Syntax

(Yule, Ch. 8)

The word “syntax” is a Greek word that means “putting together” or “arrangement”.

Syntax is the study of the structure and ordering of components within a sentence.

In order to study the rules of syntax in a language, we can make reference to Chomsky’s term “ generative grammar”.
The rules that govern the arrangement of words in a phrase and in a sentence are finite (i.e. limited). If we know these
rules, and we can apply them, we will create an infinite (i.e. unlimited) number of well-formed structures and fail to
generate or produce ill-formed sentence structures.
This is why Chomsky defines grammar as being generative. The meaning of the term generative includes the notion of
“productivity” (the capacity to produce an infinite number of grammatical phrases and sentences using only finite
means [e.g., a finite number of principles and parameters and a finite vocabulary].
For example, if we know the frame
There is + noun phrase + prepositional phrase  we can generate an infinite number of well-formed structures: There
is a book on the table.
There is an apple in the fridge.
There is an elephant in the jungle.
 and fail to generate ill-formed structures: There
is on the desk a pencil.
A pencil there is on the desk.
Another feature of language (along with productivity) described by Chomsky is that of recursion. Recursion is the
repeated sequential use of a particular type of linguistic element or grammatical structure. Recursion has also been
described more simply as the ability to place one component inside another component of the same kind. A linguistic
element or grammatical structure that can be used repeatedly in a sequence is said to be recursive. e.g. (at phrase level
[prepositional phrase])
The book is in the briefcase. The briefcase is on the table. The table is next to the window.
With recursion:
The book is in the briefcase on the table next to the window. e.g.
(at sentence level [clause])
The dog chased the cat. The cat ate the bird. The bird caught the worm.
With recursion:
The dog chased the cat that ate the bird that caught the worm.

Noam Chomsky (born December 7, 1928) is an American philosopher, linguist, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and
political activist. He is sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics". Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic
philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky)

His theory of language, which he called transformational generative grammar (TGG), entails a system of linguistic
analysis consisting of a set of rules that generate basic syntactic structures.

He described language by using tree diagrams. These diagrams (as well as the Constituent analysis / Immediate
constituent analysis and the Labeled and bracketed analysis) also show hierarchical organization of the constituents of a
sentence.
Two key terms of his theory are surface structure and deep structure.
The former (surface structure) refers to the specific syntactic form of a structure along with the phonemes used to
produce a certain stretch of language. Surface structure refers to the words / language we use to represent the deep
structure. The deep structure refers to concepts, thoughts, ideas & feelings that lie in our mind and are manifested
linguistically though the surface structure. In transformational grammar, surface structure is the formal structure of a
sentence as it actually occurs in speech.
On the other hand, the deep structure represents the underlying relations of meaning among the constituents of a
sentence.
Deep structure is what you wish to express and surface structure how you express it in with the help of words and
sentence.

For example:
The boy broke the window.
The window was broken by the boy.
These two sentences have different surface structure: they are syntactically different [the arrangement of the elements
is different]; and if we listen to it, we can notice that the sequence of phonemes is different.
Yet, they have the same deep structure: we can clearly understand that the doer of the action is the boy, and the thing
affected by the action is the window.
In traditional grammar, the first is called an active sentence, focusing on what the boy did, and the second is a passive
sentence, focusing on the window and what happened to it.
The distinction between them is a difference in their surface structure, that is, the different syntactic forms they have as
individual English sentences.
Moreover, this deep structure (the boy being the doer of the action, the window being the thing affected by the action,
and the action being breaking) can have other surface structures different from the ones above (in purple). It was the
boy who broke the window.
It was the window what the boy broke.

If we carry out a tree diagram analysis, these sentences will result in different “trees”.

or

However, at the “underlying” level of meaning, they have the same deep structure.

Then we can conclude that by transforming (changing) the arrangement of the branches of a tree, we can generate a
sentence with a different surface structure (syntax), but with the same deep structure (semantics).

That is why in language teaching, paraphrasing exercises are also called transformational exercises (we transform the
surface structure, but we keep the same deep structure).
Conversely, two sentences can have the same surface structure but different deep structure. The sentences below have
the same surface structure (the tree diagrams are the same), but different deep structure.
John is eager to please.
John is easy to please.

In the first sentence (John is eager to please) John is the doer of the action (he wants to please someone).
In the second sentence (John is easy to please) John is the receiver of the action of pleasing (someone pleases John).

Structural ambiguity
The following sentence is an example of a sentence that can generate two deep structures.
The man hit the woman with a stick. (only one surface structure) Deep structure one:

Meaning: the man was carrying a stick (the instrument), which he used to hit the woman.

Deep structure two:

Meaning: the woman was carrying a stick, and the man hit her. (probably in self-defence)
 I will not ask you to analyse sentences using tree diagrams, in this lesson tree diagrams are a support to
visualise the hierarchical organization of the constituents in a sentence, and to illustrate the difference between the
concepts: surface structure and deep structure.

Analyse the following sentence put forward by Chomsky as an example of a sentence with one surface structure, but
two deep structures.

Flying planes can be dangerous. (one surface structure)

Deep structure one: Flying is a gerund. The action of flying planes is dangerous.
This sentence may be uttered by a grandmother to a grandson who wants to take lessons to be a pilot. (Volar [pilotear]
aviones es peligroso)

In this case, if we carry out a syntactic analysis, we will find in the subject the same constituents that normally appear in
the predicate (because the head of the predicate is a gerund). The gerund has a nominal function, but it is still a verb.
(see at the end further examples in English and in Spanish)

Deep structure two: Flying is a present participle. It modifies the head of the subject (the noun planes). So the meaning
is planes that are flying / that can fly are dangerous.
This sentence may be uttered by a shop assistant in a toy shop to a customer who wants to buy a plane with a remote
control to a two year-old; or by an adult to a child who is running around in an exhibition of model planes that are being
piloted by a remote control. (Los aviones que vuelan son peligrosos.)

This ambiguity results from the fact that in English the verbs ending in —ing have two functions: gerund (with a nominal
function) and present participle (with an adjectival function and used in the progressive aspect).

Moreover, this ambiguity is due to the fact that in English modal verbs have no mark for person. If the verb had been the
verb to be in the present, the sentence wouldn’t be ambiguous, as the form of the verb helps us to single out the head
of the subject.

Deep structure one: Flying planes is dangerous. (the head of the subject is flying)
Deep structure two: Flying planes are dangerous. (the head of the subject is planes)

Other examples of ambiguity (in English and in Spanish)

The shooting of the hunters horrified the villagers.

La matanza de los cazadores atemorizó a los lugareños.

Subjects whose head is a verb

In these sentences, we find the usual constituents of a predicate in the subject because the head of the subject is a verb.
In English we use a gerund with a nominal function; in Spanish the verb form that has a nominal function is the infinitive.