Cartography (syntax)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The articles cartography (linguistics) and cartography (syntax) thematically overlap. Help me to better differentiate or merge the articles (→  instructions ) . To do this, take part in the relevant redundancy discussion . Please remove this module only after the redundancy has been completely processed and do not forget to include the relevant entry on the redundancy discussion page{{ Done | 1 = ~~~~}}to mark. Falott ( discussion ) 11:02, 17 Mar. 2019 (CET)


In linguistics, cartography is a research direction in the area of syntax (i.e. the part of linguistics that deals with the construction of words into larger units).

The basic idea of ​​cartography is that syntactic structures are built up according to certain fixed patterns that may be the same in all languages. In other words, according to syntactic cartographers, the hierarchical structure of language is fixed. This structure, which is often very fine-grained, is called a map. The cartographic syntax is part of the generative tradition of linguistics and belongs to the field of the minimalist program . The founders of cartography include the two Italian linguists Luigi Rizzi and Guglielmo Cinque .

methodology

The methodological core of the cartographic syntax is the so-called 'transitive method', which is initially explained in the abstract and then based on an example. First, two elements A and B are combined with one another in one structure. As a rule, languages ​​tend to have a preference for a sequence, e.g. B. AB, but not * BA (where the asterisk indicates that this is not a well-formed sequence). Then another combination is tested, e.g. B. the combination of the elements B and C. Assuming that BC applies but not * CB, we can deduce from this that AC also applies and not * CA (if A comes before B and B comes before C, then must also come A before C). This can then be tested.

This can be done by Germans z. B. show using adjectives. If we combine an evaluative adjective that expresses a subjective assessment of a speaker (e.g. beautiful ) with an adjective that expresses the size of the object (e.g. small ), we get the following result:

(1) a.  Ein schöner großer Ball.
    b. #Ein großer schöner Ball. '''Evaluativ > Größe'''

From the data in (1) it can be seen that the normal sequence of evaluative adjectives and adjectives indicating the size of a speaker is evaluative> size . It should be noted that the sequence in (1b) is not completely excluded. It is only marked (somewhat unusual), which is why it was marked with a diamond. In fact, this sequence can even be expressed without any problems in certain discourse situations, namely when the adjective is stressed larger . However, since such a focus can reverse almost any order, we leave it out here. Under normal circumstances, evaluative adjectives precede size adjectives in German (although this was only tested on the example of two individual adjectives, this applies to the whole class). At the moment it is still a simple empirical observation.

Now let's test another class, e.g. B. Color adjectives, and test to see if we can see sequence effects on the size adjectives. Indeed it is. As shown in (2), we find the sequence size> color .

(2) a.  Ein großer blauer Ball.
    b. #Ein blauer großer Ball. '''Größe > Farbe'''

If one now combines the findings, the result is the prediction evaluative> color . This can now be tested:

(3) a.  Ein schöner blauer Ball.
    b. #Ein blauer schöner Ball. '''Evaluativ > Farbe'''

The result is the following picture:

Evaluative Adjektive > Größenadjektive > Farbadjektive

In fact, there are countless other adjective classes that are also relatively restrictive in their sequences compared to other classes. Similar restrictions apply not only to German, but, as far as known, to all languages ​​in the world. The question now arises as to how a syntactic theory can model or even predict such structures. In older versions of Generative Syntax, adjectives were modeled as so-called adjuncts . The problem with this approach, however, is that by definition adjuncts are freely insertable into a structure. An adjunct analysis predicts that we should not find any sequence restrictions. However, this contradicts the empirical facts.

Cartography of the set

In cartographic syntax it is therefore assumed that these sequence restrictions are built into the syntax of a language. This leads to an extremely rich syntactic structure, which in turn needs to be explained where it comes from.

Cartographic structures are accepted not only in the area of ​​adjectives, but also at the sentence level. This can again be illustrated with an example (the example comes from Bross & Hole 2017). The admittedly somewhat complicated subordinate clause in (4) shows the sequence of four categories that can be found in many languages ​​around the world. The expression repairing your bike describes the process, the event that the sentence is about. This is followed by an ability category, by the modal verb can be expressed. Paula, the spokeswoman suspects, was able to repair her bike. This is followed by the auxiliary verb haben , which (in a somewhat simplified form) is used to mark the tense , and finally another modal verb that expresses that the speaker suspects this (it is a so-called epistemic modal verb ).

(4) ... weil Paula ihr Fahrrad reparieren(event) gekonnt(ability) haben(tense) muss(epistemic).

Again it can be seen that the sequence of these categories is very strict. It is not possible to swap the order of the individual elements without getting an ungrammatical sentence. The interesting thing about this example is that German seems to behave like a mirror image of other languages. This can be illustrated using English. The sentence in (5) is a translation of the sentence in (4).

(5) ... because Paula must(epistemic) have(tense) been able(ability) to repair her bike(event).

As can be seen in the example, the order of the categories is exactly the same as in German, only in reverse order. Within the cartographic syntax, such data is used as evidence that sentence structures are firmly structured across languages ​​and are not chaotic or random. So in cartography it is assumed that all languages ​​follow the same map. How this is expressed, however, can vary (e.g. from left to right or from right to left).

literature

  • P. Benincà, N. Munaro: Mapping the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures . Oxford University Press, 2011.
  • F. Bross, D. Hole: Scope-taking strategies and the order of clausal categories in German Sign Language. In: Glossa. A Journal of General Linguistics. Volume 2, No. 1, 2017, p. 76.
  • G. Cinque, L. Rizzi: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. In: STiL - Studies in Linguistics. 2, 2008, pp. 43-59.
  • L. Rizzi, G. Bocci: Left Periphery of the Clause: Primarily Illustrated for Italian. In: M. Evenaert, H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.): The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax. 2nd Edition. 2017, pp. 2171-2200.
  • U. Shlonsky: The Cartographic Enterprise in Syntax. In: Language and Linguistics Compass. 4/6, 2010, pp. 417-429

Individual evidence

  1. In Generative Grammar, subordinate clauses are traditionally used for German in order to test data for German, as numerous shifts are possible in the main clause.