Review: Minimalist Syntax Exploring the Structure of English ANDREW RADFORD Chapter 2 (pp. 33-65)
Introduction:
Radford's Chapter 2 goes into the intricacies of word classification in English grammar, delving into semantic, morphological, and syntactic criteria in determining grammatical qualities.
Radford's Chapter 2:
2 Words
2.1 Overview
2.2 Grammatical categories
2.3 Categorising words
2.4 Functional categories
2.5 Determiners and quantifiers
2.6 Pronouns
2.7 Auxiliaries
2.8 Infinitival to
2.9 Complementisers
2.10 Labelled bracketing
2.11 Grammatical features
2.12 Summary
'Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English' by Andrew Radford, Chapter 2: Navigating Linguistic Complexity
In Andrew Radford's careful investigation of "Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English," Chapter 2 comprehensively navigates through the intricate environment of linguistic features. This enlightening chapter covers a wide range of subjects about words and their grammatical classification. It examines the overview of words and their properties (2.1), as well as the finer intricacies of grammatical categories (2.2). Radford delves into the challenges and methodologies of categorizing words (2.3), as well as the specific character of functional categories (2.4) and the roles of determiners and quantifiers (2.5). The chapter then delves into the various facetss of pronouns (2.6), auxiliaries (2.7), infinitival 'to' (2.8), and complementisers (2.9), each adding a layer to the complicated tapestry of language. Radford also explains the importance of labelled bracketing (2.10) and the integration of grammatical features (2.11) in analyzing linguistic structures. Finally, this extensive voyage concludes with a summary reflection (2.12), providing a unified perspective of the numerous themes discussed. Radford assures the reader's active participation by including workbook sections that provide assignments that reinforce and expand on the significant concepts presented throughout the chapter.
Reference:
Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English.
2.1 Overview:
Grammatical Properties of Words
Examines categorial properties of words.
Introduces unfamiliar categories from traditional grammar.
Emphasizes the insufficiency of categorial information alone.
Concludes that word properties are characterized by sets of grammatical features.
2.2 Grammatical Categories:
Semantic Criteria (Traditional Grammar)
Verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions categorized by simplified semantic properties.
Highlights exceptions (e.g., nouns like "assassination" denoting actions but categorized as nouns).
Morphological Criteria
Inflectional (plural forms for nouns, inflections for verbs).
Derivational (addition of affixes to form different word types).
Complications in Categorization
Irregular nouns, countable vs. uncountable nouns, singular forms, and plural forms.
Noun expressions with more than one noun, modifiers, and head nouns.
Syntactic Evidence
Differentiating word categories based on sentence positions.
Nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and prepositions exemplified in sentence structures.
Examples:
Semantic Criteria Exceptions
"Assassination" (noun denoting action), "illness" (noun denoting state), "fast" (adjective denoting manner).
Morphological Criteria
Nouns: Plural forms like "dogs" from "dog."
Verbs: Different inflected forms (e.g., "shows," "showed," "showing").
Syntactic Evidence
Sentence position-based categorization (e.g., nouns in terminating sentence positions).
Key Insights:
Categories determined by semantics, morphology, and syntax.
Complications arise due to irregularities, countability, and syntactic positions.
Derivational affixes have specific category limitations.
It examines word classification through semantic, morphological, and syntactic lenses, highlighting exceptions and complications in categorizing words in English grammar.
2.3 Categorizing Words
Morphological Cues
Adjective Identification:
Morphological properties aid categorization (e.g., "happy" with derivational markers like "un-", "-er/-est", "-ly", "-ness").
Exceptions & Irregularities:
Some words challenge typical morphological patterns (e.g., "fat" lacks "un-" counterpart or "-ly" adverb form).
Multiple Morphemic Uses:
Inflections like "-n/-d" and "-ing" have verb-related uses but can function as adjectives, blurring distinctions.
Syntactic Criteria
Substitution Technique:
Morphological ambiguity addressed by syntactic tests (e.g., replacing words to determine adjectives or adverbs).
Example Differentiation:
Distinguishing between comparative adjectives and adverbs (-er forms) through substitution in sentences.
2.4 Functional Categories
Contentives vs. Functors
Contentive Words:
Nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions—content-bearing categories.
Functors:
Determiners, pronouns, particles, auxiliaries, complementisers—serve grammatical functions without inherent descriptive content.
Descriptive Test:
Antonyms reveal contentive nature (e.g., "loss" vs. "gain" for nouns).
2.5 Determiners and Quantifiers
Determiners (D) and Quantifiers (Q)
Determiners:
Determine reference properties of nouns (e.g., "the," "this," "that").
Quantifiers:
Quantify noun expressions (e.g., "most," "many," "every," "each").
Syntactic Distinctions:
Different distribution from adjectives, limited stacking in front of nouns.
Countability Correlation:
Primarily modify specific-number nouns, distinct from adjectives' flexibility.
Functional vs. Lexical Categories
Descriptive Content:
Adjectives possess descriptive content, while determiners/quantifiers lack specificity.
Semantic Restrictions: Adjectives' restricted compatibility compared to broader usage of determiners/quantifiers.
Category Dispute:
There is some disagreement—some consider quantifiers to be a subset of determiners, while differences in usage imply separate categories.
It delves into the difficulties of categorizing words based on morphological and syntactic clues, emphasizing discrepancies between contentive and functor categories as well as the specific qualities of determiners and quantifiers in the English language.
2.6 Pronouns
2.6: Pronoun
Definition:
A functional category representing words that replace nouns or noun phrases.
Examples from the text:
"He," "She," "They," "I," "You," "We," "It," etc.
Pronoun Types
N-Pronouns (Pronominal Nouns):
Illustrated by "one" referring back to a noun expression (e.g., "John has a red car, and Jim has a blue one"). It lacks inherent descriptive content but derives meaning from its antecedent.
Q-Pronouns (Pronominal Quantifiers):
Evident in sentences like "All guests are welcome" where the bold-printed pronouns serve as pronominal quantifiers, modifying or standing alone without a noun expression.
D-Pronouns (Pronominal Determiners):
Demonstrated by words like "this" used as prenominal determiners but also able to stand independently without a following noun expression.
Personal Pronouns:
Encode grammatical properties (person, number, gender, case) but lack descriptive content. First, second, and third person pronouns exhibit distinct forms and functions (e.g., "I" vs. "he").
Syntactic Categorization
Personal Pronoun Analysis:
Considered D-pronouns based on their usage as prenominal determiners or pronominally. However, some challenges arise; personal pronouns like "they" don't align with all characteristics of D-pronouns (e.g., not premodifiable by universal quantifiers like "all").
Pronominal Syntax Clarification:
Despite the prevalent classification as D-pronouns, uncertainties persist in defining the exact status of personal pronouns within this category.
Pronoun Categorization
Ambiguity in Pronoun Categorization:
The term "pronoun" encompasses diverse types (N-pronouns, Q-pronouns, D-pronouns), suggesting a lack of uniformity within this category.
Alternative Term Preference:
Some linguists suggest the use of "proform" to emphasize the diversity of pronouns (for example, describing "one" pronominally as an N-proform or pro-N).
The study investigates distinct sorts of pronouns—N-pronouns, Q-pronouns, D-pronouns, and personal pronouns—each with its own function and grammatical qualities. While personal pronouns are frequently examined as D-pronouns, numerous differences call this framework's comprehensive categorization into question. The label "pronoun" persists in grammatical language, although its usage encompasses a variety of unique pronoun kinds, complicating categorization.
2.7: Auxiliaries
Definition:
Special class of verbs distinct from main verbs, marking grammatical properties like tense, aspect, voice, or mood.
Examples from the text:
"He has gone," "She is staying," "They were taken away," "He did say," "You can help," "They might come back," "I should return," etc.
Properties distinguishing them from main verbs:
Allow only a verb expression as their complement.
Undergo inversion in questions.
Directly negated by "not/n’t."
2.8: Infinitival to
Definition:
A functor allowing only verbal complements in the infinitive form.
Examples from the text:
"I wonder whether to go home," "Many people want the government to change course," "We don’t intend to surrender," etc.
Distinguishing features:
Behavior differs from prepositional "to."
Cannot be intensified by "right/straight."
Takes only verbal complement in the infinitive form.
Permits ellipsis of its complement.
2.9: Complementisers
Definition:
Words introducing complement clauses, indicating embeddedness, finiteness, and clause force.
Examples from the text:
"I think that you may be right," "I doubt if you can help me," "I’m anxious for you to receive the best treatment possible," etc.
Functional properties:
Mark embeddedness and finiteness.
Indicate clause force (interrogative, declarative, irrealis).
Differ from similar words like prepositions or determiners.
2.10 Labelled Bracketing
Introduction to Labelled Bracketing:
Purpose:
Analyzing grammatical structure through word categorization.
Conventional System:
Bracketing words with subscript category labels (e.g., N for noun, V for verb).
Abbreviations Used:
N (noun), V (verb), A (adjective), ADV (adverb), P (preposition), D/DET (determiner), Q (quantifier), T (Tense-marker), C/COMP (complementiser), PRN (pronoun).
Example: Sentence Analysis:
Sentence:
"Any experienced journalist knows that he can sometimes manage to lure the unsuspecting politician into making unguarded comments."
Labelled Bracketing Representation:
[Q Any] [A experienced] [N journalist] [V knows] [C that] [PRN he] [T can] [ADV sometimes] [V manage] [T to] [V lure] [D the] [A unsuspecting] [N politician] [P into] [V making] [A unguarded] [N comments]
Highlights how words function within the sentence structure.
Limitation of Labels:
Category labels define word roles within a specific sentence, not universally.
Example:
"The president never comments on hypothetical situations."
Analysis:
[D The] [N president] [ADV never] [V comments] [P on] [A hypothetical] [N situations]
Shows how 'comments' functions as a verb in this context, unlike its noun role in a different sentence structure.
Purpose of Labelled Bracketing:
Indicates a word's grammatical category in a specific position, allowing for varied categorial statuses across different structures.
2.11 Grammatical Features
Categorization Insufficiency:
Merely assigning a category label doesn’t encompass a word’s complete grammatical properties.
Example:
Categorizing 'he' as a pronoun (e.g., [PRN he]) lacks detailed information about its person, number, gender, and case properties compared to other pronouns like I/us/you/her/it/them.
Incorporating Grammatical Features:
Grammatical Features: Descriptions like [3-Pers, Sg-Num, Masc-Gen, Nom-Case] provide detailed attributes and values for a word.
Necessary for a finer level of detail beyond categorical descriptions.
Selectional Properties and Features:
Importance of specifying word selectional properties for complements.
Different verbs demand distinct types of complements (e.g., to-expression).
Example: "He might — to Paris" requires a verb like 'go/fly,' not 'find/stay,' with specific verb forms for each structure.
Chomsky's Feature-Based Description:
Proposed that all word grammatical properties can be depicted using grammatical features.
Introduced categorial features ([±V], [±N]) to define verbs, adjectives, nouns, and prepositions.
Cross-Categorial Properties:
Some properties extend across multiple categories, like the ability to take certain prefixes or inflect for case.
Analysis based on categorial features explains shared properties among different categories.
Functional Categories and Feature Analysis:
Suggested a functionality feature [±F] to differentiate between functional and substantive categories.
Functional categories [+F], Substantive categories [−F].
Speculative proposal for further analysis.
Grammatical characteristics can define all word grammatical aspects, including categorial, yet traditional labels are still employed in most circumstances for simplicity.
This summary covers the two sections, emphasizing the importance of labelled bracketing in comprehending grammatical structure as well as the need to incorporate grammatical aspects for a more complete description of word attributes. It also emphasizes Chomsky's feature-based approach and its potential for broad application.
Chapter 2.12 Summary
Categories in Grammatical Characterization:
Categorization Criteria:
Semantic, morphological, and syntactic criteria.
Reliability:
Morphological and syntactic criteria are more dependable.
Determining Categorial Status:
Utilizing morphological and syntactic properties, employing substitution as a test for complex cases.
Substantive/Lexical vs. Functional Categories:
Differentiation:
Substantive categories possess substantive lexical content, while functional categories serve to indicate grammatical properties.
Functional Categories in English:
Examined determiners, quantifiers, pronouns, auxiliaries, infinitival 'to,' and complementisers.
Properties and Distinctions:
Determiners and quantifiers precede adjectives, impose restrictions, whereas pronouns exhibit distinct types: N-pronouns, Q-pronouns, and D-pronouns.
Functional Verbal Counterparts:
Auxiliaries function differently from lexical verbs, encoding grammatical properties like tense, mood, and voice.
Infinitival 'to' Distinction: Distinguished from the preposition 'to,' shares similarities with finite auxiliaries.
Complementisers:
Mark the force of a complement clause, differ from interrogative adverbs in usage.
Labelled Bracketing and Grammatical Features:
Labelled Bracketing Utility:
Categorizes words within specific phrases and sentences, indicating their grammatical category.
Limitation of Categorial Labels:
Provides a description for a word’s grammatical properties but lacks depth; further details require grammatical features.
Chomsky's Assertion:
Categorial properties of words can be described using a set of grammatical features, offering comprehensive characterization.
Workbook Section: Exercise 2.1
Analyzing Grammatical and Categorial Properties in Highlighted Words:
Presented examples and arguments supporting the analysis of highlighted words in various sentences.
Problem Cases:
Addressed the challenge of words allowing different types of complements (prepositional phrase vs. for-infinitive clause) in distinct uses.
Preposition vs. Complementiser Dilemma:
Explored instances where a word behaves as both a preposition and a complementiser, citing examples and explaining structural ambiguities.
Workbook Section: Exercise 2.2
Labelled Bracketing Technique Application:
Assigned grammatical categories to each word in provided sentences based on its use within the sentence.
Reasoning and Analytical Problems:
Highlighted classification reasons, indicated any analytical concerns, and remarked on interesting word features within the phrases.
Summary:
Radford discusses the difficulties of categorizing words, emphasizing the inadequacy of semantic criteria alone. He introduces morphological criteria, emphasizing inflectional and derivational features, and emphasizes irregularities and countability as problems. Syntactic evidence is investigated, revealing how word categories differ depending on sentence position.
Analysis:
The chapter adroitly depicts the complexity of word categorization. While semantic criteria build the groundwork, morphological cues and syntactic positioning become more dependable predictors. Radford eloquently illustrates how words like "assassination" challenge standard noun categorization due to their action-denoting nature.
Critique:
While Radford clearly demonstrates the limitations of traditional classification approaches, a more in-depth examination of the interplay of these factors may improve the reader's understanding. Furthermore, more explicit links between academic concepts and practical linguistic application may provide greater clarity.
Conclusion:
Radford's Chapter 2 delves deeply into word categorization, offering light on the complexities inherent in semantic, morphological, and syntactic criteria. Despite its intricacies, the chapter provides a solid basis for comprehending the difficulties and ambiguities of English grammar.
Source (Text):
Review: Minimalist Syntax Exploring the Structure of English ANDREW RADFORD Chapter 2 (pp. 33-65)
Reference:
Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English.
Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521-54274-X
