LING 720 Intro to Syntax
Notes from 10-1-14, by Tyler Evans and Jamie Wurdinger

Larson breaks down concepts easily
o Focuses mainly on the fundamentals

The arrow notation (p. 42) are rules
o You could use trees as well
o SNV is same as tree structure
 Both encode Dominance, Labelling, and Precedence
o [SNV] is also fine, states the same thing
o S={N,V} not as useful, doesn’t show order
 Like vowel = {a, e, i, o, u}
 3 = {1, 2} 1> 2 (1 precedes 2) 1=N, 2=V, 3=S

Even language’s with free word order have ‘default constructions’ or have focus in certain
constructions

People can understand rule systems and not know rules they’re following
o E.g. experiment mentioned in class
 Covert rules based system used to predict where cursor would appear next on a
screen (divided into 4 quadrants)
 Subjects were wildly successful with recognizing the pattern, but couldn’t write
out/describe exactly what the pattern was
o Student Question: apes, sea lions, dolphins can acquire sounds, signs, etc.
 …but this is not syntax. They merely have signs they jumble together
 E.g. ape who knew word for ‘you’, ‘give’, ‘me’, ‘orange’ randomly signed
them until it was given the orange
o Native speakers know about rules, but not what they are

Slightly different varieties of language have different judgments about constructions
(pronunciation, lexical choice, syntax)
o Sometimes, however, things are consistent across all varieties (e.g. SVO order)
o Double modals in areas around SC are one example
o There are subconscious choices based on various situations that we make (e.g. choosing
to say whom instead of who to sound more intelligent)

Native-like judgments (i.e. acceptability tests) are exclusive to L1 speakers
o Pg. 55-58. Native speakers might say on what grounds they object (e.g. register  who
vs. whom)
o Register and choice of who (NOM) and whom (ACC)

Called hypercorrections (trying to sound more/less intelligent in a situation)

Pg. 45. Family of derivations (steps generating sentences)

Pg. 48-49. Two distinct generalizations
o Each of two structures make different assertions
 One on 48 says ‘chased Bart’ is a unit constituent
 49 says it is not a constituent of ‘chased Bart’, i.e. they do not form a
constituent
o We would need more data to figure out which is correct (because both can generate the
structure with the data given)

We would then formulate rules to predict certain instances of structures. We continue
extending our grammar to fit new structures (e.g. the it morpheme Dr. Dubinsky’s son always
attached to transitive verbs  ‘have it the ball’)

HW is Pg. 73-75, exercises 1, 3, 5, and 7 (or the second 5 if you have a particular version )