.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Syntax
Pavel Caha
Sept 30, 2024
1 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Requirements
▶ The content of this course: theory of syntax, explained on
English (Czech, German)
2 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Requirements
▶ The content of this course: theory of syntax, explained on
English (Czech, German)
▶ You do not need to speak any of the latter languages, English is
enough
2 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Requirements
▶ The content of this course: theory of syntax, explained on
English (Czech, German)
▶ You do not need to speak any of the latter languages, English is
enough
▶ In the end, there will be a test
2 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Requirements
▶ The content of this course: theory of syntax, explained on
English (Czech, German)
▶ You do not need to speak any of the latter languages, English is
enough
▶ In the end, there will be a test
▶ I will ask about terminology: what is head‐movement? You tick
a‐b‐c
2 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Requirements
▶ The content of this course: theory of syntax, explained on
English (Czech, German)
▶ You do not need to speak any of the latter languages, English is
enough
▶ In the end, there will be a test
▶ I will ask about terminology: what is head‐movement? You tick
a‐b‐c
▶ The list of the relevant notions is in the study materials
2 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Requirements
▶ The content of this course: theory of syntax, explained on
English (Czech, German)
▶ You do not need to speak any of the latter languages, English is
enough
▶ In the end, there will be a test
▶ I will ask about terminology: what is head‐movement? You tick
a‐b‐c
▶ The list of the relevant notions is in the study materials
▶ So is the textbook
2 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Requirements
▶ The content of this course: theory of syntax, explained on
English (Czech, German)
▶ You do not need to speak any of the latter languages, English is
enough
▶ In the end, there will be a test
▶ I will ask about terminology: what is head‐movement? You tick
a‐b‐c
▶ The list of the relevant notions is in the study materials
▶ So is the textbook
2 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The plan
▶ Two groups of students: Czech language/Computer linguistics
vs. others
3 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The plan
▶ Two groups of students: Czech language/Computer linguistics
vs. others
▶ In the lecture, I go through the theory, the seminar CJJ06 applies
this theory to Czech data (Czech language, Computer linguistics)
3 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The plan
▶ Two groups of students: Czech language/Computer linguistics
vs. others
▶ In the lecture, I go through the theory, the seminar CJJ06 applies
this theory to Czech data (Czech language, Computer linguistics)
▶ Why analyse English? What can we learn about Czech syntax
when we analyse English?
▶ The rules of combination are very similar across languages
3 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The plan
▶ Two groups of students: Czech language/Computer linguistics
vs. others
▶ In the lecture, I go through the theory, the seminar CJJ06 applies
this theory to Czech data (Czech language, Computer linguistics)
▶ Why analyse English? What can we learn about Czech syntax
when we analyse English?
▶ The rules of combination are very similar across languages
▶ You also understand what differences there are among languages
3 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The plan
▶ Two groups of students: Czech language/Computer linguistics
vs. others
▶ In the lecture, I go through the theory, the seminar CJJ06 applies
this theory to Czech data (Czech language, Computer linguistics)
▶ Why analyse English? What can we learn about Czech syntax
when we analyse English?
▶ The rules of combination are very similar across languages
▶ You also understand what differences there are among languages
▶ You are basically forced to apply some abstract tools to concrete
examples
3 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The content
▶ Syntax is a science that aims to explain how you can make an
infinite use of finite means
4 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The content
▶ Syntax is a science that aims to explain how you can make an
infinite use of finite means
▶ (how to put words together)
4 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The content
▶ Syntax is a science that aims to explain how you can make an
infinite use of finite means
▶ (how to put words together)
▶ In Czechia, it is customary to analyze syntax using dependency
grammar (subject, predicate, adverbial, object, attribute)
4 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The content
▶ Syntax is a science that aims to explain how you can make an
infinite use of finite means
▶ (how to put words together)
▶ In Czechia, it is customary to analyze syntax using dependency
grammar (subject, predicate, adverbial, object, attribute)
▶ We are going to learn phrase‐structure grammar (generative
grammar, HPSG, LFG)
4 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The content
▶ Syntax is a science that aims to explain how you can make an
infinite use of finite means
▶ (how to put words together)
▶ In Czechia, it is customary to analyze syntax using dependency
grammar (subject, predicate, adverbial, object, attribute)
▶ We are going to learn phrase‐structure grammar (generative
grammar, HPSG, LFG)
▶ Every unit of the dependency‐based analysis is also a unit in the
phrase‐structure tree
4 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The content
▶ Syntax is a science that aims to explain how you can make an
infinite use of finite means
▶ (how to put words together)
▶ In Czechia, it is customary to analyze syntax using dependency
grammar (subject, predicate, adverbial, object, attribute)
▶ We are going to learn phrase‐structure grammar (generative
grammar, HPSG, LFG)
▶ Every unit of the dependency‐based analysis is also a unit in the
phrase‐structure tree
▶ Not every unit in a phrase‐structure tree is a unit in the
dependency tree
4 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The content
▶ Syntax is a science that aims to explain how you can make an
infinite use of finite means
▶ (how to put words together)
▶ In Czechia, it is customary to analyze syntax using dependency
grammar (subject, predicate, adverbial, object, attribute)
▶ We are going to learn phrase‐structure grammar (generative
grammar, HPSG, LFG)
▶ Every unit of the dependency‐based analysis is also a unit in the
phrase‐structure tree
▶ Not every unit in a phrase‐structure tree is a unit in the
dependency tree
⇒ Phrase structure trees have more information
4 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The two trees
(1) the big black dog
5 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The two trees
(1) the big black dog
the
big
black dog
5 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The two trees
(1) the big black dog
the
big
black dog
dog
the big black
5 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The two trees
(1) the big black dog
the
big X
black dog
dog
the big black
5 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Studying syntax
▶ Language – human ability to communicate
6 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Studying syntax
▶ Language – human ability to communicate
▶ Syntax – ‘putting words together’
6 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Studying syntax
▶ Language – human ability to communicate
▶ Syntax – ‘putting words together’
▶ Using finite means to create potentially infinite range of
sentences
6 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Studying syntax
▶ Language – human ability to communicate
▶ Syntax – ‘putting words together’
▶ Using finite means to create potentially infinite range of
sentences
▶ How can we characterize/describe this ability?
6 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Studying syntax
▶ Language – human ability to communicate
▶ Syntax – ‘putting words together’
▶ Using finite means to create potentially infinite range of
sentences
▶ How can we characterize/describe this ability?
▶ What is it that humans have and animals don’t?
6 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Humans
(2) Humans have a multi‐domain capacity and proclivity to infer
tree structures from strings, to a degree that is difficult or
impossible for most non‐human animal species.
7 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ambiguity
Variation
Beyond humans
Language as a linear string
Conclusions
8 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ambiguity
(3) black cab drivers
9 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ambiguity
(3) black cab drivers
a. drivers of black cabs
9 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ambiguity
(3) black cab drivers
a. drivers of black cabs
b. cab drivers who are black
9 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ambiguity
(3) black cab drivers
a. drivers of black cabs
b. cab drivers who are black
black cab
drivers
9 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ambiguity
(3) black cab drivers
a. drivers of black cabs
b. cab drivers who are black
black cab
drivers black
cab drivers
9 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ambiguity
(4) black cab drivers
a. drivers of black cabs
b. cab drivers who are black
person
thing
black cab
drivers
person
black person
cab drivers
10 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(5) 5 + 3 x 2
11 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(5) 5 + 3 x 2
a. ( 5 + 3 ) x 2 = 16
11 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(5) 5 + 3 x 2
a. ( 5 + 3 ) x 2 = 16
b. 5 + ( 3 x 2 ) = 11
11 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(5) 5 + 3 x 2
a. ( 5 + 3 ) x 2 = 16
b. 5 + ( 3 x 2 ) = 11
+16
+8
5 +3
x 2
11 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(5) 5 + 3 x 2
a. ( 5 + 3 ) x 2 = 16
b. 5 + ( 3 x 2 ) = 11
+16
+8
5 +3
x 2
+11
5 +6
+3 x 2
11 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(6) 5 + 3 x 2
a. ( 5 + 3 ) x 2 = 16
b. 5 + ( 3 x 2 ) = 11
person
thing
black cab
drivers
person
black person
cab drivers
12 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(7) hit the dog with a hat
13 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(7) hit the dog with a hat
a. the dog has a hat on
13 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(7) hit the dog with a hat
a. the dog has a hat on
b. the hat is used to hit the dog
13 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(7) hit the dog with a hat
a. the dog has a hat on
b. the hat is used to hit the dog
event
event
hit the dog
with a hat
13 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(7) hit the dog with a hat
a. the dog has a hat on
b. the hat is used to hit the dog
event
event
hit the dog
with a hat
event
hit thing
the dog with a hat
13 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(8) hit the dog with a hat
a. the dog has a hat on
b. you use the hat
event
event
hit thing
the dog
with a hat
event
hit thing
thing
the dog with a hat
14 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ambiguity
Variation
Beyond humans
Language as a linear string
Conclusions
15 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Meaning and ordering
(9) a. 1 + ( 2 x 3 )
16 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Meaning and ordering
(9) a. 1 + ( 2 x 3 )
b. 1 + ( 3 x 2 )
16 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Meaning and ordering
(9) a. 1 + ( 2 x 3 )
b. 1 + ( 3 x 2 )
c. ( 3 x 2 ) + 1
16 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Meaning and ordering
(9) a. 1 + ( 2 x 3 )
b. 1 + ( 3 x 2 )
c. ( 3 x 2 ) + 1
d. ( 2 x 3 ) + 1
16 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Meaning and ordering
(1) a. 1 + ( 2 x 3 ) [123]
b. 1 + ( 3 x 2 )
c. ( 3 x 2 ) + 1
d. ( 2 x 3 ) + 1
17 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Meaning and ordering
(1) a. 1 + ( 2 x 3 ) [123]
b. 1 + ( 3 x 2 ) [132]
c. ( 3 x 2 ) + 1
d. ( 2 x 3 ) + 1
18 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Meaning and ordering
(1) a. 1 + ( 2 x 3 ) [123]
b. 1 + ( 3 x 2 ) [132]
c. ( 3 x 2 ) + 1 [321]
d. ( 2 x 3 ) + 1
19 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Meaning and ordering
(1) a. 1 + ( 2 x 3 ) [123]
b. 1 + ( 3 x 2 ) [132]
c. ( 3 x 2 ) + 1 [321]
d. ( 2 x 3 ) + 1 [231]
20 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Meaning and ordering
(10) SVO vs. SOV
a. (Hans says that) the dog eats the bone
21 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Meaning and ordering
(10) SVO vs. SOV
a. (Hans says that) the dog eats the bone
b. (Hans
Hans
sagt
said
dass)
that
der
the
Hund
dog
den
the.ACC
Knochen
bone.ACC
frisst.
eats
‘(Hans says) that the dog eats the bone.’
21 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Meaning and ordering
(10) SVO vs. SOV
a. (Hans says that) the dog eats the bone
b. (Hans
Hans
sagt
said
dass)
that
der
the
Hund
dog
den
the.ACC
Knochen
bone.ACC
frisst.
eats
‘(Hans says) that the dog eats the bone.’
sentence
subject
the dog
event
verb
eats
object
the bone
21 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Meaning and ordering
(10) SVO vs. SOV
a. (Hans says that) the dog eats the bone
b. (Hans
Hans
sagt
said
dass)
that
der
the
Hund
dog
den
the.ACC
Knochen
bone.ACC
frisst.
eats
‘(Hans says) that the dog eats the bone.’
sentence
subject
the dog
event
verb
eats
object
the bone
sentence
subject
der Hund
the dog
event
object
den Knochen
the bone
verb
frisst
eats
21 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ambiguity
Variation
Beyond humans
Language as a linear string
Conclusions
22 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
How to study cognitive abilities
(11) Humans have a multi‐domain capacity and proclivity to infer
tree structures from strings, to a degree that is difficult or
impossible for most non‐human animal species.
▶ How can you figure out whether, e.g., monkeys have such
structures?
23 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
How to study cognitive abilities
(11) Humans have a multi‐domain capacity and proclivity to infer
tree structures from strings, to a degree that is difficult or
impossible for most non‐human animal species.
▶ How can you figure out whether, e.g., monkeys have such
structures?
▶ How can you figure out whether children have such structures?
23 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
How to study cognitive abilities
(11) Humans have a multi‐domain capacity and proclivity to infer
tree structures from strings, to a degree that is difficult or
impossible for most non‐human animal species.
▶ How can you figure out whether, e.g., monkeys have such
structures?
▶ How can you figure out whether children have such structures?
▶ Preferential looking paradigm
23 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
counting
24 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
counting
25 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
counting
26 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ambiguity
Variation
Beyond humans
Language as a linear string
Conclusions
27 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Strings
(12) a. Mary invited Sue
b. Sue invited Mary
c. AGENT > PATIENT
28 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Strings
(12) a. Mary invited Sue
b. Sue invited Mary
c. AGENT > PATIENT
(13) a. John pushed Bill
b. Bill pushed John
c. AGENT > PATIENT
28 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Strings
(12) a. Mary invited Sue
b. Sue invited Mary
c. AGENT > PATIENT
(13) a. John pushed Bill
b. Bill pushed John
c. AGENT > PATIENT
28 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
WALS
Figure: This is an image from WALS
29 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Strings
(14) a. Mary turned Sue (around)
30 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Strings
(14) a. Mary turned Sue (around)
b. Mary and Sue turned (around)
30 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Strings
(14) a. Mary turned Sue (around)
b. Mary and Sue turned (around)
c. ¬AGENT > PATIENT
30 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Strings
(14) a. Mary turned Sue (around)
b. Mary and Sue turned (around)
c. ¬AGENT > PATIENT
Mary
turned Sue
30 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Strings
(14) a. Mary turned Sue (around)
b. Mary and Sue turned (around)
c. ¬AGENT > PATIENT
Mary
turned Sue Mary and Sue
turned
30 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Kanzi
31 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Kanzi
32 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Kanzi
33 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Kanzi
34 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Kanzi
35 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Structure vs. Linearity
36 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The setup
37 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The experiment
38 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The results
39 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ambiguity
Variation
Beyond humans
Language as a linear string
Conclusions
40 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
conclusions
(15) Humans have a multi‐domain capacity and proclivity to infer
tree structures from strings, to a degree that is difficult or
impossible for most non‐human animal species.
41 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
conclusions
(15) Humans have a multi‐domain capacity and proclivity to infer
tree structures from strings, to a degree that is difficult or
impossible for most non‐human animal species.
a. ambiguity
41 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
conclusions
(15) Humans have a multi‐domain capacity and proclivity to infer
tree structures from strings, to a degree that is difficult or
impossible for most non‐human animal species.
a. ambiguity
b. language variation
41 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
conclusions
(15) Humans have a multi‐domain capacity and proclivity to infer
tree structures from strings, to a degree that is difficult or
impossible for most non‐human animal species.
a. ambiguity
b. language variation
c. little reliance on ordering cues
41 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
speculations (I believe this to be Chomsky’s current
position)
▶ Merge: an operation that (recursively) groups lexical items
together
42 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
speculations (I believe this to be Chomsky’s current
position)
▶ Merge: an operation that (recursively) groups lexical items
together
▶ It may also group other things (the ability for math)
42 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
speculations (I believe this to be Chomsky’s current
position)
▶ Merge: an operation that (recursively) groups lexical items
together
▶ It may also group other things (the ability for math)
▶ Recursive Merge is the only thing specific to humans
42 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
speculations (I believe this to be Chomsky’s current
position)
▶ Merge: an operation that (recursively) groups lexical items
together
▶ It may also group other things (the ability for math)
▶ Recursive Merge is the only thing specific to humans
▶ sidenote
▶ Piraha has no “recursion” (Daniel Everett)
42 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
speculations (I believe this to be Chomsky’s current
position)
▶ Merge: an operation that (recursively) groups lexical items
together
▶ It may also group other things (the ability for math)
▶ Recursive Merge is the only thing specific to humans
▶ sidenote
▶ Piraha has no “recursion” (Daniel Everett)
▶ what Everett meant: it has no subordinate clauses, it has no
higher numerals
42 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
speculations (I believe this to be Chomsky’s current
position)
▶ Merge: an operation that (recursively) groups lexical items
together
▶ It may also group other things (the ability for math)
▶ Recursive Merge is the only thing specific to humans
▶ sidenote
▶ Piraha has no “recursion” (Daniel Everett)
▶ what Everett meant: it has no subordinate clauses, it has no
higher numerals
▶ Three types of reactions:
42 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
speculations (I believe this to be Chomsky’s current
position)
▶ Merge: an operation that (recursively) groups lexical items
together
▶ It may also group other things (the ability for math)
▶ Recursive Merge is the only thing specific to humans
▶ sidenote
▶ Piraha has no “recursion” (Daniel Everett)
▶ what Everett meant: it has no subordinate clauses, it has no
higher numerals
▶ Three types of reactions:
▶ it has subordinate clauses (Nevins, Pesetsky, Rodriguez)
42 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
speculations (I believe this to be Chomsky’s current
position)
▶ Merge: an operation that (recursively) groups lexical items
together
▶ It may also group other things (the ability for math)
▶ Recursive Merge is the only thing specific to humans
▶ sidenote
▶ Piraha has no “recursion” (Daniel Everett)
▶ what Everett meant: it has no subordinate clauses, it has no
higher numerals
▶ Three types of reactions:
▶ it has subordinate clauses (Nevins, Pesetsky, Rodriguez)
▶ subordinate clauses ̸= recursion (Sauerland)
42 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
speculations (I believe this to be Chomsky’s current
position)
▶ Merge: an operation that (recursively) groups lexical items
together
▶ It may also group other things (the ability for math)
▶ Recursive Merge is the only thing specific to humans
▶ sidenote
▶ Piraha has no “recursion” (Daniel Everett)
▶ what Everett meant: it has no subordinate clauses, it has no
higher numerals
▶ Three types of reactions:
▶ it has subordinate clauses (Nevins, Pesetsky, Rodriguez)
▶ subordinate clauses ̸= recursion (Sauerland)
▶ even if the did not have recursion, this is completely irrelevant
(Chomsky)
42 / 43
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
References
43 / 43