538
edits
Syntax: Difference between revisions
movement in Toaq
mNo edit summary |
(movement in Toaq) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
This theory is not without criticism: there's little neurological evidence for an innate "language device". However, generativism has also been very successful in explaining natural language syntax and semantics at many levels. If we can describe Toaq's syntax in these same terms, we can be certain that it ''is'' a human language, rather than merely a way to "speak out loud" an unnatural mathematical or logical structure. | This theory is not without criticism: there's little neurological evidence for an innate "language device". However, generativism has also been very successful in explaining natural language syntax and semantics at many levels. If we can describe Toaq's syntax in these same terms, we can be certain that it ''is'' a human language, rather than merely a way to "speak out loud" an unnatural mathematical or logical structure. | ||
[[Hoemaı]]'s attempts to describe Lojban syntax in the framework of generativism were unsuccessful, whereas efforts to describe Toaq with the same linguistic tools are working out (and Toaq is evolving with this goal in mind). This current description of Toaq syntax is influenced by "X-bar theory" and the "Minimalist program" — sub-theories of generativism with certain ideas about syntactic structures. The forefront of linguistic knowledge has progressed a bit beyond these theories, but they are still very adequate frameworks to serve as points of reference. (As conlangers, we can "cheat" a little and design Toaq so as to not bump into the flaws of these more fleshed-out systems.) | [[Hoemaı]]'s attempts to describe Lojban syntax in the framework of generativism were unsuccessful, whereas efforts to describe Toaq with the same linguistic tools are working out (and Toaq is evolving with this goal in mind). This current description of Toaq syntax is influenced by "X-bar theory" and the "Minimalist program" — sub-theories of generativism with certain ideas about syntactic structures.<ref>The forefront of linguistic knowledge has progressed a bit beyond these theories, but they are still very adequate frameworks to serve as points of reference. (As conlangers, we can "cheat" a little and design Toaq so as to not bump into the flaws of these more fleshed-out systems.)</ref> | ||
Toaq being a [[loglang]] means that we can unambiguously parse sentences into syntax trees. [[Zugaı]] is a piece of software that performs this transformation. | Toaq being a [[loglang]] means that we can unambiguously parse sentences into syntax trees. [[Zugaı]] is a piece of software that performs this transformation. There is similar software for [[Lojban]] called ''camxes'', but while its output is deterministic, the resulting tree is (from a linguist's perspective) quite ad-hoc and not useful for semantic interpretation. | ||
( | |||
== Movement == | == Movement == | ||
| Line 21: | Line 19: | ||
The generative explanation for this is that the question has a deep structure like "Mary wants '''who''' to dance?", and then for pragmatic reasons, the question word moves to the front of the sentence and gets supported by "does". There is a '''trace''' marked by () in the spot where "who" moved from. | The generative explanation for this is that the question has a deep structure like "Mary wants '''who''' to dance?", and then for pragmatic reasons, the question word moves to the front of the sentence and gets supported by "does". There is a '''trace''' marked by () in the spot where "who" moved from. | ||
There is good evidence for wh-movement. English speakers tend to agree that we can't contract the sentence to "Who does Mary wanna dance?" — we can imagine the "who"-trace between "want to" is blocking the contraction. | There is good evidence for wh-movement. English speakers tend to agree that we can't contract the sentence to "Who does Mary wanna dance?" — we can imagine the "who"-trace between "want to" is there, unpronounced, but blocking the contraction. | ||
Note that the claim is ''not'' that the deep-structure sentence first forms in the speaker's mind, and is then rearranged into surface-structure. The temporal "before and after" perspective on movement is only a useful metaphor for a language's grammar rules. | Note that the claim is ''not'' that the deep-structure sentence first forms in the speaker's mind, and is then rearranged into surface-structure. The temporal "before and after" perspective on movement is only a useful metaphor for a language's grammar rules. | ||
=== Movement in Toaq === | === Movement in Toaq === | ||
The [https://i.imgur.com/iHH8gud.png tree] for a sentence like {{t|Nỏaq jí kúe nha}} indicates an SVO deep structure: <code>jí nỏaq kúe</code>. What's going on? | |||
The generativist "verb phrase" has the verb and the object generated side-by-side. Even in VSO natural languages like Irish, there is evidence for verb-and-object VP structures. Meanwhile, there is also some evidence for verb-and-object structures in Toaq: for example, [[propositional phrase]]s like {{t|tì kúa}}, or genitival [[serial verb]]s like {{t|nỏaq kủe}}. | |||
A generativist approach for analyzing a VSO language is thus that the verb and object really are side-by-side in the deep structure, and that the verb moves up to the front of the sentence for ''some'' reason.<ref>Hoemaı has suggested that there is "room for fanfic" as to why this happens in Toaq. The F in ''F'' and ''FP'' nodes could stand for "focus", so that {{t|Nỏaq jí kúe nha}} is a bit like "Read it, I'll do that book!" — except perhaps over time it got watered down and became normal grammar with no actual focusing function.</ref> | |||
Toaq could have been designed as SVO from the start, and have a surface structure that's closer to the deep structure. There are aesthetical arguments in favor of VSO. Having V right next to the complementizer makes {{tone|3}} and {{tone|5}} work nicely. Moreover, VSO grammar is similar to the logic notation <math>P(x,y,z)</math> for predicates and their arguments. | |||