35,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Serie: Introducing Linguistics
- Sprache: Englisch
A valuable companion to Andrew Carnie's Syntax: A Generative Introduction, 4th Edition, full of practice questions and engaging exercises to promote student comprehension
Syntax: A Generative Introduction, Fourth Edition, is the leading textbook for undergraduate courses in the syntax, covering foundational topics such as universal grammar, parts of speech, constituency, trees, structural relations, binding theory, x-bar theory, and movement, as well as advanced subjects such as control theory, ellipsis, polysynthesis, incorporation, non-configurationality, and Merge. Written by Syntax author Andrew Carnie, The Syntax Workbook has been purposefully designed to support and complement the use of Syntax in the undergraduate classroom. The Syntax Workbook is the perfect companion to the author's seminal textbook and contains updated practice material for every section of the text. This workbook:
- Includes exercises, practice questions, data analysis, and knowledge application questions for each section in Syntax: A Generative Introduction, Fourth Edition
- Features exercises and questions with full answers and explanations to assist students in learning to apply theory to practice
- Has been authored by leading figure in syntax Andrew Carnie to support classroom usage of Syntax: A Generative Introduction, Fourth Edition
- Works in concert with a student companion website, offering a robust selection of learning tools for the classroom
Ideal for undergraduate courses in syntax, Syntax: A Generative Introduction, Fourth Edition, and The Syntax Workbook, Second Edition, together offer a perfect combination of thorough coverage and valuable practice. The workbook can be purchased on its own or in a set with the textbook.
Available as a set with Syntax: A Generative Introduction, 4th Edition
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 192
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021
Ähnliche
Contents
Cover
Table of Contents
Dedication
Title page
Copyright Page
Preface
Part 1: Preliminaries
Chapter 1: Generative Grammar
Chapter 2: Parts of Speech
Chapter 3: Constituency, Trees, and Rules
Chapter 4: Structural Relations
Chapter 5: Binding Theory
Part 2: The Base
Chapter 6: X-bar Theory
Chapter 7: Extending X-bar Theory to Functional Categories
Chapter 8: Constraining X-bar: Theta Theory
Chapter 9: Theta Grids and Functional Categories
Part 3: Movement
Chapter 10: Head-to-Head Movement
Chapter 11: DP Movement
Chapter 12:
Wh
-movement and Locality Constraints
Chapter 13: A Unified Theory of Movement
Part 4 Advanced Topics
Chapter 14: Ditransitives
Chapter 15: Raising, Control, and Empty Categories
Chapter 16: Ellipsis
Chapter 17: Advanced Topics in Binding Theory
Chapter 18: Polysynthesis, Incorporation, and Non-configurationality
Chapter 19: Merge
References
Index
End User License Agreement
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Dedication
Title page
Copyright
Preface
Begin Reading
References
Index
End User License Agreement
Pages
i
ii
iii
iv
vi
vii
viii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
For my family: Jean, Morag, Fiona, Aoife, Crònan, and Nechtan
The Syntax Workbook
A Companion to Carnie’s Syntax 4e.
Second Edition
Andrew Carnie
This second edition first published 2021© 2021 Andrew Carnie
Edition History: John Wiley and Sons (1e, 2013)
Wiley-Blackwell is an imprint of John Wiley & Sons, formed by the merger of Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical and Medical business with Blackwell Publishing.
Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Offices350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UKThe Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.
The right of Andrew Carnie to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Carnie, Andrew, 1969- author. | Carnie, Andrew, 1969- Syntax.Title: The syntax workbook : a companion to Carnie’s Syntax 4e. / Andrew Carnie.Description: Second edition. | Chichester, West Sussex : Wiley-Blackwell, 2021. |Series: Introducing linguistics | Includes bibliographical references and index. |Summary: This workbook contains enrichment and additional practice exercises that go along with each chapter in the book.You can check your own answers against the answer key at the end of each chapter.Provided by publisher.Identifiers: LCCN 2020037757 (print) | LCCN 2020037758 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119569299 (paperback) | ISBN 9781119569329 (pdf) | ISBN 9781119569282 (epub)Subjects: LCSH: Grammar, Comparative and general--Syntax. | Generative grammar.Classification: LCC P295 .C373 2021 (print) | LCC P295 (ebook) | DDC 415.071--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020037757LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020037758
Cover Design: WileyCover Image: Wassily Kandinsky, Almost Submerged, 1930
Preface
Welcome!
Thank you for purchasing The Syntax Workbook, 2nd Edition which goes along with the fourth edition of Syntax: A Generative Introduction. This workbook is designed to give you further practice beyond the presentation and exercises in the main text. Syntax often uses big tree diagrams, and the constant cry I’ve heard from students using the first and second editions is that there aren’t enough example diagrams or practice. On the other hand, adding practice exercises with answers would make the main text too big and expensive. So I’ve settled on this optional workbook as an alternative.
You have three different opportunities to practice now:
Workbook Exercises (WBE)
: This workbook contains enrichment and additional practice exercises that go along with each chapter in the book. You can check your own answers against the answer key at the end of each chapter.
General Problem Sets (GPS)
(in the main textbook)
: You can do the general problem sets at the end of each chapter in the main textbook. I’m sorry but the answers to these questions are not made available to students. The reason for this is that many instructors use these problem sets as a means for student evaluation. Providing the answers to these would be counterproductive! If you are using the textbook for self-study or your instructor isn’t using the problem sets for evaluation, I encourage you to find a linguistics professor or linguistics (post-)graduate student who can help you with determining if you are on the right track with these.
If you are an advanced student or a graduate student, I strongly encourage you to try the
Challenge Problem Sets (CPS)
at the end of each chapter in the main textbook. These problem sets are designed to make you think critically about the presentation in the text and to think about alternatives and problems that exist for the theory. Again the answers to these cannot be distributed to students.
I hope that you find that the addition of this workbook enriches your syntactic studies and gives you more opportunities to master the material.
This is the second version of this workbook and while we’ve done our best at quality control, it’s possible that some errors have slipped through the student testing, copy- editing, and proofreading processes. I welcome any corrections or suggestions at [email protected]. Many people helped produce this book and the textbook, a list of people can be found in the preface to the main textbook. A thank you to them all!
Andrew Carnie
Tucson
Part 1 Preliminaries
Chapter 1 Generative Grammar
WORKBOOK EXERCISES
WBE1. PRESCRIPTIVE RULES
[Critical Thinking; Basic]
Part 1: All of the sentences below are prescriptively “wrong” according to many so-called language experts. Can you identify what’s supposed to be wrong with them (i.e., what prescriptive rule do they violate?). If you’re not familiar with prescriptive rules you may have to search around on the Web a bit to figure this out, but if you’ve been trained to write in the American or British University tradition, most (or many) of these should stand out as “poor grammar” or “poor style”. Certainly, Microsoft Word’s grammar- checking program is flagging many of these sentences as I write them!
What did you put the present in?
She’s smarter than him.
To boldly go where no one has gone before!
He walks too slow.
Hopefully, the weather will turn sunny soon.
I found out something which will disturb you greatly.
Who did you see?
I can’t hardly sleep.
10 items or less [
a sign above a register in the grocery store]
My view of grammar is different than yours.
I will not enjoy it.
If I was a linguist, then I wouldn’t have to study prescriptive rules.
The homework wasn’t done completely.
All of the linguists at the conference congratulated each other.
Me and John are going to the movies later.
I want to learn a new language like French.
Part 2: Consider each of the sentences above and evaluate whether or not they are really unacceptable for you. Try to ignore what you were taught in school was right and focus instead on whether you might actually utter one of these sentences, or if you’d actually blink if you heard one of them produced by someone else. Listen to your inner voice rather than relying on what you have learned is “correct”.
WBE2. SCIENTIFIC METHOD PRACTICE1
[Critical Thinking Practice; Basic]
Background: One particular kind of question in English is called a “Yes/No question”. These questions can typically be answered with either Yes, No, or Maybe. The standard strategy for forming Yes/No questions is to change the order of the words at the beginning of the sentence from the equivalent statement:
With this background about Yes/No and declarative sentences in mind, consider the fol- lowing hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Yes/No questions are formed by moving the second word in the equivalent statement to the front.
Now look at the following sentences:
Question 1: Are sentences (c) and (d) consistent with hypothesis 1? (Pay careful attention to the wording of the hypothesis!)
Now consider the next two sentences
Question 2: Are sentences (e) and (f) consistent with hypothesis 1?
Question 3: Instead of (f), what sentence does hypothesis 1 actually predict to be the grammatical Yes/No question equivalent to (e)?
Question 4: Try to come up with a hypothesis that accounts for the grammaticality of (e). (Hint #1: words such as will are called auxiliaries. Hint #2: use as much of the language in hypothesis 1 as you can, making only minimal changes.)
WBE3. USING CORPORA FOR DOING SYNTACTIC RESEARCH
[Critical Thinking Practice; Basic]
Make sure you read the discussion of blow up in section 3.2 of chapter 1 before attempting this question. Consider the phrase blow off. In colloquial American English, this sequence has two2 usages with quite different meanings.
The leaves blew off the sidewalk.
I blew off doing my homework.
In (a) blow means “(to move) in a burst of air”. The off is actually a preposition that is tied to the noun phrase the sidewalk. The other meaning, in (b), is the colloquial expression blow off meaning “didn’t do”, “ignored responsibilities”, or “didn’t show up” in some circumstances. Phrases like blow off or blow up often allow two orders of the object and the particle (off or up): I blew up the building and I blew the building up.
Now consider the following sentences:
Sean blew me off.
Sean blew off me.
Question 1: What meaning(s) does sentence (c) have? Are they different from sentence (d)? Is sentence (d) even grammatical in your dialect?
Question 2: Now you get to use Google to investigate the frequency of phrases like (c–d) to see if their relative frequencies correspond to the availability of meanings. We’re going to use a tool called ngrams produced by Google. Ngrams represent the frequency of strings in Google’s collection of published books. The numbers are going to be very small, but we can get a picture of the distribution of these constructions.
Go to
http://books.google.com/ngrams
In the search box type the following terms, one by one.
blow me off
blow off me
Note down the percentage of hits for each of these in the year 2000.
Question 3: Is there a correspondence between the numbers you got above and your judgments of grammaticality and meaning?
Question 4: Now just do a regular search for “blow off me” (be sure to include the quotation marks“ “to insure that google searches for the words in exactly that order.) Do any of the results have the “didn’t bother to show up” meaning? What does this tell you about the structure of sentence (d)?
WBE4: SEMANTIC VS SYNTACTIC JUDGEMENTS
[Application of Knowledge; Basic]
Each of the following sentences might be considered to be ungrammatical, unacceptable, or just odd. For each sentence, indicate whether the ungrammaticality or oddness has to do with syntax (form) or semantics (meaning) or both.
The chocolate-covered sausage sincerely wanted her mother-in-law to leave.
What do you wonder who chased?
Cat the dog the bark at.
Andrew is a professor and not a professor.
Danced makes me to have tired.
WBE5: I-LANGUAGE VS. E-LANGUAGE
[Application of knowledge; Intermediate]
What follows are a bunch of statements about French. Try to determine if they are about i-language or e-language or both.
French is spoken in many countries in Africa
When Maggie was learning French, she had trouble getting the gender of nouns.
In Canada, road signs are in both French and English.
French pronominal objects appear before the participle.
Suzette, although a fluent speaker of Parisian French, has a lot of trouble understand- ing people from Montreal.
ANSWERS
WBE1. PRESCRIPTIVE RULES
Part 1:
This sentence ends in a preposition. Prescriptively it should be
In(to) what did you put the present?
The complement of a comparative is supposed to be in the nominative case. Prescrip- tively, this should be
She’s smarter than he
. The reasoning is that the sentence is really a shortening of
She’s smarter than he is
.
This sentence has a split infinitive (
to boldly go
). Prescriptively, this should be
to go boldly where no man has gone before
.
Slow
is an adjective, not an adverb, but here it modifies a verb. The prescriptively correct form is
He walks too slowly
.
The adverb
hopefully
is supposed to only mean “in a hopeful manner”; the weather is unlikely to be hopeful. Prescriptively it should be
I hope that the weather will turn sunny soon
.
The string of words that follows something is a restrictive relative clause and should be introduced by
that
. An alternate non-restrictive meaning could be forced by in- serting a comma before the
which
. Prescriptively this should be
I found out something that will disturb you greatly
.
Who
represents the object of the verb
see
, so should be in the accusative form
whom
(i.e.,
Whom did you see?
).
This one is hard for American speakers to spot.
Hardly
is a negative adverb, so this is seen as a case of double negation. In prescriptive terms it should be
I can hardly sleep
.
Less
is supposed to be used with mass nouns (nouns like
water
or
air
) and
item
is not a mass noun, so prescriptively this should be 10 items or fewer.
The prescriptively correct form is
different from
.
Than
is supposed to be a conjunction rather than a preposition, and so can’t be used to connect an adjective with a pro- noun. So prescriptively this should be
My view of grammar is different from yours
.
At least in prescriptive British English, the correct future auxiliary that is used with first-person subjects (i.e.,
I, we
) is
shall
, not
will
. So, this is prescriptively
I shall not enjoy it
.
When the word
if
marks a counterfactual conditional (i.e., it is used to describe a state of being that isn’t actually true), then the verb should be in its subjunctive form. So, this sentence would be
If I were a linguist, then I wouldn’t have to study prescriptive rules
.
Prescriptive grammarians tell us to avoid passives. Sentence (m) is a passive. The active form of this would be something like You didn’t complete the homework effi- ciently.
According to prescriptive grammar
each other
is only supposed to be used when there are two participants, so “proper” grammar would have this as
All of the linguists at the conference congratulated one another
.
Me
is the accusative form of the pronoun, so it’s supposed to be used only in object positions or after a preposition. In this sentence, the pronoun is in the subject position so it’s supposed to be the nominative
I
. The order of the noun
John
and the pronoun is also reversed from prescriptive order. The “correct” form for this sentence is
John and I are going to the movies later
.
The conjunction
like
is supposed to mean “similar to” rather than “as an example”. So, the prescriptive interpretation of this sentence is one where the speaker wants to learn a language that’s similar to French, but not French itself. Prescriptively, if you intend an “as an example” meaning you’re supposed to use
such
as instead of
like
:
I want to learn a new language, such as French
.
Part 2: The answer to this part of the question will be a personal one. You might truly find some of these sentences unacceptable, but others you might be surprised are judged “wrong” at all. Personally, I find my inner voice balks a bit at (d), (f), and (l). However, the rest sound like things I might say every day. This said, from a descriptive point of view, you will find that native speakers of English will all utter sentences like these “ungrammatical” ones. In many cases, they’re probably far more common in actual speech and writing than the “correct” forms. So, if we’re being scientists, we’re going to want to concentrate on what people actually do rather than on what so-called experts tell us to do.
WBE2. SCIENTIFIC METHOD PRACTICE
Question 1: Sentence (d) is predicted by the hypothesis: The first word in the declara- tive/statement form is the second word in the yes/no question, and vice versa.
Question 2: Sentence (f), however, is not predicted: it is the fourth word of sentence (e) that appears first in the question.
Question 3: Hypothesis 1 predicts that the yes/no question form of sentence (9) would be *Old the hobbit will eat the magic beans. The second word (old) is inverted with the first (the).
Question 4: Hypothesis 2 should be something like “Yes/no questions are formed by moving the auxiliary of the equivalent declarative sentence to the front” or “Yes/no questions are formed by reversing the positions of the subject and the auxiliary.” Your wording may vary.
WB3. USING CORPORA FOR DOING SYNTACTIC RESEARCH
Question 1: For me, sentence (d) is only grammatical with a lot of context (see the sentences in answer to Question 4 below), but to the extent it’s okay, it has to mean that Sean puffed air across him. Sentence (c) by contrast is completely grammatical and can mean either “Sean didn’t show up for their meeting” or “Sean used a puff of air to clear all the dust off of him”.
Question 2: Because of the way Google and search engines like it work, the exact numbers for this experiment will vary from day to day. But the general pattern of effect should be found no matter when the experiment is done. Here are the results I got on June 4th, 2019. The numbers are not exact, as Google only offers an approximation once the numbers get large enough.
The fact that (ii) doesn’t even show up in the database is telling.
Question 3: There seems to be a correspondence between our judgments of meaning and the statistics here. The form most English speakers either find ungrammatical or consider to have a very limited and non-idiomatic meaning, i.e. (iv), is absent from the google books database.
Question 4: On June 10, 2019, the top hits were:
e) Time to let the stink blow off me.
f) …doing blow off me.
Example (e) clearly has the “puff of air” meaning. I’ve edited the context for (f), because some readers may find the original tweet offensive, but in this case blow is not being used as a verb, but as a noun referring to the drug cocaine. In neither case does it have the “didn’t show up” reading.
What does this mean for us as syntacticians? Sometimes corpora can be used to verify judgments we have about structure. But the statistics don’t get at one important fact about the sentences above: The rare form is restricted in meaning as well.
WBE4. SEMANTIC VS. SYNTACTIC JUDGMENTS
Semantically odd. Sausages don’t have mothers-in-law (among other strange things about this sentence).
