S Y N TA X

BS English
National University of
Modern Languages,
Islamabad
By
D r. A r s h a d M a h m o o d
November 2024
Traditional Grammar vs. Modern
Linguistics
The distinction between Traditional
Grammar and Modern Linguistics lies in
their approaches to studying language, the
methods they employ, and their goals. Here's
an overview of both:
Traditional Grammar
 Definition: Traditional grammar refers to the set
of rules and structures that have been used
historically to describe the language of specific
societies. It focuses on the norms and
conventions of language, often with an emphasis
on usage and prescriptivism (how language
should be used).
 Focus: The rules governing sentence structure,
word order, syntax, and morphology as they were
taught in schools and formal settings, often in
terms of Latin grammar or other classical
 Key Features:
oPrescriptive Approach: Traditional grammar often
emphasizes "correct" usage. There are rules about what is
considered proper or improper language use, and deviations
from these rules are typically seen as errors.
oFocus on Forms: Traditional grammar tends to describe
language in terms of fixed forms, such as noun declensions,
verb conjugations, and sentence types.
oPart-of-Speech Classification: Words are categorized into
parts of speech (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc.) based
on their function in a sentence.
oSyntax: There is an emphasis on sentence structure (e.g.,
subject-verb-object order) and the correct placement of
Modern Linguistics
 Definition: Modern linguistics is a more scientific
approach to understanding language that emerged
in the 19th and 20th centuries. It involves studying
language as a system of signs, focusing on how
language is structured, how it evolves, and how it
functions in society.
 Focus: Modern linguistics looks at language as a
dynamic, evolving phenomenon, often from a
descriptive rather than prescriptive perspective.
 Key Features:
oDescriptive Approach: Linguists describe language as it is actually
used in practice, without making judgments about whether certain
forms or usages are "correct." It is concerned with how speakers
naturally use language.
oTheoretical Frameworks: Modern linguistics employs various
theoretical approaches, such as Generative Grammar, Structuralism,
Functionalism, and Cognitive Linguistics. The goal is to understand
universal principles of language and how specific languages implement
these principles.
oFocus on Competence vs. Performance: Modern linguistics often
distinguishes between linguistic competence (the inherent knowledge
of language rules that speakers have) and linguistic performance (the
actual use of language in practice, which can include errors or
deviations).
Key Differences:
1.Approach to Language:
oTraditional grammar is more prescriptive, concerned with establishing
rules about what is considered correct language use.
oModern linguistics is descriptive, focused on understanding the rules of
language as they actually occur in natural speech, including informal or
non-standard language.
2.Focus on Structure:
oTraditional grammar places significant emphasis on syntactic rules
(subject-verb agreement, sentence structure) and morphology (word
forms and inflections).
oModern linguistics, especially in structuralist and generative
frameworks, explores deeper structural relationships and seeks to
explain how language functions as a system of signs, including
phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics.
3. Theoretical vs. Practical Application:
oTraditional grammar is often taught in schools with a focus on
correct language usage for formal writing and speech.
oModern linguistics is an academic discipline that seeks to
understand universal principles of language structure and its
cognitive, social, and historical dimensions.
4. Evolution of Language:
oTraditional grammar tends to be static and prescriptive, with
fixed rules that do not necessarily account for the natural
evolution of language.
oModern linguistics, particularly sociolinguistics and historical
linguistics, is interested in how languages change over time,
how dialects differ, and how languages borrow features from
Generative Theory
A cover term for a variety of linguistic theories that
have the common goals of (a) providing an account
of the formal properties of language, positing rules
that specify how to form all the grammatical
sentences of a language and no ungrammatical ones
(the principle of descriptive adequacy), while (b)
explaining why grammars have the properties they
do and how children come to acquire them in such a
short period of time (the principle of explanatory
adequacy).
The major versions of generative theory (all
associated with the pioneering work of the
linguist Noam Chomsky) that have influenced
the fields of first and second language
acquisition have been:
transformational grammar (also transformational-generative
grammar, TG, generative-transformational grammar), an
early version of the theory that emphasized the relationships
among sentences that can be seen as transforms or
transformations of each other, for example the relationships
among simple active declarative sentences (e.g. He went to
the store), negative sentences (He didn’t go to the store),
and questions (Did he go to the store?). Such relationships
can be accounted for by transformational rules.
The Standard Theory (also Aspects Model) proposed in
the mid-1960s, which specified a base component that
produces or generates basic syntactic structures called
deep structures; a transformational component that
changes or transforms those basic structures into
sentences called surface structures; a phonological
component, which gives sentences a phonetic
representation (see GENERATIVE PHONOLOGY) so that
they can be pronounced; and a semantic component,
which deals with the meaning of sentences (see
INTERPRETIVE SEMANTICS ).
DEFINTION
The syntax of a language is concerned with the
structure and ordering of components within a
sentence. The word “syntax” comes originally from
Greek and literally means “a putting together” or
“arrangement.”
A system of rules which describe how all well-
formed sentences of a language can be derived
from basic elements.
Linking words together
Different languages use different devices for
showing the relationship of one word to another.
Most languages have one or two favourite devices.
The following are especially common.
Word order
The device used most frequently in English is word
order:
The large spider frightened Aunt Matilda.
Aunt Matilda frightened the large spider.
The words themselves in these two sentences are
identical/same. It is the word order which indicates
who frightened whom, and that it is the spider which is
large, not Aunt Matilda. Languages which rely heavily
on word order are known as configurational languages.
Inflections
In a language such as Latin, word endings or inflections,
indicate the relationship between words. In the sentence:
Magna aranea perterruit Matildam amitam.
Large spider frightened Matilda aunt
‘The large spider frightened Aunt Matilda’.
the word order is irrelevant. The sentence would still
mean the same if the words were arranged quite
differently as in:
Magna Matildam perterruit amitam aranea.
Large Matilda frightened aunt spider
The endings alone show that it was the spider which
terrified Aunt Matilda, not the reverse, and that it is
the spider, not Aunt Matilda, which is large.
In linguistic terminology, Latin is a nonconfigurational
language. Word order is not critical, though some
word order preferences are found.
Function words
Another common device, used to some extent in both
English and Latin, is the use of function words. These
are words such as of, by, that, which indicate
relationships between parts of the sentence:
Aunt Matilda was terrified by a spider.
The Queen of Sheba.
I know that Penelope will come.
Matilda amita ab aranea perterrita est.
Matilda aunt by spider frightened is[was]
In earlier approaches to the analysis of syntax,
there was an attempt to produce an accurate
description of the sequence or ordering
“arrangement” of elements in the linear structure
of the sentence. In more recent attempts to analyze
syntactic structure, there has been a greater focus
on the underlying rule system that we use to
produce or “generate” sentences.
When we set out to provide an analysis of the syntax of a
language, we try to adhere to the “all and only” criterion. This
means that our analysis must account for all the grammatically
correct phrases and sentences and only those grammatically
correct phrases and sentences in whatever language we are
analyzing. In other words, if we write rules for the creation of
well-formed structures, we have to check that those rules, when
applied logically, won’t also lead to ill-formed structures.
For example, we might say informally that, in English,
we put a preposition (near) before a noun (London) to
form a prepositional phrase (near London). However, if
we use this as a rule of the grammar to create
structures, we will end up producing phrases like *near
tree or *with dog. These don’t seem to be
grammatically correct, so we mark them with an
asterisk *. We clearly need to be more careful in
forming this rule. We might have more success with a
rule stating that we put a preposition before a noun
phrase (not just a noun).
A noun phrase can consist of a proper noun
(London), a pronoun (you) or a combination of an
article (a, the) and a noun (tree, dog), so that the
revised rule can produce these well-formed
structures: near London, with you, near a tree, with
the dog.
When we have an effective rule such as “a
prepositional phrase in English consists of a
preposition followed by a noun phrase,” we can
imagine an extremely large number of English
phrases that could be produced using this rule. In
fact, the potential number is unlimited.
This reflects another goal of syntactic analysis, which is to
have a small and finite (i.e. limited) set of rules that will be
capable of producing a large and potentially infinite (i.e.
unlimited) number of well-formed structures. This small
and finite set of rules is sometimes described as a
generative grammar because it can be used to “generate”
or produce sentence structures and not just describe
them.
This type of grammar should also be capable of
revealing the basis of two other phenomena: first,
how some superficially different sentences are
closely related and, second, how some superficially
similar sentences are in fact different.
Deep and surface structure
Two superficially different sentences are shown in these
examples:
Charlie broke the window.
The window was broken by Charlie.
The distinction between them is a difference in their surface
structure, that is, the different syntactic forms they have as
individual English sentences. However, this superficial
difference in form disguises the fact that the two sentences
are very closely related, even identical, at some less
superficial level.
This other “underlying” level, where the basic components (Noun
Phrase + Verb + Noun Phrase) shared by the two sentences can be
represented, is called their deep structure. The deep structure is an
abstract level of structural organization in which all the elements
determining structural interpretation are represented. That same
deep structure can be the source of many other surface structures
such as It was Charlie who broke the window and Was the window
broken by Charlie?. In short, the grammar must be capable of
showing how a single underlying abstract representation can
become different surface structures.
Structural ambiguity
Let’s say we have two distinct deep structures. One
expresses the idea that “Annie had an umbrella and she
bumped into a man with it.” The other expresses the
idea that “Annie bumped into a man and the man
happened to be carrying an umbrella.” Now, these two
different versions of events can actually be expressed in
the same surface structure form: Annie bumped into a
man with an umbrella. This sentence provides an
example of structural ambiguity. It has two distinct
underlying interpretations that have to be represented
differently in deep structure.
Phrases can also be structurally ambiguous, as in
expressions like small boys and girls. The underlying
interpretation can be either “small boys and (small)
girls” or “small boys and (all) girls.” Our syntactic
analysis will have to be capable of showing the
structural distinction between these underlying
representations.
Recursion
The rules of the grammar will also need the crucial property of recursion.
Recursive (“repeatable any number of times”) rules have the capacity to
be applied more than once in generating a structure. For example, we can
have one prepositional phrase describing location (on the table) in the
sentence The gun was on the table. We can also repeat this type of
phrase, using different words (near the window), for as long as the
sentence still makes sense (in the bedroom). So, in order to generate a
sentence such as The gun was on the table near the window in the
bedroom, we must be able to repeat the rule that creates a prepositional
phrase over and over again.
We must also be able to put sentences inside other sentences. For
example, when we produce a sentence such as Cathy knew that
Mary helped George, we do so with the sentence Mary helped
George inside it. And those two sentences can be generated inside
another sentence such as John believed that Cathy knew that Mary
helped George. In principle, there is no end to the recursion that
would produce ever longer versions of complex sentences with this
structure.
Basically, the grammar will have to capture the fact that a
sentence can have another sentence inside it or that a phrase can
be repeated as often as required.
Tree diagrams
One of the most common ways to create a visual
representation of syntactic structure is through tree
diagrams. We can use the symbols (Art = article, N = noun,
NP = noun phrase) to label parts of the tree as we try to
capture the hierarchical organization of those parts in the
underlying structure of phrases and sentences.
This kind of “tree,” with its “branches” growing down
rather than up, shows very explicitly that there are
different levels in the analysis. That is, there is a level
of analysis at which a constituent such as NP is
represented and a different, lower, level at which a
constituent such as N is represented. This type of
hierarchical organization can be illustrated in a tree
diagram for a whole sentence, beginning at the top
with S.
If we start at the top of the tree
diagram, we begin with a sentence
(S) and divide it into two
constituents (NP and VP). In turn,
the NP constituent is divided into
two other constituents (Art and N).
Finally, one word is selected that fits
the label Art (the) and another that
fits N (girl). You can go through the
same procedure with the VP
branches.
Phrase structure rules
When we use a tree diagram format, we can think of it in
two different ways. In one way, we can simply treat it as a
static representation of the structure of the sentence
shown at the bottom of the diagram. We could then
propose that, for every single sentence in English, a tree
diagram of this type could be drawn.
An alternative view is to treat the tree diagram as a
dynamic format, in the sense that it represents a way of
generating not only that one sentence, but a very large
number of other sentences with similar structures.
This second approach is very appealing because it
would enable us to generate a very large number
of sentences with what look like a very small
number of rules. These rules are called phrase
structure rules. As the name suggests, these rules
state that the structure of a phrase of a specific
type will consist of one or more constituents in a
particular order.
We can use phrase structure rules to present the
information of the tree diagram in another format.
That is, the information shown in the tree diagram on
the left can be expressed in the phrase structure rule
on the right.
According to this rule, “a noun phrase rewrites as an article
followed by a noun.” The first rule in the following set of
simple (and necessarily incomplete) phrase structure rules
states that “a sentence rewrites as a noun phrase and a verb
phrase.” The second rule states that “a noun phrase rewrites
as either an article plus an optional adjective plus a noun, or
a pronoun, or a proper noun.” The other rules follow a
similar pattern.
S → NP VP
NP → {Art (Adj) N, Pro, PN}
VP → V NP (PP) (Adv)
PP → Prep NP
Lexical rules
Phrase structure rules generate structures. In order to turn
those structures into recognizable English, we also need
lexical rules that specify which words can be used when we
rewrite constituents such as N. The first rule in the following
set states that “a proper noun rewrites as Mary or George.”

PN → {Mary, George}
N → {girl, dog, boy}
Art → {a, the}
Pro → {it, you}
V → {followed, helped, saw}
Movement rules
These rules can be treated as a representation of the
underlying or deep structures of sentences in English. One
feature of these underlying structures is that they will
generate sentences with a fixed word order. That is
convenient for creating declarative forms (You will help
Mary), but not for making interrogative forms, as used in
questions (Will you help Mary?). In making the question,
we move one part of the structure to a different position.
This process is based on a movement rule.
In order to talk about this process, we need to expand our
phrase structure rules to include an auxiliary verb (Aux) as
part of the sentence. This is illustrated in the first rewrite rule
below. Auxiliary verbs (sometimes described as “helping”
verbs) take different forms in English, but one well-known set
can be included in the rudimentary lexical rule for Aux below.
S → NP Aux VP
Aux → {can, could, should, will, would}
V → {follow, help, see}
With these components, we can specify a simple movement
rule that is involved in the creation of one basic type of
question in English.
NP Aux VP ⇒ Aux NP VP
Tha n ks
!