcategorization is equated with
°c-selection.
LIT.
Chomsky (1965,
1986a).
Strident
PHONOLOGY: a °feature which
characterizes sounds that are produced with a complex constriction forcing
the air stream to strike two surfaces, producing high-intensity fricative noise.
Only fricatives and affricates are [+strident].
LIT.
Halle & Clements (1983).
Strong crossover
SYNTAX: one kind of °crossover.
Occurs in configurations in which a wh-element or quantificational NP
undergoes A-bar movement across a pronominal which c-commands the extraction site,
as in (i):
(i) *Whoi did hei see tiWho is moved across he in (i). The fact that he cannot be °coindexed with ti (which would yield the reading: which x, x saw x), is referred to as 'strong crossover', because on the intended reading the structure is strongly ungrammatical. Since the wh-trace, being a °variable, must be °A-free, binding by he would constitute a °Condition C violation. To be distinguished from °weak crossover.
Strong feature
SYNTAX: (minimalist theory) feature which must be checked in overt syntax.
LIT.
Chomsky (1992).
Strong Lexicalist Hypothesis
°Lexicalist Hypothesis.
Strong noun phrase
SEMANTICS: a noun phrase that is excluded (by the
°definiteness restriction)
as the subject of a °there-insertion
sentence. The term was introduced by Milsark (1977) to cover both ordinary definite
noun phrases like the boy, but also proper names, pronouns, and quantified
noun phrases like every boy and most boys. Milsark (1977)
characterizes strong noun phrases as noun phrases that can not be existentially
quantified by there, either because they are proper names or pronouns or
because they are already quantified (by the, those, every etc.).
LIT.
Milsark (1977).
Strong verb
MORPHOLOGY: a term which is used for the class of verbs where inflection
is expressed by stem allomorphy or °ablaut, that
is, by a change of the stem vowel, a change of the stem consonants, or both.
EXAMPLE: English: sing:sang:sung, dwell:dwelt:dwelt, and
bring:brought:brought, Dutch: loop:liep:gelopen, zit:zat:gezeten.
Structural ambiguity
SEMANTICS: °ambiguity that arises
from the fact that two or more different syntactic structures can be assigned to
one string of words. The expression old men and women is structurally
ambiguous because it has the following two structural analyses:
(i) old [men and women] (ii) [old men] and womenAmbiguous expressions that are not structurally ambiguous are °lexically ambiguous.
Structural case
SYNTAX: °case which is assigned in a
certain structural configuration, depending on government (and adjacency) only
(as opposed to °inherent case).
EXAMPLE: it has been proposed that a verb assigns structural Accusative
case to its NP complement, and that Nominative case is assigned by the finite
inflection (°INFL) to the canonical subject
position [NP,IP]. More recently, structural case is identified with case assignment
to the specifier in a specific kind of AGRP.
LIT.
Chomsky (1986a,
1991).
Structure-building rule
PHONOLOGY/MORPHOLOGY: a rule which does not change already specified
information. This rule just fills in information which is unspecified.
EXAMPLE: the feature [voice] is distinctive within the class of obstruents,
but non-distinctive in the class of sonorants. The latter fact can be expressed by
leaving [voice] unspecified for this class of sounds. In the course of a derivation
[voice] can be filled in by a structure-building rule. A property of
structure-building rules is that the input and output are non-distinct.
LIT.
Kiparsky (1982),
Archangeli (1984).
Structure-changing rule
PHONOLOGY/MORPHOLOGY: a rule which changes already specified information,
and renders the output form distinct from the input.
EXAMPLE: the feature [voice] is distinctive within the class of obstruents,
but non-distinctive in the class of sonorants. If there is a rule which devoices
obstruents in a particular environment, say word final, this rule will be
structure-changing if it changes [-son, +voice] into [-son, -voice].
LIT.
Kiparsky (1982),
Archangeli (1984).
Structure preservation
MORPHOLOGY/PHONOLOGY: a property of (lexical) rules which entails that
they cannot introduce segments which are not otherwise motivated as underlying
phonological segments of the language.
EXAMPLE: the underlying sound inventory of Dutch does not contain voiceless
sonorants, but it does contain voiced and voiceless obstruents. Furthermore, Dutch
has a rule of final devoicing, but characteristically this rule does not effect
sonorants. Hence, the rule of final devoicing is structure preserving.
LIT.
Aronoff (1976),
Kiparsky (1982,
1985).
SYNTAX: a rule or rule system is structure preserving if its output is
independently available as an underlying (underived) structure. The hypothesis
that natural language grammars are structure preserving has first been elaborated
in Emonds (1970), and is taken for
granted in much ongoing work.
Structure-preserving Constraint
SYNTAX: principle which states that a moved constituent may only be
substituted for a category of the same type.
EXAMPLE: this principle prevents an NP from being moved to a °V-position.
LIT.
Emonds (1976),
Radford (1981).
Subcategorization
SYNTAX/MORPHOLOGY: a concept by which differences in syntactic valency
between words is expressed.
EXAMPLE: a transitive verb has to be followed by a direct object NP
contrary to intransitive verbs. We can say that transitive verbs form a subcategory
of the category of verbs, by virtue of the fact that they must be followed by an NP
complement. It is the obligatory presence of the object which gives rise to the
subcategory of transitive verbs. The object subcategorizes the verb, or the verb
is subcategorized by the object.
LIT.
Chomsky (1965),
Van Riemsdijk & Williams
(1987),
Spencer (1991).
Subcategorization frame
SYNTAX/MORPHOLOGY: a formalization of the notion of
°subcategorization.
EXAMPLE: (i) gives the
(°strict) subcategorization
frame of the verb hit. It says that the pseudo-transitive verb hit
optionally (indicated by the parentheses) selects an NP-complement (a sister-node,
as indicated by the square brackets) to its right (indicated by the order '__ NP'
rather than 'NP __').
(i) hit: [ __ (NP)]Also see °s-selection.
Subcategorization insertion
°Lexical transformation.
Subject
SYNTAX: The subject of a sentence is the category that occupies the
specifier position of IP ([Spec, IP]), or some other designated phrase and which
in finite clauses °agrees with the finite verb.
Furthermore, if a verb assigns an agent-role and it is not a passive verb, the
agent-role is associated with the subject. Also, if nominative case is assigned,
it is assigned to the subject. Stowell (1983) has proposed that all lexical phrase
may contain a subject, presumably in the specifier position (e.g. John in
John's attempt).
LIT.
Chomsky (1970,
1981),
Stowell (1983).
SUBJECT
SYNTAX: the subject of an infinitive, an NP or a small clause is a
SUBJECT, as well as INFL (AGR) of a finite clause. This notion of SUBJECT is
invoked to entail that AGR of a finite clause creates a
°governing category, and that NP
is a governing category only if it has a subject (e.g. John's story about
himself).
LIT.
Chomsky (1981).
Subject Condition
SYNTAX: one of the
°Conditions on Extraction
Domains, stating the impossibility of extraction from subjects.
EXAMPLE: this condition accounts for the ill-formedness of (i) and (ii),
where who and what are extracted from the subject of the complement
sentence.
(i) * I wonder who [IP [books of t] are on the table] (ii) * I wonder what [IP [reading t] would be boring]LIT. Huang (1982), Chomsky (1986b).
Subject control verb
SYNTAX: if the subject of a verb
°controls the reference of the
°PRO subject of its infinitival complement, the
verb is called a subject control verb.
EXAMPLE: promise in (i)a is a subject control verb (PRO must be
coreferential with John), but the verb order in (i)b and
force in (i)c are not (they are
°object control verbs).
(i) a Johni promised mej [PROi/*j to go away]
b Johni ordered mej [PRO*i/j to go away]
c Johni forced mej [PRO*i/j to go away]
Subject Raising
SYNTAX: movement of the subject of a sentential complement to the subject
position of the matrix clause.
EXAMPLE: in (i) John, the subject of to have won has
moved to the subject position of seems.
(i) Johni seems [ ti to have won ]Subject Raising is triggered by Subject Raising verbs (e.g. to seem), which have as a characteristic property that they do not assign an °external theta-role, and select a sentential complement with a case-less subject position. Subject Raising also occurs with passivized °ECM verbs, as in (ii).
(ii) Johni is considered [ ti to have won ]LIT. Chomsky (1981).
Subject Restriction
MORPHOLOGY: a constraint proposed in Selkirk (1982) which says that the
subject argument of a lexical item may not be satisfied in compound structure.
This constraint is meant to account for the observation that the subject (or
external argument) of a verb cannot function as the non-head in a
°synthetic compound.
EXAMPLE: next to the sentence the girl swims we do not find
the synthetic compound *girl-swimming.
LIT.
Roeper & Siegel (1978),
Selkirk (1982),
Spencer (1991).
Subjunctive
SYNTAX: mode of tense, different from indicative, used in embedded
clauses and indicating that the information expressed in the clause is non-factive.
EXAMPLE: the verb être in French has soit in (ii)
as a subjunctive form, distinct from the indicative form est in (i).
(i) Je sais qu'il est capable
I know that he isIND capable
(ii) Il faut qu'il soit capable
It must that he beSUBJ capable
'He should be capable'
Substitution
SYNTAX: the movement of a category alpha to an empty position beta such
that beta is replaced by alpha. It is one of two possible formats of movement
rules, the other being °adjunction. If
alpha and beta are non-distinct, substitution is a
°structure preserving operation.
Substitution salva veritate
SEMANTICS: the possibility of replacing an expression alpha by an
expression beta with the same reference in such a way that the resulting sentence
has the same truth-value.
EXAMPLE: given that Beatrix is the eldest daughter of Juliana sentence
(i)a is equivalent to (i)b in which the eldest daughter of Juliana has been
substituted for Beatrix. Hence the substitution is salva veritate.
(i) a Beatrix lives in The Hague
b The eldest daughter of Juliana lives in The Hague
Substitution salva veritate is not possible in
°opaque contexts.
Subtractive morphology
MORPHOLOGY: a term which refers to the situation where the semantically
more complex category is represented by a phonologically simpler form.
EXAMPLE: the genitive plural of feminine and neuter nouns in -a/-o
in Russian (kniga 'book', mesto 'place') are formed without any
(overt) affixation (knig, mest).
LIT.
Scalise (1984),
Spencer (1991).
Suffix
MORPHOLOGY: a °bound morpheme
(or °affix) which attaches at the righthand side of
a base.
EXAMPLE: the English morpheme -ness is a suffix, since it
attaches to the right of adjectives (productiveness).
Super raising
SYNTAX: construction in which a subject position is skipped in applying
°Subject Raising. The result is
ungrammatical.
EXAMPLE: next to (i), which is an ordinary case of subject raising,
(ii) is impossible, since the subject position taken by it is skipped in
moving Vitesse to the subject position of seems.
(i) Vitesse seems [t to win] (ii) *Vitesse seems [that it is certain [t to win]]LIT. Chomsky (1981, 1986b).
Superiority
SYNTAX: °node alpha is superior to node
beta iff alpha °c-commands beta, but beta does
not c-command alpha.
Superiority condition
SYNTAX: condition on the application of transformations, which states
that, if a transformation can in principle be applied to two constituents in the
structure, it has to be applied to the one that is
°superior. The formal definition (from
Chomsky (1973)) is as follows:
No rule can involve X,Y in the structure ...X...[...Z...-WYV...]... where the rule applies ambiguously to Z and Y and Z is superior to YEXAMPLE: given that °wh-movement can apply only once in deriving the °s-structure of a sentence, the superiority condition predicts that in structure (i) what cannot be moved: who is superior to what. The contrast in (ii) shows this prediction to be correct.
(i) S'
/ \
COMP S
/ \
NP VP
| / \
who V NP
| |
saw what
(ii) a (I wonder) who saw what
b *(I wonder) what who saw
LIT.
Chomsky (1973,
1986b,
1992),
Lasnik & Saito (1991).
Superlative
MORPHOLOGY: an inflectional form which is characteristic of adjectives,
and which opposes to the °positive and
°comparative. If we take the English morphs
long-longer-longest, the first one is the positive form, the second the
comparative and the third the superlative.
Suppletion
MORPHOLOGY: a phenomenon by which the addition of a semantic aspect or
grammatical function is expressed by a totally or partially different morpheme
which has little or no phonological connection with the base form.
EXAMPLE: the alternation between the English verb go and its past
tense form went is an example of total suppletion. The alternation
between France and French is an example of partial suppletion.
LIT.
Spencer (1991).
Surface structure
SYNTAX: syntactic structure derived from
°Deep structure by means of
°transformational rules. Also
°S-structure.
LIT.
Chomsky (1981).
Syllabic
PHONOLOGY: a °feature used in the
linear framework of
Chomsky & Halle (1968),
which characterizes sounds that
function as syllabic °nuclei; non-syllabic
sounds occur at syllable margins.
Syllabification
PHONOLOGY: the division of a word in
°syllables in conformity with universal and
language-specific requirements (e.g.
°Maximal Onset Principle,
°sonority hierarchy).
Syllable weight
PHONOLOGY: a property of °syllables,
referring to the quantity or internal structure of syllables. Syllables can be
divided into light and heavy depending on language-specific requirements (in some
languages also superheavy syllables are distinguished). Initial consonants of
syllables are irrelevant to quantity. Depending on language-specific requirements
there can be an opposition between short and long vowels: V and VC group together
as light as opposed to VV which is heavy. Another distinction commonly found is that
between a short vowel (light) and VV/VC (heavy). Superheavy are VVC and VCC in
languages that distinguish light/heavy/superheavy. Syllable weight plays a
determining role in the distribution of stresses in
°Quantity-Sensitive stress
systems. Heavy syllables generally attract stress regardless of their position in
the word. Light syllables are stressed only according to their position in the word.
There are at least two approaches to formalizing the concept of syllable weight.
In theories of syllabic constituency the heavy/light distinction can be characterized
as branching vs. non-branching °nucleus or
°rhyme. The other approach, moraic theory,
assumes °moras. The distinction light/heavy is
made on the basis of mora count. Segments are assigned one mora or two: light
syllables are monomoraic and heavy syllables are bimoraic. The two types of
representation can be illustrated, for example, in a language that makes a
distinction between V (light) and VC/VV (heavy):
Syllabic constituency Moraic theory light: heavy: light: heavy: rhyme rhyme m m m V V V V V V V C V CLIT. Hayes (1981), Hyman (1985), Prince (1983), Van der Hulst (1984), McCarthy & Prince (1986), Hayes (1989).
Syncope
PHONOLOGY: the °deletion of a segment
in a word.
EXAMPLE: in Dutch [a:k@l@g] -> [a:kl@g] 'nasty'.
Syncretism
MORPHOLOGY: the phenomenon by which a single (inflected) form corresponds
to more than one morphosyntactic description.
EXAMPLE: in Ancient Greek, the nominative and vocative of the feminine
singular/plural case forms are identical (e.g. khóoraa 'a land',
khôoraa 'O, land', khôoray 'lands',
khôoray 'O, lands'). The same is true for the nominative and
accusative of the neuter singular/plural case forms: dôoron
'house-nom./acc.sg.', dôora 'house-nom./acc.pl.'.
Synonymy
SEMANTICS: relation between two words or phrases with the same meaning,
like gift and donation.
Syntactic atom
MORPHOLOGY/SYNTAX: term introduced in
Di Sciullo & Williams
(1987)
to refer to the property of words that they are the indivisible building blocks of
syntax. Words are atomic with respect to syntax, since syntactic rules or principles
cannot make reference to their parts
(°lexical integrity).
Synthetic compound
MORPHOLOGY: a particular type of
°compound, viz. compounds whose head is derived
from a verb by affixation, and where the non-head fulfills the function of argument
or complement of the verb.
EXAMPLE: the English compounds truck driver, truck driving,
fast acting and pan fried are synthetic compounds. Synthetic compounds
have played a major role in the development of linguistic theory, since they raise a
number a questions concerning the morphology-syntax interface. Another term for
synthetic compound is verbal compound.
LIT.
Roeper & Siegel (1978),
Selkirk (1982),
Lieber (1983),
Fabb (1984),
Sproat (1985),
Roeper (1987,
1988),
Spencer (1991).
Synthetic truth
°Analytic truth.