Based on wikipedia

In linguistics, syntax (from Ancient Greek "coordination" from syn, "together,"

and txis, "an ordering") is "the study of the principles and processes by which sentences
are constructed in particular languages."[1]
In addition to referring to the discipline, the term syntax is also used to refer directly to the rules
and principles that govern the sentence structure of any individual language. Modern research in
syntax attempts to describe languages in terms of such rules. Many professionals in this
discipline attempt to find general rules that apply to all natural languages.
The term syntax is also used to refer to the rules governing the behavior of mathematical
systems, such as formal languages used in logic. (See logical syntax.)
Works on grammar were written long before modern syntax came about; the Ast dhyy
of

Pn ini (c. 4th century BC) is often cited as an example of a premodern work that approaches the
sophistication of a modern syntactic theory.[2] In the West, the school of thought that came to be
known as "traditional grammar" began with the work of Dionysius Thrax.
For centuries, work in syntax was dominated by a framework known as grammaire gnrale,
first expounded in 1660 by Antoine Arnauld in a book of the same title. This system took as its
basic premise the assumption that language is a direct reflection of thought processes and
therefore there is a single, most natural way to express a thought.
However, in the 19th century, with the development of historical-comparative linguistics,
linguists began to realize the sheer diversity of human language and to question fundamental
assumptions about the relationship between language and logic. It became apparent that there
was no such thing as the most natural way to express a thought, and therefore logic could no
longer be relied upon as a basis for studying the structure of language.
The Port-Royal grammar modeled the study of syntax upon that of logic. (Indeed, large parts of
the Port-Royal Logic were copied or adapted from the Grammaire gnrale.[3]) Syntactic
categories were identified with logical ones, and all sentences were analyzed in terms of "Subject
Copula Predicate." Initially, this view was adopted even by the early comparative linguists
such as Franz Bopp.
The central role of syntax within theoretical linguistics became clear only in the 20th century,
which could reasonably be called the "century of syntactic theory" as far as linguistics is
concerned. (For a detailed and critical survey of the history of syntax in the last two centuries,
see the monumental work by Giorgio Graffi (2001).)[4]

Modern theories

There are a number of theoretical approaches to the discipline of syntax. One school of thought,
founded in the works of Derek Bickerton,[5] sees syntax as a branch of biology, since it conceives
of syntax as the study of linguistic knowledge as embodied in the human mind. Other linguists
(e.g. Gerald Gazdar) take a more Platonistic view, since they regard syntax to be the study of an
abstract formal system.[6] Yet others (e.g. Joseph Greenberg) consider syntax a taxonomical
device to reach broad generalizations across languages.

Government and binding is a theory of syntax and a phrase structure

grammar (as opposed to a dependency grammar) in the tradition of transformational grammar
developed principally by Noam Chomsky in the 1980s.[1][2][3] This theory is a radical revision of
his earlier theories[4][5][6] and was later revised in The Minimalist Program (1995)[7] and several
subsequent papers, the latest being Three Factors in Language Design (2005).[8] Although there
is a large literature on government and binding theory which is not written by Chomsky,
Chomsky's papers have been foundational in setting the research agenda.
The name refers to two central subtheories of the theory: government, which is an abstract
syntactic relation, and binding, which deals with the referents of pronouns, anaphors, and
referential expressions. GB was the first theory to be based on the principles and parameters
model of language, which also underlies the later developments of the Minimalist Program.
The main application of the government relation concerns the assignment of case. Government
is defined as follows:
A governs B if and only if

A is a governor and
A m-commands B and

no barrier intervenes between A and B.

Governors are heads of the lexical categories (V, N, A, P) and tensed I (T). A m-commands B if
A does not dominate B and B does not dominate A and the first maximal projection of A
dominates B. The maximal projection of a head X is XP. This means that for example in a
structure like the following, A m-commands B, but B does not m-command A:

In addition, barrier is defined as follows:[9] A barrier is any node Z such that

Z is a potential governor for B and

Z c-commands B and

Z does not c-command A

The government relation makes case assignment unambiguous. The tree diagram below
illustrates how DPs are governed and assigned case by their governing heads:

Another important application of the government relation constrains the occurrence and identity
of traces as the Empty Category Principle requires them to be properly governed.

Binding
Binding can be defined as follows:

An element binds an element if and only if c-commands , and and corefer.

Consider the sentence "Johni saw hisi mother." which is diagrammed below using simple phrase
structure rules.

The NP "John" c-commands "his" because the first parent of the NP, S, contains "his". "John"
and "his" are also coreferential (they refer to the same person), therefore "John" binds "his".
On the other hand, in the ungrammatical sentence "*The mother of Johni likes himselfi", "John"
does not c-command "himself", so they have no binding relationship despite the fact that they
corefer.

The importance of binding is shown in the grammaticality of the following sentences:

1. *Johni saw himi.
2. Johni saw himselfi.
3. *Himselfi saw Johni.
4. *Johni saw Johni.
Binding is used, along with particular binding principles, to explain the ungrammaticality of
those statements. The applicable rules are called Binding Principle A, Binding Principle B, and
Binding Principle C.

Principle A: an anaphor (reflexive or reciprocal, such as "each other") must be bound in

its governing category (roughly, the clause).

Since "himself" is not c-commanded by "John" in sentence [3], Principle A is violated.

Principle B: a pronoun must be free (i.e., not bound) within its governing category
(roughly, the clause).

In sentence [1], "him" is bound by "John", violating Principle B.

Principle C: an R-expression must be free (i.e., not bound). R-expressions (e.g. "the
dog" or "John") are referential expressions: unlike pronouns and anaphora, they
independently refer, i.e., pick out entities in the world.

In sentence [4], the first instance of "John" binds the second, violating Principle C.
Note that Principles A and B refer to "governing categories"--domains which limit the scope of
binding. The definition of a governing category laid out in Lectures on Government and
Binding[1] is complex, but in most cases the governing category is essentially the minimal clause
or complex NP.

Lexical functional grammar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lexical functional grammar (LFG) is a grammar framework in theoretical linguistics, a variety

of generative grammar. It is a type of phrase structure grammar, as opposed to a dependency
grammar. The development of the theory was initiated by Joan Bresnan and Ronald Kaplan in
the 1970s, in reaction to the direction research in the area of transformational grammar had
begun to take. It mainly focuses on syntax, including its relation with morphology and semantics.
There has been little LFG work on phonology (although ideas from optimality theory have
recently been popular in LFG research).
LFG views language as being made up of multiple dimensions of structure. Each of these
dimensions is represented as a distinct structure with its own rules, concepts, and form. The
primary structures that have figured in LFG research are:

the representation of grammatical functions (f-structure). See feature structure.

the structure of syntactic constituents (c-structure). See phrase structure rules, ID/LP
grammar.

For example, in the sentence The old woman eats the falafel, the c-structure analysis is that this
is a sentence which is made up of two pieces, a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase (VP). The
VP is itself made up of two pieces, a verb (V) and another NP. The NPs are also analyzed into
their parts. Finally, the bottom of the structure is composed of the words out of which the
sentence is constructed. The f-structure analysis, on the other hand, treats the sentence as being
composed of attributes, which include features such as number and tense or functional units such
as subject, predicate, or object.
There are other structures which are hypothesized in LFG work:

argument structure (a-structure), a level which represents the number of arguments for a
predicate and some aspects of the lexical semantics of these arguments. See theta-role.
semantic structure (s-structure), a level which represents the meaning of phrases and
sentences. See Glue Semantics.

information structure (i-structure)

morphological structure (m-structure)

phonological structure (p-structure)

The various structures can be said to be mutually constraining.

The LFG conception of language differs from Chomskyan theories, which have always involved
separate levels of constituent structure representation being mapped onto each other sequentially,
via transformations. The LFG approach has had particular success with nonconfigurational
languages, languages in which the relation between structure and function is less direct than it is
in languages like English; for this reason LFG's adherents consider it a more plausible universal
model of language.
Another feature of LFG is that grammatical-function changing operations like passivization are
said to be lexical. This means that the active-passive relation, for example, is a relation between
two types of verb rather than two trees. Active and passive verbs are both listed in the lexicon,
and involve alternative mapping of the participants to grammatical functions.
Through the positing of productive processes in the lexicon and the separation of structure and
function, LFG is able to account for syntactic patterns without the use of transformations defined
over syntactic structure. For example, in a sentence like What did you see?, where what is
understood as the object of see, transformational grammar puts what after see (the usual position
for objects) in "deep structure", and then moves it. LFG analyzes what as having two functions:
question-focus and object. It occupies the position associated in English with the question-focus
function, and the constraints of the language allow it to take on the object function as well.
A central goal in LFG research is to create a model of grammar with a depth which appeals to
linguists while at the same time being efficiently parsable and having the rigidity of formalism
which computational linguists require. Because of this, computational parsers have been
developed and LFG has also been used as the theoretical basis of various machine translation
tools, such as AppTek's TranSphere, and the Julietta Research Group's Lekta.

Tata bahasa fungsional leksikal (LFG) adalah kerangka tata bahasa dalam linguistik
teoritis, berbagai tata bahasa generatif. Ini adalah jenis struktur kalimat tata bahasa, sebagai
lawan dari tata bahasa ketergantungan. Pengembangan teori ini diprakarsai oleh Joan Bresnan
dan Ronald Kaplan pada 1970-an, sebagai reaksi terhadap penelitian arah di bidang tata bahasa
transformasional telah mulai mengambil. Hal ini terutama berfokus pada sintaks, termasuk
hubungannya dengan morfologi dan semantik. Ada sedikit LFG bekerja pada fonologi (meskipun
ide-ide dari teori optimalitas baru-baru ini telah populer dalam penelitian LFG).
LFG memandang bahasa sebagai terdiri dari beberapa dimensi struktur. Masing-masing dimensi

direpresentasikan sebagai struktur yang berbeda dengan yang aturan sendiri, konsep, dan bentuk.
Struktur utama yang telah menemukan dalam penelitian LFG adalah:
representasi fungsi gramatikal (f-struktur). Lihat struktur fitur.
struktur konstituen sintaksis (c-struktur). Lihat aturan struktur frasa, ID / LP tata bahasa.
Misalnya, dalam kalimat Wanita tua makan falafel, analisis c-struktur adalah bahwa ini adalah
kalimat yang terdiri dari dua potong, frase kata benda (NP) dan frase verba (VP). VP itu sendiri
terdiri dari dua potong, kata kerja (V) dan NP yang lain. Para NP juga dianalisis menjadi bagianbagian mereka. Akhirnya, bagian bawah struktur terdiri dari kata-kata dari mana kalimat
dibangun. Analisis f-struktur, di sisi lain, memperlakukan kalimat sebagai terdiri dari atribut,
yang meliputi fitur seperti jumlah dan unit tegang atau fungsional seperti subjek, predikat, atau
objek.
Ada struktur lainnya yang dihipotesiskan dalam pekerjaan LFG:
Struktur argumen (a-struktur), tingkat yang mewakili jumlah argumen untuk predikat dan
beberapa aspek semantik leksikal dari argumen ini. Lihat theta-peran.
Struktur semantik (s-struktur), tingkat yang mewakili makna frase dan kalimat. Lihat Lem
Semantik.
Struktur informasi (i-struktur)
struktur morfologi (m-struktur)
Struktur fonologi (p-struktur)
Berbagai struktur dapat dikatakan saling menghambat.
LFG konsepsi bahasa berbeda dari teori Chomsky, yang selalu terlibat tingkat yang terpisah dari
representasi struktur konstituen yang dipetakan ke satu sama lain secara berurutan, melalui
transformasi. Pendekatan LFG telah sukses tertentu dengan bahasa nonconfigurational, bahasa di
mana hubungan antara struktur dan fungsi kurang langsung daripada dalam bahasa seperti bahasa
Inggris; untuk alasan ini penganut LFG yang menganggapnya sebagai model universal yang
lebih masuk akal bahasa.
Fitur lain dari LFG adalah bahwa tata bahasa-fungsi operasi berubah seperti pemasifan dikatakan
leksikal. Ini berarti bahwa hubungan aktif-pasif, misalnya, adalah hubungan antara dua jenis
verba daripada dua pohon. Kata kerja aktif dan pasif keduanya tercantum dalam leksikon, dan
melibatkan pemetaan alternatif peserta untuk fungsi gramatikal.
Melalui positing dari proses produktif dalam leksikon dan pemisahan struktur dan fungsi, LFG
mampu menjelaskan pola sintaksis tanpa menggunakan transformasi didefinisikan melalui
struktur sintaksis. Misalnya, dalam kalimat seperti apa yang Anda lihat ?, di mana apa yang
dipahami sebagai obyek lihat, tata bahasa transformasional menempatkan apa setelah lihat
(posisi biasa untuk objek) dalam "struktur dalam", dan kemudian bergerak. LFG analisis apa
yang memiliki dua fungsi: Pertanyaan-fokus dan objek. Ini menempati posisi terkait dalam
bahasa Inggris dengan fungsi pertanyaan-focus, dan kendala bahasa memungkinkan untuk
mengambil fungsi objek juga.
Tujuan utama dalam penelitian LFG adalah untuk menciptakan sebuah model tata bahasa dengan
kedalaman yang menarik bagi ahli bahasa sementara pada saat yang sama yang efisien parsable
dan memiliki kekakuan formalisme yang ahli bahasa komputasi membutuhkan. Karena itu,
parser komputasi telah dikembangkan dan LFG juga telah digunakan sebagai dasar teoritis
berbagai alat terjemahan mesin, seperti AppTek yang TranSphere, dan Julietta Research Group
Lekta.

Relational grammar
In linguistics, Relational Grammar (RG) is a syntactic theory which argues that
primitive grammatical relations provide the ideal means to state syntactic rules in
universal terms. Relational grammar began as an alternative to transformational
grammar.

In Relational Grammar, constituents that serve as the arguments to predicates are numbered. This
numbering system corresponds loosely to the notions of subject, direct object and indirect object.
The numbering scheme is subject (1), direct object (2) and indirect object (3). A
schematic representation of a clause in this formalism might look like:
1

John gave Mary a kiss

tata bahasa relasional
Dalam linguistik, Relational Grammar (RG) adalah teori sintaksis yang berpendapat
bahwa hubungan gramatikal primitif memberikan ideal berarti untuk menyatakan
aturan sintaksis dalam hal universal. Tata bahasa relasional dimulai sebagai
alternatif tata bahasa transformasional.
Di Relational Grammar, konstituen yang berfungsi sebagai argumen untuk predikat
diberi nomor. Sistem penomoran ini sesuai longgar dengan pengertian tentang
subjek, objek langsung dan objek tak langsung. Skema penomoran dikenakan
subjek (1), objek langsung (2) dan objek tidak langsung (3). Sebuah
representasi skematis dari klausul dalam formalisme ini mungkin terlihat seperti:
1P32
John memberi Mary ciuman

Role and reference grammar

Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) is a model of grammar developed by William Foley and
Robert Van Valin, Jr. in the 1980s, which incorporates many of the points of view of current
functional grammar theories.
In RRG, the description of a sentence in a particular language is formulated in terms of (a) its
logical (semantic) structure and communicative functions, and (b) the grammatical procedures
that are available in the language for the expression of these meanings.

Among the main features of RRG are the use of lexical decomposition, based upon the predicate
semantics of David Dowty (1979), an analysis of clause structure, and the use of a set of
thematic roles organized into a hierarchy in which the highest-ranking roles are 'Actor' (for the
most active participant) and 'Undergoer'.