Introduction E9F5FC

Questions FFFFC0

• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

Draft of paper

句法

Syntax describes what we don't know. Thus it distinguishes the question asked (subject, topic) from the answer given (predicate, comment). Similarly, it distinguishes opening (noun), exploring (verb) and closing (evaluative).

Syntactic phenomenon

• Note: presyntactic: linear grammar.
• Stand alone expression, for example, leading into a sentence.
• Closing what we open: Construction and satisfaction of obligations. ("Rules of the house.")
• Creating a new word or phrase. (Game deliverables.)
• Distinguishing a word as a part of speech.
• Clauses - a question (subject/topic) and an answer (predicate/comment).
• Questions - making questions semantically and syntactically explicit.
• Concatentation
• Embedding
• Marking the nature of a sentence (with a particle).
• 6 types of rules - Kiparsky's gradation

Thinking jointly

Thinking jointly allows us to think in terms of the Other, the gap, Požiūris į Požiūrį į Požiūrį.

Thinking by ourselves - and listening to others - words fade in and out. The obligation here is not strong and so words can fade in and fade out. We can think without words - think visually, leveraging the surrounding environment, imagining possibilities and noticing associations and connotations. Thinking parallel thoughts - like waves that have constructive or destructive interference - that come in and out. Thinking in phrases, words, feelings.

Įvardijimas: sieja klausimą (rūpėjimas - kodėl), atsakymą (aiškinimas - kaip) ir šaukimą (liepimas - koks) (initiate the game - jo pavadinimu). O tarpas - tyla - yra galimybė pradėti naują žaidimą. Užtat po kiekvieno sakinio atsiveria tarpas, ir tarp kiekvieno žodžio atsiveria tarpas.

Clauses

• A clause is the explicit combination of a question and its answer, thus a proposition.
• Clause. The smallest grammatical unit that can express a complete proposition. A typical clause consists of a subject and a predicate, the latter typically a verb phrase, a verb with any objects and other modifiers.
  • Main clause can stand alone, i.e. it can constitute a complete sentence by itself.
  • Subordinate clause (i.e. embedded clause) is reliant on the appearance of a main clause; it depends on the main clause and is therefore a dependent clause.
  • Finite clause. Contains a structurally central finite verb.
  • Non-finite clause. The structurally central word of a non-finite clause is often a non-finite verb.
  • Standard SV-clauses. (subject-verb) The norm in English. They are usually declarative (as opposed to exclamative, imperative, or interrogative); they express information in a neutral manner, e.g. The pig has not yet been fed. The pig has not yet been fed? - Rising intonation on fed makes the clause a yes/no-question. The pig has not yet been fed? - Rising intonation on fed makes the clause a yes/no-question.
  • Verb first clauses.
    • They express a yes/no-question via subject–auxiliary inversion. Should he stop laughing? -
    • They express a condition as an embedded clause. Had he stopped laughing, ...
    • They express a command via imperative mood. Stop laughing!
  • Wh-clauses. Wh-clauses contain a wh-word. Wh-words often serve to help express a constituent question. They are also prevalent, though, as relative pronouns, in which case they serve to introduce a relative clause and are not part of a question. The wh-word focuses a particular constituent and most of the time, it appears in clause-initial position.
    • Who likes the meat?
    • They asked who likes the meat.
  • Relative clauses A mixed group. In English they can be standard SV-clauses if they are introduced by that or lack a relative pronoun entirely, or they can be wh-clauses if they are introduced by a wh-word that serves as a relative pronoun. As embedded clauses, relative clauses in English cannot display subject-auxiliary inversion.
    • something that happened twice - Relative clause introduced by the relative pronoun that and modifying the indefinite pronoun something
    • everyone I know - Relative clause lacking a relative pronoun entirely and modifying the indefinite pronoun everyone
    • the time when they left early - Relative clause introduced by the relative proform when and modifying the noun time
    • the woman who sang a song. - Relative clause introduced by the relative pronoun who and modifying the noun woman
    • Free relative clause. A particular type of wh-relative-clause. These relative clauses are "free" because they can appear in a variety of syntactic positions; they are not limited to appearing as modifiers of nominals. The suffix -ever is often employed to render a standard relative pronoun as a pronoun that can introduce a free relative clause.
      • What he did was unexpected. - Free relative clause functioning as subject argument
      • He will flatter whoever is present. - Free relative clause functioning as object argument
    • Clauses according to semantic predicate-argument function
      • Argument clauses. Functions as the argument of a given predicate is known as an argument clause. Argument clauses can appear as subjects, as objects, and as obliques.
        • That they actually helped was really appreciated. - SV-clause functioning as the subject argument
        • They mentioned that they had actually helped. - SV-clause functioning as the object argument
        • What he said was ridiculous. - Wh-clause functioning as the subject argument
        • He talked about what he had said. - Wh-clause functioning as an oblique object argument
        • Content clauses. Argument clauses which modify a noun predicate.
          • the claim that he was going to change it - Argument clause that provides the content of a noun (i.e. content clause)
        • Adjunct clauses. Embedded clauses that modify an entire predicate-argument structure. All clause types (SV-, verb first, wh-) can function as adjuncts, although the stereotypical adjunct clause is SV and introduced by a subordinator (i.e. subordinate conjunction, e.g. after, because, before, when, etc.)
          • Fred arrived before you did. - Adjunct clause modifying matrix clause
          • We like the music that you brought. - Relative clause functioning as an adjunct that modifies the noun music
        • Predicative clauses. Forms (part of) the predicate of a greater clause.
          • That was when they laughed. - Predicative SV-clause, i.e. a clause that functions as (part of) the main predicate
          • He became what he always wanted to be. - Predicative wh-clause, i.e. wh-clause that functions as (part of) the main predicate
      • Non-finite clauses
      • Gerund clauses.
        • Bill stopping the project was a big disappointment. - Non-finite gerund clause
      • to-infinitive clauses
        • She refuses PRO to consider the issue.
      • Small clauses
        • We consider that a joke. - Small clause with the predicative noun phrase a joke
        • Something made him angry. - Small clause with the predicative adjective angry
        • She wants us to stay. - Small clause with the predicative non-finite to-infinitive to stay
• Types of clauses. Derivable from Meta-OutsideOfGame-Why/InsideOfGame-How boundary.
• Also consider phrases.

Subject-predicate

• Inverse copula sentences The cause of the riot is a picture on the wall. A picture on the wall is the cause of the riot. *A picture on the wall is it. Fred is the plumber. The plumber is Fred. *The plumber is he.
  • Subject-verb agreement. The pictures are a problem. A problem is/??are the pictures. Whereas German: Die Bilder sind ein Problem. Ein Problem sind/*ist die Bilder.

Reference - Delineating the Game - Marking the Focus

• Anaphora A reflexive or reciprocal pronoun, such as himself or each other in English. Generative grammar investigates the syntactic relationship that can or must hold between a given proform and its antecedent (or postcedent). In this respect, anaphors (reflexive and reciprocal pronouns) behave very differently from, for instance, personal pronouns.
• Antecedent-contained deletion Replace a verb phrase with a helping verb.
• Existential clause A clause that refers to the existence or presence of something. Examples in English include the sentences "There is a God" and "There are boys in the yard". The use of such clauses can be considered analogous to existential quantification in predicate logic.
• Pro-drop A language in which certain classes of pronouns may be omitted when they are pragmatically or grammatically inferable. Also commonly referred to as zero or null anaphora.
• Expletives A word that performs a syntactic role but contributes nothing to meaning. There, it.
  • Dummy pronoun A pronoun used for syntax without explicit meaning. "It is obvious that the violence will continue."
• Expletive attributive An adjective or adverb (or adjectival or adverbial phrase) that does not contribute to the propositional meaning of a sentence, but is used to intensify its emotional force.
• Reflexive pronoun A pronoun that is preceded or followed by the noun, adjective, adverb or pronoun to which it refers (its antecedent) within the same clause. (Myself, yourself, ourselves). An anaphor that must be bound by its antecedent (see binding). In a general sense, it is a noun phrase that obligatorily gets its meaning from another noun phrase in the sentence.
• Intensive pronoun Adds emphasis to a statement; for example, "I did it myself." In Spanish, as in most other pro-drop languages, emphasis can be added simply by explicitly using the omissible pronoun. Following the above example, "I will do it myself" is rendered "Lo haré yo." Adding "mismo" after the pronoun yields additional emphasis.

Sentence markers

• Chinese particles
• Chinese exclamative particles

Extra pre- or post-sentences

Broader context

• Prosody Elements of speech that are not individual phonetic segments (vowels and consonants) but are properties of syllables and larger units of speech. These contribute to linguistic functions such as intonation, tone, stress, and rhythm. Prosody may reflect various features of the speaker or the utterance: the emotional state of the speaker; the form of the utterance (statement, question, or command); the presence of irony or sarcasm; emphasis, contrast, and focus.

Questions - Macro-obligations

You can't have a subject by itself - unless it's an explicit question like "What?" that leverages a context. You can't say "The railway station." But you can have a predicate by itself (if needed, using a dummy subject): It is wonderful to be here. Gražu.

Interrogative words:

• Interrogative determiner: which, what, whose
• Interrogative pronoun: who, whom, whose, what, which
• Interrogative pro-adverb: where, whither (goal), whence (source), when, how, why, whether, whatsoever, whereby, wherefore
• Interrogative verb: (Korean, Mongolian)
• Lietuvių kalba: susiję su linksniais. Ir dar kokie? kàs, kòks, kienõ, kurìs, keliñtas, katràs, kelì, kelerì.
• Wh-movement, wh-fronting, wh-extraction, long-distance dependency. Special rules of syntax involving the placement of interrogative words. Wh-words are used to form questions, and can also occur in relative clauses. In languages exhibiting wh-movement, sentences or clauses containing a wh-word show a special word order that has the wh-word (or phrase containing the wh-word) appearing at the front of the sentence or clause, e.g. Who do you think about?, instead of in a more canonical position further to the right, e.g. I think about you. The opposite is called wh in situ.
  • Wh-expressions without wh-movement.
    • You bought what!? – Echo question
    • George Orwell was born in which country? – Quiz question
    • Who bought what? – Multiple wh-expressions
  • Wh-movement in subordinate clauses
    • Wh-movement in indirect questions
      • Fred will ask Jill to leave. Who1 will2 Fred ask to leave? – Direct question. I wonder who1 Fred2 will3 ask to leave. – Indirect question
    • Wh-movement in relative clauses
      • I read Fred's paper. Fred's paper, which1 I2 read3 – Wh-fronting in relative clause. *Fred's paper, which1 did2 I read – Wh-fronting impossible with V2 word order in subordinate clause
  • Pied-piping
    • A fronted wh-word (or otherwise focused word) pulls an entire encompassing phrase to the front of the clause with it.
      • Obligatory pied-piping. Susan is reading Fred's novel. Whose novel is Susan reading? – Pied-piping of novel. *Whose is Susan reading novel?
      • Optional pied-piping. In English, this occurs most notably with prepositional phrases (PPs). a. He is hiding behind the red door. b. Behind which door is he hiding? – Pied-piping of preposition associated with a formal register. c. Which door is he hiding behind?
        • Preposition stranding is possible in English but not allowed in many languages that are related to English.
  • Extraction islands. In many cases, a wh-expression can occur at the front of a sentence regardless of how far away its canonical location. Who does Carl believe that Bob knows that Mary likes __? Certain kinds of phrases do not seem to allow a gap. The phrases from which a wh-word cannot be extracted are referred to as extraction islands or simply islands.
    • Adjunct islands. Formed from an adjunct clause. a. You went home because you needed to do that? *What did you go home because you needed to do __? (Compare with: WHY - and note that clauses are marking HOW/WHY boundaries)
    • Wh-islands. Created by an embedded sentence which is introduced by a wh-word. a. John wonders where Eric went to buy a gift? b. ??What does John wonder where Eric went to buy __? a. Susan asked why Sam was waiting for Fred. b. *Who did Susan ask why Sam was waiting for __?
    • Subject islands. Subject clauses. a. That John went home is likely. b. *Who is that __ went home likely?
      • To a somewhat lesser extent subject phrases. a. The story about Susan was funny. b. ??Who was the story about __ funny?
    • Left branch islands. Modifiers that would appear on a left branch under a noun (i.e. they precede the noun that they modify) cannot be extracted. a. Susan likes Fred's account. b. *Whose does Susan like __ account? – Attempt to extract from a left branch under a noun fails. c. Whose account does Susan like __? a. He bought an expensive boat. b. *How expensive did he buy a __ boat? – Attempt to extract from a left branch under a noun fails. c. How expensive a boat did he buy?
    • Coordinate structure islands. Extraction out of a conjunct of a coordinate structure is possible only if this extraction affects all the conjuncts of the coordinate structure equally. a. Sam ate [beans] and [broccoli]. b. *What did Sam eat [beans] and [__]?
    • Complex noun phrase islands. Extraction is difficult from out of a noun phrase.
      • Banning extraction from the clausal complement of a noun. a. You heard the claim that Fred solved the second problem. b. ??What did you hear the claim that Fred solved __?
      • Banning extraction from a relative clause modifying a noun. a. They hired someone who speaks a Balkan language. b. *What Balkan language did they hire someone who speaks __?
    • Non-bridge-verb islands. Extraction out of object that-clauses serving as complements to verbs may show island-like behavior if the matrix verb is a non-bridge verb (Erteschik-Shir 1973). Non-bridge verbs include manner-of-speaking verbs, such as whisper or shout, e.g. a. She whispered that he had died in his sleep. b. *How did she whisper that he had died __? Whereas: a. She thinks that he died in his sleep. b. How does she think that he died __?
• Consider rhetorical questions: But, interestingly, who was there?

The principal (only?) obligation is to answer every question. A question is the incomplete half of a statement. And questions are what allow us to complete each other, thus are the basis for thinking together, thinking jointly.

Discontinuities - obligations

• discontinuities Occurs when a given word or phrase is separated from another word or phrase that it modifies in such a manner that a direct connection cannot be established between the two without incurring crossing lines in the tree structure. The terminology that is employed to denote discontinuities varies depending on the theory of syntax at hand. The terms discontinuous constituent, displacement, long distance dependency, unbounded dependency, and projectivity violation are largely synonymous with the term discontinuity.
  • topicalization Establishes an expression as the sentence or clause topic; in English, by having it appear at the front of the sentence or clause (as opposed to in a canonical position further to the right). Topicalization is similar to wh-movement insofar as the constituents that can be wh-fronted can also be topicalized. Topicalization is similar to wh-fronting insofar as the islands and barriers to wh-fronting are also islands and barriers to topicalization.
    • For entertainment, the boys roll rocks.
    • That pizza, I won't eat.
    • Such examples I thought you said that Tom believes the explanation needs.
    • *Whose aunt was the description of really funny? - Wh-fronting impossible out of a subject in English
    • *Starcraft he relaxes after he's played.
    • *Pasta she approves of the suggestion to make.
  • wh-fronting
  • scrambling Pragmatic word order In the Chomskyan tradition, every language is assumed to have a basic word order which is fundamental to its sentence structure, so languages which exhibit a wide variety of different orders are said to have "scrambled" them from their "normal" word order.
    • Scrambling is like extraposition in that it cannot displace a constituent from one clause into another.
  • extraposition A relatively "heavy" constituent appears to the right of its canonical position. Extraposing a constituent results in a discontinuity and in this regard, it is unlike shifting, which does not generate a discontinuity.
    • Clause bound. Right Roof Constraint.
      • *That we think is no secret that the idea is good. - Failed attempt to extrapose out of a subject clause
      • *Someone who thinks was talking non-stop that Romney will win. - Failed attempt to extrapose out of a relative clause
      • *Before it was certain, we were planning a picnic that it would rain. - Failed attempt to extrapose out of an adjunct clause
    • It-extraposition.
      • *It that I burned the potatoes was frustrating. - Failed sentence because extraposition is obligatory when it appears
      • It was frustrating that I burned the potatoes.

Concatenation - Required Horizontal organization - Game after game

• Repeating a three-cycle.
• Coordination Coordinator(s) and the conjuncts they link form an instance of coordination a coordinate structure. Any given lexical or phrasal category can be coordinated: N + N, NP + NP, V + V, P + P + P, PP + PP, Adv + Adv, AdvP + AdvP, Clause + Clause.
  • Nested coordinate structures
  • Mismatch in syntactic category
  • Non-constituent conjuncts:
    • [When did he] and [why did he] do that?
    • [She has] but [he has not] understood the task.
    • Susan [asked you] but [forced me] to read the book on syntax.
    • [Jill has been promising] but [Fred is actually trying] to solve the problem.
    • [The old] and [the new] submarines submerged side-by-side.
    • [Before the first] and [after the second] presentation, there will be coffee.
    • Fred sent [Uncle Willy chocolates] and [Aunt Samantha earrings].
    • We expect [Connor to laugh] and [Jilian to cry].
  • Gapping
    • [Brent ate the beans], and [Bill the rice].
    • [You should call me more], and [I you].
    • [Mary always orders wine], and [Sally beer].
  • Debatable
  • a. [They saw him first] and [(they saw) her second]. - Gapping analysis b. They saw [him first] and [her second]. - Non-gapping analysis
  • a. [Tanya expects the dog to eat cat food] and [(she expects) the cat to eat dog food]. - Gapping analysis b. Tanya expects [the dog to eat cat food] and [the cat to eat dog food]. - Non-gapping analysis
  • Forward vs. backward sharing. Coordination is sensitive to the linear order of words. There is a limitation on material that precedes the conjuncts of a coordinate structure that does restrict the material that follows it.
    • After Wallace fed [his dog the postman] and [his sheep the milkman] arrived. - Forward sharing fails.
    • [She stated the strengths], and [he mentioned the weaknesses] of the explanation. - Backward sharing succeeds.
  • Extraction
    • What does [Sarah like] and [Xolani hate]? - Across-the-board extraction of What
    • *Who did you see [Fred] and [ ]? - Failed extraction of an entire conjunct
    • *Who did you see [ ] and Susan? - Failed extraction of an entire conjunct
    • *Which action did the president understand [the criticism] and [take]? - Failed extraction out of a single conjunct
  • Pseudo-coordination. In pseudo-coordinative constructions, the coordinator, generally and, appears to have a subordinating function.
    • Why don't you go and jump in the lake What did she go and jump into?
    • I will try and jump in the lake What did she try and jump in?
    • The pupils sat and read their textbooks Which textbooks did the pupils sit and read?

Ordering

• Shifting Two or more constituents appearing on the same side of their common head exchange positions in a sense to obtain non-canonical order. He picked it up. (compare: *He picked up it.) He picked up the flashlight.
  • Heavy NP shift I gave X to Y. "I gave the books which my uncle left to me as part of his inheritance to her." => I gave to Y X. "I gave to her the books which my uncle left to me as part of his inheritance."
• Inversion Two expressions switch their canonical order of appearance.
  • Subject-auxiliary inversion An auxiliary verb changes places with its subject; it often occurs in questions, such as Are you coming?
  • Subject–verb inversion A full verb or a form of the copula be. If the sentence has an auxiliary verb, the subject is placed after the auxiliary and the main verb. Since this type of inversion generally places the focus on the subject, the subject is likely to be a full noun or noun phrase rather than a pronoun. In English: locative inversion, directive inversion, copular inversion, and quotative inversion.
    • A unicorn will come into the room. Into the room will come a unicorn.
    • Down the stairs came the dog. ?Down the stairs came it. Down the stairs came I.
  • In languages with V2 word order, such as German, inversion can occur as a consequence of the requirement that the verb appear as the second constituent in a declarative sentence. Thus, if another element (such as an adverbial phrase or clause) introduces the sentence, the verb must come next and be followed by the subject: Ein Jahr nach dem Autounfall sieht er wirklich gut aus, literally "A year after the car accident, looks he really good".
  • In languages with free word order, inversion of subject and verb or of other elements of a clause can occur more freely, often for pragmatic reasons rather than as part of a specific grammatical construction.

Creating and satisfying multiple micro-obligations

Separating the syntax game (organizing questions) and the semantics game (organizing answers). Thinking in parallel. And matching them at the end to meet obligations. But not necessarily one-to-one. Thus unfolding obligations to the listener. For speaking and listening is a joint activity, a joint intentionality.

Speaking gramatically gives you the right to speak nonsense semantically.

Speaking in full, grammatical sentences is a social obligation - all the more so in written form. Every language thus develops "obligations" that must be observed which keep the language from being trivial - gender, case, measure words - even Japanese has complicated honorifics. For example, in Chinese, measure words you can grammatically use "ge" but that would be considered impoverished and thus socially unsatisfactory, not in the spirit of the language.

Obligation to listen - to pay attention. Thinking together is joint thinking. Paying attention is an art where your attention can fade in and out, you can make sense as you go along, nailing it down, piece by piece. Also, you guess ahead what the person will say, and you then go back to what they actually do say. You comment in your mind on what they are saying. You converse with yourself.

The obligation is like economics, where the children are obliged to share the reward fairly and not with cheaters. The gap between syntax and semantics obligates us. We can be thinking as we're talking. They can unfold in parallel. Or we can think ahead of time and then say it.

Inflection and Agreement (marking your place in a game and return to it (after a break))

• Case List of grammatical cases
• Inflection modification of a word to express different grammatical categories such as tense, case, voice, aspect, person, number, gender, and mood.
  • Agreement Languages can have no conventional agreement whatsoever, as in Japanese or Malay; barely any, as in English; a small amount, as in spoken French; a moderate amount, as in Greek or Latin; or a large amount, as in Swahili.
    • Person. Agreement based on grammatical person is found mostly between verb and subject. Agreement between pronoun (or corresponding possessive adjective) and antecedent also requires the selection of the correct person
    • Number. Agreement based on grammatical number can occur between verb and subject. Agreement also occurs between nouns and their specifier and modifiers. Certain determiners that occur specifically with singular or plural nouns only.
    • Gender. Agreement in gender between a noun and its modifiers. Agreement is also found with predicate adjectives. In the case of verbs, gender agreement is less common. There is also agreement in gender between pronouns and antecedents.
    • Case. Agreement by case between a noun and its modifiers.

Preserving Lexical and clausal demands

• The properties of lexical items must be preserved while generating the phrase structure of a sentence. Lexical structure must be represented categorically at every syntactic level. The representations at each level of syntax(MF, D, S) are projected from the lexicon in that they observe the subcategorisation properties of lexical items." For example, the verb strangle, apart from the subject, has an obligatory argument, its object, which must appear in the sentence. The Projection Principle obviates the need for phrase structure rules in the generative component.
• Extended projection principle Clauses must contain a NP or DP in the subject position.

Leveraging micro-obligations as reusable micro-resources

• ellipsis mechanisms The omission, from a clause, of one or more words that are nevertheless understood in the context of the remaining elements.
  • gapping Redundant material that is present in the immediately preceding clause can be "gapped". This gapped material usually contains a finite verb.
    • Canonical cases have a true "gap" insofar as a remnant appears to the left and to the right of the elided material. John can play the guitar, and Mary the violin.
    • The gap need not be medial, and it can even be discontinuous. She persuaded him to do the homework, and he her.
  • stripping Bare argument ellipsis. Many linguists take stripping to be a particular manifestation of gapping whereby just one remnant appears in the gapped clause instead of the two (or more) that occur in instances of gapping. The fact that stripping is limited to occurring in coordinate structures is the main reason why stripping is integrated into the analysis of gapping. Stripping is flexible insofar as the remnant in the stripped clause is not limited in function; it can, for instance, be a subject as in the first sentence or an object as in the second sentence.
    • John can play the guitar, and Mary, too.
    • A particularly frequent type of stripping is not-stripping. Sam did it, not Fred.
  • VP-ellipsis A particularly frequent form of ellipsis in English. VP-ellipsis elides a non-finite VP. The ellipsis must be introduced by an auxiliary verb or by the particle to.
    • John can play the guitar; Mary can, too.
    • An aspect of VP-ellipsis that is unlike gapping and stripping is that it can occur forwards or backwards. That is, the ellipsis can precede or follow its antecedent: The man who wanted to order the salmon did. The man who wanted to did order the salmon.
  • pseudogapping Many linguists take pseudogapping to be a particular manifestation of VP-ellipsis (not of gapping). Like VP-ellipsis, pseudogapping is introduced by an auxiliary verb. Pseudogapping differs from VP-ellipsis, however, insofar as the elided VP is not entirely gone, but rather one (or more) remnants of the VP appear. This aspect of pseudogapping gives it the outward appearance of gapping. Pseudogapping occurs frequently in comparative and contrastive contexts. Pseudogapping is more restricted in distribution than VP-ellipsis. For instance it can hardly occur backwards, i.e. the ellipsis can hardly precede its antecedent.
    • They have been eating the apples more than they have (been eating) the oranges.
    • I will feed the chickens today if you will (feed the chickens) tomorrow.
    • Would you want to say that to me, or would I (want to say that) to you?
    • They could read this book more easily than they could (read) that book.
  • sluicing Usually elides everything from a direct or indirect question except the question word. It can operate both forwards and backwards like VP-ellipsis, but unlike gapping, stripping, answer fragments, and pseudogapping.
    • Indirect questions.
      • John can play something, but I don’t know what (he can play).
      • When (he will call) I don't know, but John will definitely call.
    • Direct questions.
      • A: Something unusual happened. B: What (happened)?
      • A: He has been working on the problem. B: When (has he been working on the problem)?
  • answer ellipsis Answer ellipsis involves question-answer pairs. The question focuses an unknown piece of information, often using an interrogative word (e.g. who, what, when, etc.). The corresponding answer provides the missing information and in so doing, the redundant information that appeared in the question is elided.
    • The fragment answers in these two sentences are verb arguments (subject and object NPs).
      • Q: Who has been hiding the truth? A: Billy.
      • Q: What have you been trying to accomplish? A: (I have been trying to accomplish) This darn crossword.
    • The fragment can also correspond to an adjunct.
      • Q: When does the circus start? A: (The circus starts) Tomorrow.
      • Q: Why has the campaign been so crazy? A: (The campaign has been so crazy) Due to the personalities.
  • Nominal ellipsis. Noun ellipsis. The noun and potentially accompanying modifiers are omitted from a noun phrase. Nominal ellipsis occurs with a limited set of determinatives in English (cardinal and ordinal numbers and possessive determiners), whereas it is much freer in other languages.
    • Cardinal numbers.
      • Fred did three onerous tasks because Susan had done two (onerous tasks).
    • Ordinal numbers.
      • The first train and the second (train) have arrived.
    • Nominal ellipsis with possessive determiners.
      • I heard Mary's dog, and you heard Bill's (dog).
      • If Doris tries my chili, I will try hers (her chili).
  • Comparative deletion. Occurs in comparative clauses introduced by than in English. The expression in the comparative clause is elided that corresponds to the expression focused by a comparative morph such as more or -er in the antecedent clause. Comparative deletion is different from many of the other optional ellipsis mechanisms insofar as it is obligatory. The non-elliptical versions of these sentences are unacceptable.
    • More people arrived than we expected (people) would arrive.
    • She ordered more beer than we could drink (beer).
    • Doris looks more satisfied than Doreen looks (satisfied).
    • William has friends in more countries than you have friends in (countries).
  • Null complement anaphora. Elides a complete complement, whereby the elided complement is a finite clause, infinitive phrase, or prepositional phrase. The verbal predicates that can license null complement anaphora form a limited set (e.g. know, approve, refuse, decide). Interestingly, the elided complement cannot be a noun phrase.
    • Q: Do you know what happened? A:No, I don't know (what happened).
    • Q: Do you approve of the plan? A: No, I don't approve (of the plan).
    • They told Bill to help, but he refused (to help).
    • They offered two ways to spend the day, but I couldn't decide (between them).
  • Uncategorized ellipses.
    • A: The cat likes Bill. B: Why (does the cat [particularly] like) Bill?
    • What (will happen) if I miss the deadline?

Parts of speech

• Parts of speech. Derivable directly from Game matrix.
• Categories that will usually be open classes:
  • adjectives
  • adverbs
  • nouns
  • verbs (except auxiliary verbs)
  • interjections
• Categories that will usually be closed classes:
  • auxiliary verbs
  • clitics
  • coverbs
  • conjunctions
  • determiners (articles, quantifiers, demonstrative adjectives, and possessive adjectives)
  • particles
  • measure words or classifiers
  • adpositions (prepositions, postpositions, and circumpositions)
  • preverbs
  • pronouns
  • contractions
  • cardinal numbers

Creating words

Words are created by:

• Compounding
• Derivation
• Coining
• Borrowing.

Syntactic obligations: Establishing canonical structure

Mapping Kiparsky gradation to the three-cycle.

• 6 types of rules - like set theory - the visualizations are the rules for linking syntactic and semantic levels - for handling unfolding obligations
• Kiparskio laipsnynas sieja šešis klausimus (pertvarkymus) ir aštuongubį kelią.

The Kiparsky mapping should relate to 12 cognitive prepositions

• English prepositions
• Preposition and postposition

Subject Object Verb comes from recurring activity. In recurring activity, our unconscious knows the activity and it knows us. What it doesn't know - what is general - is the object of the activity - for example, the cup that we pick up and put down.

• Word order
  • SOV "She him loves." 45% Proto-Indo-European, Sanskrit, Hindi, Ancient Greek, Latin, Japanese, Korean SOV languages generally put modifiers before heads and use postpositions
  • SVO "She loves him." 42% Cantonese, English, Hausa, Italian, Malay, Mandarin, Russian
  • VSO "Loves she him." 9% Biblical Hebrew, Classical Arabic, Irish, Filipino, Tuareg-Berber, Welsh VSO languages tend to place modifiers after their heads, and use prepositions.
  • VOS "Loves him she." 3% Malagasy, Baure, Proto-Austronesian
  • OVS "Him loves she." 1% Apalaí, Hixkaryana
  • OSV "Him she loves." 0% Warao

Morphosyntactic alignment Transitive verbs have two core arguments, labelled A (the more active or in-control) and O, which in a language like English are subject (A) and object (O). Intransitive verbs have a single core argument, labelled S, which in English (but not in all languages) is also a subject.

• Nominative–accusative Treats the S argument of an intransitive verb like the A argument of transitive verbs, with the O argument distinct (S = A; O separate). In a language with morphological case marking, an S and an A may both be unmarked or marked with the nominative case while the O is marked with an accusative case (or sometimes an oblique case used for dative or instrumental case roles also). Languages with nominative–accusative alignment can detransitivize transitive verbs by demoting the A argument and promoting the O to be an S (thus taking nominative case marking); it is called the passive voice.
• Ergative–absolutive Treats an intransitive argument like a transitive O argument (S=O; A separate). An A may be marked with an ergative case (or sometimes an oblique case used also for the genitive or instrumental case roles) while the S argument of an intransitive verb and the O argument of a transitive verb are left unmarked or sometimes marked with an absolutive case. Ergative–absolutive languages can detransitivize transitive verbs by demoting the O and promoting the A to an S, thus taking the absolutive case, called the antipassive voice.
• Fluid (or semantic) treats the arguments of intransitive verbs like the A argument of transitives (like English) in some cases and like transitive O arguments (like Inuit) in other cases (Sa=A; So=O). Thus, the arguments of intransitive verbs are not uniform in its behaviour. The reasons for treating intransitive arguments like A or like O usually have a semantic basis. The particular criteria vary from language to language and may be either fixed for each verb or chosen by the speaker according to the degree of volition, control, or suffering of the participant or to the degree of sympathy that the speaker has for the participant.
• Austronesian alignment These languages have both accusative-type and ergative-type alignments in transitive verbs. Terms such as "agent trigger" or "actor focus" are increasingly used for the accusative type (S=A) and "patient trigger" or "undergoer focus" for the ergative type (S=O). For either alignment, two core cases are used (unlike passive and antipassive voice, which have only one), but the same morphology is used for the "nominative" of the agent-trigger alignment and the "absolutive" of the patient-trigger alignment so there is a total of just three core cases: common S/A/O (usually called nominative, or less ambiguously direct), ergative A, and accusative O.
• A very few languages make no distinction among agent, patient, and intransitive arguments, leaving the hearer to rely entirely on context and common sense to figure them out. This S/A/O case is called direct.
• Tripartite language Use a separate case or syntax for each argument, which are conventionally called the accusative case, the intransitive case, and the ergative case.
• Certain Iranian languages, such as Rushani, distinguish only transitivity (in the past tense), using a transitive case for both A and O, and an intransitive case for S. That is sometimes called a double-oblique system, as the transitive case is equivalent to the accusative in the non-past tense.
• Split ergativity Both nominative–accusative and ergative–absolutive systems may be used, split between different grammatical contexts. The split may sometimes be linked to animacy, as in many Australian Aboriginal languages, or to aspect, as in Mayan languages.
• Many languages have surface ergativity only (ergative alignments only in their coding constructions, like case or agreement) but not in their behavioral constructions or at least not in all of them. Languages with deep ergativity (with ergative alignment in behavioral constructions) appear to be less common.

Syntactic obligations: Distinguishing structure

• Differential_Object_Marking Direct objects distinguished by a marker into two kinds, for example, based on animacy.
• Reciprocal A linguistic structure that marks a particular kind of relationship between two noun phrases. In a reciprocal construction, each of the participants occupies both the role of agent and patient with respect to the other. For example, the English sentence "John and Mary cut each other's hair". Semitic languages, Altaic languages or Bantu languages have special reciprocal morphemes in verbs.
• Reflexive verb Pronominal verb. A verb whose direct object is the same as its subject, for example, "I wash myself". More generally, a reflexive verb has the same semantic agent and patient. In the Romance languages, there are non-emphatic clitic reflexive pronouns and emphatic ones. In Spanish, for example, the particle se encliticizes to the verb's infinitive, gerund, and imperative (lavarse "to wash oneself"), while in Romanian, the particle procliticizes to the verb (a se spăla "to wash oneself").
  • Extroverted reflexives are verbs that are usually not reflexive, like hate oneself, love oneself, hear oneself, and kill oneself.
  • Properly reflexive. The agent is simultaneously the patient. The verb is typically transitive and can be used in non-reflexive meaning as well. Petras prausiasi.
  • Reciprocal. Agents perform the mutual actions among themselves. Marija ir Petras bučiuojasi.
  • Autocausative. Referent (usually animate) represented by the subject combines the activity of actor and undergoes a change of state as a patient. Petras įsižeidė.
  • Anticausative. Subject (usually inanimate) of the verb undergoes an action or change of state whose agent is unclear or nonexistent. Durys atsidarė.
  • Intransitive or Impersonal. Intransitive verbs with omitted agent.
  • Inherent or Pronominal. Lack the corresponding non-reflexive from which they can be synchronically derived.
• Unaccusative verb An intransitive verb whose syntactic external argument is not a semantic agent; that is, it does not actively initiate, or is not actively responsible for, the action of the verb; or it treats the argument like the accusative argument of a transitive verb. Unaccusative verbs thus contrast with unergative verbs. An unaccusative verb's subject is semantically similar to the direct object of a transitive verb, or to the subject of a verb in the passive voice. English unaccusative verbs include die and fall, but not run or resign, which are unergative. They are called unaccusative because, although the subject has the semantic role of a patient, it is not assigned accusative case.
• Unergative verb An intransitive verb distinguished semantically by having an agent argument, or that treats the argument like the ergative argument of a transitive verb. For example, in English, run, talk and resign are unergative verbs.
• Predicate-argument structures. An argument is an expression that helps complete the meaning of a predicate, the latter referring in this context to a main verb and its auxiliaries. Most predicates take one, two, or three arguments. A predicate and its arguments form a predicate-argument structure. The discussion of predicates and arguments is associated most with (content) verbs and noun phrases (NPs), although other syntactic categories can also be construed as predicates and as arguments. Arguments must be distinguished from adjuncts. While a predicate needs its arguments to complete its meaning, the adjuncts that appear with a predicate are optional; they are not necessary to complete the meaning of the predicate.
  • Subject and object. Subject and object arguments are known as core arguments; core arguments can be suppressed, added, or exchanged in different ways, using voice operations like passivization, antipassivization, application, incorporation, etc.
    • Jill really likes Jack. Jill, Jack are arguments. Really is an adjunct.
  • Passivization. In a clause with passive voice, the grammatical subject expresses the theme or patient of the main verb – that is, the person or thing that undergoes the action or has its state changed. what is usually expressed by the object (or sometimes another argument) of the verb is now expressed by the subject, while what is usually expressed by the subject is either deleted, or is indicated by some adjunct of the clause. Thus, turning an active verb into a passive verb is a valence-decreasing process ("detransitivizing process"), because it turns transitive verbs into intransitive verbs. This is not always the case; for example in Japanese a passive-voice construction does not necessarily decrease valence. Many languages have both an active and a passive voice; this allows for greater flexibility in sentence construction, as either the semantic agent or patient may take the syntactic role of subject. The use of passive voice allows speakers to organize stretches of discourse by placing figures other than the agent in subject position. This may be done to foreground the patient, recipient, or other thematic role; it may also be useful when the semantic patient is the topic of on-going discussion. The passive voice may also be used to avoid specifying the agent of an action.
    • Adversative passive. A form of passive voice to indicate that an action or event was unpleasant or undesirable.
  • Stative and dynamic passive. There is often a similarity between clauses expressing an action or event in the passive voice and clauses expressing a state.
    • The dog is fed (twice a day).
    • The dog is fed (so we can leave now).
  • Antipassivization. A type of grammatical voice that either does not include the object or includes the object in an oblique case. This construction is similar to the passive voice, in that it decreases the verb's valency by one; the passive by deleting the subject and "promoting" the accusative object to a nominative subject, the antipassive by deleting the object and "promoting" the ergative agent to an absolutive subject.
  • Applicative voice. A grammatical voice that promotes an oblique argument of a verb to the (core) object argument, and indicates the oblique role within the meaning of the verb. When the applicative voice is applied to a verb, its valency may be increased by one. Many languages have dedicated morphology (commonly several affixes), for applicative uses.
    • Jack ran faster than the giant. The intransitive verb ran can be made transitive, and the oblique noun giant the object: Jack outran the giant. The applicative verb can be made passive, something which is not possible with ran: The giant was outrun by Jack.
  • Incorporation. a grammatical category, such as a verb, forms a compound with its direct object (object incorporation) or adverbial modifier, while retaining its original syntactic function. The inclusion of a noun qualifies the verb, narrowing its scope rather than making reference to a specific entity. Incorporation is central to many polysynthetic languages such as those found in North America, Siberia and northern Australia.
    • English shows some instrument incorporation, as in breastfeed, and direct object incorporation, as in babysit. Etymologically, such verbs in English are usually back-formations: the verbs breastfeed and babysit are formed from the adjective breast-fed and the noun babysitter respectively. Incorporation and plain compounding may be fuzzy categories: consider backstabbing, name-calling, axe murder.
  • Oblique arguments. Prepositional arguments. One key difference between arguments and adjuncts is that the appearance of a given argument is often obligatory, whereas adjuncts appear optionally. While typical verb arguments are subject or object nouns or noun phrases as in the examples above, they can also be prepositional phrases (PPs) (or even other categories). We know that these PPs are (or contain) arguments because when we attempt to omit them, the result is unacceptable.
    • Sam put the pen on the chair. *Sam put the pen.

Controlling - Obligating Horizontally

• Control The control verb determines which expression is interpreted as the subject of the verb on the right. Control verbs have semantic content. Auxiliary verbs lack semantic content.
• Ergative verb A verb that can be either transitive or intransitive, and whose subject when intransitive corresponds to its direct object when transitive.
  • Verbs suggesting a change of state — break, burst, form, heal, melt, tear, transform
  • Verbs of cooking — bake, boil, cook, fry
  • Verbs of movement — move, shake, sweep, turn, walk
  • Verbs involving vehicles — drive, fly, reverse, run, sail

Embedding - Optional vertical organization - Game within a game

• Mental spaces allow for the embedding of mental spaces - imaginary worlds
• Clitics A morpheme that has syntactic characteristics of a word, but depends phonologically on another word or phrase. In this sense, it is syntactically independent but phonologically dependent, always attached to a host. A clitic is pronounced like an affix, but plays a syntactic role at the phrase level. In other words, clitics have the form of affixes, but the distribution of function words. For example, the contracted forms of the auxiliary verbs in I'm and we've are clitics.
• Movement paradox Movement paradoxes challenge the movement account of discontinuities.
  • *We talked about that he was sick for days. - Underlined clause is unacceptable before movement. That he was sick, we talked about ___ for days.
  • *...but she did not met me. - Underlined verb phrase is unacceptable before movement ?...but met me she did not ___.
  • *I aren't your friend. - Underlined copular verb is unacceptable before movement. Aren't I ___ your friend?
  • The so-called long passive in German presents a movement paradox that revolves around competing case forms.
• Parasitic gap A construction in which one "gap" appears to be dependent on another gap. Which explanation did you reject __1 without first really considering __2? You reviewed that book without actually reading it. – No gap at all present. b. What book did you review __ without actually reading __p? – Parasitic gap possible. c. *You reviewed that book without actually reading __p. – Parasitic gap impossible without "real" gap.
• Raising The movement of an argument from an embedded or subordinate clause to a matrix or main clause; in other words, a raising predicate/verb appears with a syntactic argument that is not its semantic argument, but is rather the semantic argument of an embedded predicate. They are trying. => They seem to be trying. (seem is a raising-to-subject verb) We help. Fred wants us to help. (want is a raising-to-object verb).
  • Alternation with it-extraposition. Tom seems to have won the race. It seems that Tom won the race.
  • Raising-to-subject verbs vs. auxiliary verbs. Both verb types have little to no semantic content. Auxiliary verbs are part of a predicate. Raising-to-subject verbs modify a predicate. How similar are the following two sentences? Fred does not seem to have done it. Fred seems not to have done it.
    • Auxiliary verbs undergo subject-aux inversion, raising-to-subject verbs do not. Susan should stay. Susan should not stay. Susan appears to be staying. *Appears Susan to be staying?
  • Raising-to-object verbs have clear semantic content, so they are hence indisputably predicates.
  • An understanding of raising is significantly expanded by comparing and contrasting raising with control.
• String. Any element (word or morph) or any combination of elements that is continuous in the horizontal dimension (x-axis).
• Catena. Any element (word or morph) or any combination of elements that is continuous in the vertical dimension (y-axis).
• Component. Any element (word or morph) or any combination of elements that is both a string and a catena.
• Constituent. Any component that is complete. A component is complete if it includes all the elements that its root node dominates.

The game overall

• Žaidimų gramatikoje: Dievas yra už šio pasaulio (už žaidimo) ir taip pat mūsų gelmėse (žaidimas žaidime).
• Žinojimo rūmai iš 2 galų nes yra Dievas už mūsų (už žaidimo) ir Dievas mumyse (žaidimas žaidime).
• Dievo Tėvo trejybė sieja žaidimo užvedimą, žaidimo įterpimą ir žaidimo įvardijimą.
• Žaidimų pasaulyje pasąmonė kuria tinklus, o sąmonė kuria sekas (trejybės ratu) ir medžius (žaidimu žaidime). Tad pertvarkymai pradeda su sąmonės santykio su savimi, koks medžio ir sekos ryšys, kaip medis tampa seka. Ir paskui atvirkščiai, kaip seka suvokiama kaip medis.
• Keturi lygmenys "derina" (tune) žodžius, kad jie būtų tikslūs: kaip išdavos, taisyklės, reikšmės, kintamieji.
• Aštuongubas kelias - Dievo šokis - 0 galų
• Pagrindimas - pasirinkimų malūnas - 1 galas
• Įvardijimas - žinojimo rūmai - 2 galai
• Pasakojima - maldos mokslas - 3 galai

Du ketverybės atvaizdai - 4 troškimai (kodėl - pažinovas - klausimas) ir 4 netroškimai (koks - aplinka - atsakymas) sueina aštuongubu keliu. Jie pagrįsti už žaidimo. O žaidime galima bandyti sieti tuos ketverybės lygmenis vienu atvaizdu - tarpiniu - tai vyksta nulybės atvaizdais per trejybės atvaizdus (kaip) siejančius žaidimą su gyvenimu už jo. Tad gaunasi 4x3 = 12 aplinkybių (prielinksniai) kurie susiję ir su šešerybės atvaizdais.

---

Think through:

• Note relationship between recurring activity (what we care about - argumentation) and creating meaning (a game - verbalization). In what sense is creating meaning is a one-time activity and in what sense does it become a recurring activity?
• Compare games with mathematical structures. For example, game concatenation looks like group element composition. But how does a game become a symbol or operation? Is there a relationship between games just because one follows the other?
• Look for sequences, hierarchies and networks in game.

Main ideas

Main ideas:

• Focus on what we can learn from recurring activities.
• Language works by reducing vagueness.
• Language serves us externally in coordinating actions.
• Language serves us internally as mirroring our actions.
• Language implements a duality which balances a community's words and an individual's meanings.
• Activity is the "thing" that we are representing with icons, indexes and symbols.
• Ambiguity is supported, developed and utilized in coordinating the activity, especially by silence. Dialectical ambiguity - truths of heart and world.
• Human language requires supporting two streams of thought at one time - listening to another and listening to ourselves (dialectics) - thus we are able to come up with questions - apes are only able to answer questions.

Conceptual language

• Įvardijimo laipsnyne (linksniuose) ieškome valios - bandome ją sukurti, tai gramatikos požiūris siejantis sintaksę ir semantiką. O pasakojimas kuria sintaksės požiūrį (asmenį, veikėją, židinį) ir rūpėjimas kuria semantikos požiūrį (reikalą).
• Linguistic epistemology: simplicity, generality and according with the facts.

Kalbos ypatumai

• Žmogus mąsto žodžiais ir sakiniais nes jisai mąsto ko tyliau, ko ramiau ir tai yra ko mažiau "triukšmingas" mąstymas. Panašiai su jauduliais, gyvename ko mažiau jaudulingais jauduliais. Užtat labai lengva klaidingai suprasti jausmų ar minčių teoriją jeigu kreipiame dėmesį į triukšmingiausius, kraštutinius reiškinius.
• Vaikų ausimis suprasti kalbą - kaip susigaudyti, kaip sulaukti paaiškinimo. Galimybė klausti klausimus. Žodį gali pakartoti. Užtat paklausti. Creole kalbos: jidiš, anglų.
• Kalba tveria reikšmę.
• Kalba sieja du požiūrius: klausiančios, nežinančios sąmonės ir atsakančios, žinančios pasąmonės.
• Sąmonė mąsto medžiu, sintakse. Pasąmonė mąsto tinklu, semantika. Jųdviejų mąstymą seka sieja gramatika.
• Sintaksė skaido reikšmės vienetą, sakinį, į tai kas turi reikšmę (veiksnys, tema, reikalas, substancija) ir priskiriamą, išsakomą reikšmę (tarinys, aptarimas). Žodis gali turėti reikšmę.
• Semantika suveda reikšmės vienetą, žodį. O ta mintis, ta reikšmė išsakoma gyvenimiškai, pragmatiškai, aplinkybėse: tai yra stalas, "stalas" reiškia va tai, vadiname "stalu" ir panašiai. Vadinas, žodis, kaip toks, neturi išsakytos reikšmės, bet reikšmė kaip tokia išsakoma tiktai paaiškinimu.
• Semantika remiasi pragmatiniu santykiu, kaip kiekvienu atveju tiesiog paprasčiausia, kaip optimalu. O sintaksė remiasi aiškiomis taisyklėmis, ir nesprendžia paskiro atvejo, o sprendžia bendrai.
• Yra įmanoma kalbėti visai be sintaksės, tiesiog pabirais žodžiais, pasiremiant aplinkybėmis. Tai vadinama "tiesine gramatika".
• Sintaksė leidžia suvokti, kad kuris nors žodis nepasakytas, praleistas, ar tiesiog reikšmę papildo nepasakytas bet iš sintaksės suprastas žodis. Tokiais žodžiais gali būti, pavyzdžiui, asmenis reiškiantys įvardžiai arba praleisti artikulai.
• Kalba remiasi atmintimi. O atmintis lengvai įsimena būtent tai, kam priskiriama laisva vieta smegenyse. Vadinasi, kai kuriems reiškiniams gyvenime smegenys yra paruošę laisvų plotų, užtat juo galima įsiminti net pirmu pažinimu. Ir būtent įsimename ir išgyvename ne pačius reiškinius, o tuos laisvus plotus, kad išgyvenome "kažką tokio", kad ir visai migloto ar net iš karto neįsidėmėtino. Užtat gali būti labai reikšmingi ir visam gyvenimui įsimintini kažkokie neaiškūs atsitikimai, susižvalgymai, pastebėjimai ir t.t. nes būtent tai tiko kuriam nors laisvam, paruoštam plotui. Ir tokiais išgyvenimais pažįstame tą plotą ir būtent jį įsimename ir juomi savaip atkuriame tuos reiškinius, gal visai neprimenančius tikrovę.
• Tad kalbose įprasta, kad svarbūs, dažnūs, anksti išmokstami reiškiniai gali būti visai nedėsningi, tuo tarpu, retesni reiškiniai būtinai yra dėsningi.
• Kiekviena kalba reikalauja laikytis kažkokio sunkiai pateisinamo tačiau viską siejančio dėsningumo. Priklausomai nuo kalbos, tai gali būti žodžio giminė; linksniai; daiktvardžių bei veiksmažodžių sąryšiai (semantika tampa nebe pragmatinis reikalas, o vos ne gramatinis reikalas); anglų kalboje - daiktavardžių apibrėžtumas ir neapibrėžtumas; kinų kalboje - "measure words".
• Aplinkybės (prielinksniai) dalykiškai išplečia tai, ko nežinome.
• Proto laukai - Fauconnier.
• The mystery of language - native speakers are able to follow language rules without consciously being aware of them.
• Algebra of copyright - multiple parsers.

Purposes of language

• Language peculiarities (like irregular verbs) can distinguish whether people are insiders or outsiders of a society.
• Pinker - two level speach - nonliteral language - get the message across without leaning on status - this allows for role change. diplomats say vagueness is an asset
• Politics let us live in larger groups - and the social networking co-evolved with the increase in the sign of our neocortex.
• The use of words (imitations) as symbols (substitutes,of meaning, of feeling, gifts) is a turning point.

Singing in unison

• Do apes sing in unison? Apes don't seem to sing in unison.
• Singing identical twins.
• J-FOL: Baldwin effect - in evolution - relate to singing.
• Music affects the emotions by playing with the boundary between self and world. It distinguishes between the voice we identify with the self and the voice we identify with the world.
• Expressing feelings is important for joint feelings - joint expectations. Acting out feelings and symbolic substitution. Ambiguity of "I" and "we".
• Use of sound symbolically in not-situated specific fashion.
• Alan Fiske "Structures of Social Life" 4 kinds of distribution (of goods)

Synchronized behavior

• Bullowa, M. (1975). When infant and adult communicate, how do they synchronize their behaviors. Organization of behavior in face-to-face interaction, 95-127.
• Dievas - "Spirit of understanding" - joint intentionality. Activity of learning. (Visuose padalinimuose iškyla).

Origins of language

• Imitation - of people, animals, etc. Consider the usefulness of mimicking individuals. This is important for politics - "the political animal" (Aristotles) - for identifying and punishing cheaters, or rewarding assistantss, for establishing group unity. The intentionality foursome would support this.
• Interjections and exclamations.

Bringing together unconscious (semantics) and conscious (syntax) with shared grammar.

• System 1 - the unconscious - uses linear grammar, and System 2 - the conscious - uses nonlinear grammar. Joint intentionality brings the two together so that we can think in two threads at one time - or an ambiguity of semantics and syntax.
• Purely syntactic laws which are arbitrary when it comes to meaning. And purely semantic laws which are arbitrary when it comes to syntax.
• Pasąmonė yra boundaries, o sąmonė cycle. Primena ryšį tarp sintaksės ir semantikos. Kohomologija yra pragmatika.
• So the brain develops in parallel an internal model of sensual capacity and an external model of the real world.
• Sintaksė yra laisvė, laisva valia - semantika likimas.
• Group mind - pasąmonė - be sintaksės. Paskiras žmogus, šviesuolis - sintaksė.
• Xunzi apie ritualus, papročius. Niekas nenuspės, kas prigis, paplis, pasiseks. Tam reikia mąstyti, kaip vidutinybė, kaip visuomenės pasąmonė. O niekas nėra toks bukas.
• Reducing vagueness is a syntactic issue. Concreteness is semantic.
• Požiūris į požiūrį į požiūrį: Lygmenis išsako: Sintaksė - pavidalas (pasakojimas, įvykis, įsimintinumas, kaip veikėjas bręsta - atsitokėjimas atvaizdu), gramatika - susitarimas (įvardijimas, reikšmė), semantika - turinys (pagrindimas, rūpėjimas, prasmė, įsijautimas-aplinkybė).
• Database design mentality: half of the time on general rules, half the time on exceptions.
• Rules - softwired is conscious - hardwired is unconscious.
• Separating terms: rules (instructions) and data - hemispheres. Ketverybė. Syntax lets instructions be considered as data (and vice versa).
• Distinguish an item from a category - there is syntactic/semantic ambiguity.
• Jackendoff. Foundations of Language: J-FOL: Levelt 1999 "Syntax is the poor man's semantics."
• Septynerybė sulygina visuomenės žodžius ir asmeninius turinius, nesuteikia pirmenybę vienai ar kitai.

Grammar

• Grammar arises with restraints on word formation. Joint intentionality meant grammatical norms, a sense of what is grammatically correct.
• J-FOL: Syntax is the conscious mind's top down structuring. Semantics is the bottom-up reasoning. Linear grammar. Syntax characterizes and organizes abstract concepts. It steps out. So language (and grammar) is the interaction of both.
• J-FOL: Distinguish syntax (from above) and grammar (where it meets with semantics).
• Jackendorf: Word as interface rule.

Shared divisions of everything

• Shared grammar (for a shared language) makes joint intentionality cognitvely practical because it allows the divisions of everything to be manifest.
• Belbin Team Inventory and other team role inventories.

Memory

• Look at regular and irregular verbs in terms of their word frequency.
• Exceptions come first and rules come later for the less frequent. Maintenance of knowledge by recurrence. It if recurs regularly, then you can remember anything. But if it recurs rarely you need to relate it to a pattern. Multitrack.
• Aglutinancinės kalbos yra reguliarios.
• Skirtingos atmintys - skirtingi santykiai su skirtingomis atmintimis: tikrove, kalba, ... Ar visų žmonių neuronų pasąmonė tampriai susijusi?

Pertvarkymai

• Six restructurings relate the unconscious (primary structure) and the conscious (secondary structure) - what we know (in memory) and what we don't know (our vantage points). Look for these restructurings in language, music, memory, brain, etc.!
• Fonologiją ir sintaksę derina seka
• Sintaksę ir semantiką derina medis
• Semantiką ir fonologiją derina tinklas
• Jackendorf on how we learn semi-productivity. Productivity.
• J-FOL: Completion of a system - rounding it out - Given the beginnings of a system, how "complete" is it in a phonological sense - fleshing it out - but are such maps imbalanced - do they have holes and why?
• J-FOL: Phonological aesthetic sense.

Jackendoff - Linear Grammar

• Start with what can be said by linking meaning with expression - before phonetics, morphology, syntax. And then see it evolve.
• Derek Bickerton - Protolanguage, relic of early stages of hominid language - mappings between phonology and meaning - linear grammar - word and word order. Pidgins.
• Transition from pidgin to creole - adding syntactic and morphological principles.
• Klein and Perdue - late second language acquisition - semi-efficiency they call Basic Variety. No inflectional morphology, no sentential subordination, known characters freely ommitted, word order based on semantic roles: Agent before Action. (Ordering by the three-cycle.)
• Home Sign (Goldin-Meadow). Children invent rudimentary morphology. Known characters freely omitted. Object/Action distinction, not Noun/Verb. Word order probabilistic, semantically biased. No embedding. Properties of linear grammar.
• Village Sign Languages. Fairly substantial morphology. Little evidence for syntactic structure. No evidence for sentential embedding. Actor-Action order in 1-character sentences. Unreliable word order in 2- and 3-character sentences with two animate characters. Tendency to omit all but one character. Linear grammar.
• Processing strategies (Townsend & Bever) interpretive strategies - Actor precedes Action
• Good enough parsing - linear order and semantic plausibility.
• Agrammatic aphasics.
• Specific Language Impairment. (Heather van der Lely)
• Riau Indonesian (David Gil) - No syntactic parts of speech. No inflectional morphology. Known characters are freely ommitted. Subordination is expressed by parataxis - jamming sentences together. Free word order but semantic biases such as Actor precedes Action, Actions precede Patients. Makes use of a lot of pragmatics.
• Piraha (Dan Everett) Lots of morphology, a noun-verb distinction. Word order fairly fixed. No definite and indefinite articles, no plural marker, no inflectional morphology. Free omission of known characters. (Lacks recursion - subordinate clauses.)
• Linear grammar and Syntax grammar coexist - and compete? Like the unconscious and the conscious? Single meaning vs. ambiguous meaning.

Great ape language

• Apes can learn many hundreds of words. But they don't use nonlinear grammar. They don't ask questions. Question asking by infants may come in wanting to know what is happening - to have a shared reality - and to ask for reappraisal.

What syntax is

• Syntax makes it possible for a missing space to have meaning. Linear grammar can have a pause - a pregnant pause. But syntax can distinguish between "the cars" and simply "cars". (In this case, definite and indefinite.)
• The brain learns through moving in the real world for that motion manifests syntax and that lets it map and model semantic sensory feeling qu.alia with syntactic knowledge based on activity modes which are the atoms for syntax the possibilities for activiy the structure of the external real world.
• Our ability to rationalize - to recognize patterns - sometimes falsely. Children learn to use irregular words separately (like am and are?) and only later may realize that they are related (?)
• Syntax is about following rules and not breaking them. Whereas there are many other patterns driven by pragmatics and semantics but they are optional and do not reflect rules that must not be broken. So it's important to distinguish between violations of grammar and nonsensical, incoherent or abnormal speaking.
• Syntax lets you talk about things you don't understand.
• Syntax and rules allow labor to be divided. The "black boxes" of the Soviet military.
• Constructive hypothesis: shared structure of form and content of communication act.
• In mathematics, syntax is well-formedness and semantics is that which can be analyzed in terms of its truth or falsehood. Language without syntax is language without any rules. Syntax arises along with rules. And rules are an outgrowth of a joint perspective, a social contract.
• So syntax deal with rules - but there are other constraints as well. Note also that the rules admit of freedom for each worker to do their own job and think their own job in their own way as they are able. Thus there is no shared implementation.
• Algebra (and substitution) lets us solve equations even when we don't know what they mean. So the mathematical methods of proof distinguish between the first three (morphism, induction, algorithm construction) which are semantic in that they require us to know what we mean, and the second three (substitution, examination of cases, construction) which are syntactic in that they don't depend on what is meant.
• So word construction is an essential part of syntax because it manipulates meaning and adds meaning to that which we need not understand.
• Rašymu - bendraujame per laiko atstumą - per erdvės atstumą.
• Galimybe vienu metu mąstyti du srautus - klausytis kito minčių ir turėti savo mintis. Ketverybė, penkerybė, šešerybė derina du srautus. Laikas ir erdvė kalboje.
• Banguoja mintys ir jas lenkiame teigiamai.
• Music as a link between linear grammar and recursive grammar. Music as the enrichment of a linear grammar. Alexanders "echoes". Parallel voices - drumming - overlapping patterns.

Topics in syntax

• Twosome: Subject and predicate
  • Distinguishing subject (what we don't know about) and predicate (what we know about it).
  • Two speakers separate and unite (with each sentence) in terms of not knowing and knowing.
  • Topic and comment
  • Japanese and Korean: the topic is normally marked with a postposition such as -wa (は) or 는/은, -(n)eun. (Compare with ma in Chinese).
  • Būtent Jonas spyrė kamuolį. Būtent - implies it is a comment, what we know.
  • Topic-prominent language.
    • They tend to downplay the role of the passive voice, if a passive construction exists at all.
    • Do not have expletives or "dummy subjects" (pleonastic pronouns) like English it in It's raining.
    • They often have sentences with so-called "double subjects", actually a topic plus a subject. Zhège rén gèzi hěn gāo. "This person (topic) height (subject) tall."
    • They do not have articles (of definiteness), which are another way of indicating old vs. new information.
    • The distinction between subject and object is not reliably marked.
  • Programavimo kalboje A=B. Subject (kas keičiasi) ir predicate (kas nesikeičia). Dvejybė.
• Word order.
  • Palyginti lietuvių kalba: "Aš vairuoju mašiną", "Mašiną vairuoju aš", ir t.t. ir anglų kalbą "I drive car" ir kinų kalbą.
  • Word order in American Sign Language
• Definite and indefinite articles - compare in English, Chinese, Lithuanian. Note that the same notion is available in all languages but expressed in different ways. And this relates to the nature of their syntax - topicality.
• Conceptual punctuation.
  • Hello - bendravimo skyrybos ženklai.
  • J-FOL: Sentential adverbials - can be place in front or at the end - "obviously" - "Thank you" - "You're welcome."
• Conceptual types
  • Jackendoff conceptual types: Situation, Event, States, Object, Place, Property
• Repetition
  • Qi zixingch qide hen kuai. Kartoja mintį, tai linear grammar. O čia "de" ir "hen" yra sintaksės elementai. "Local syntax". "Bottom-up syntax."
• Questions - įtampos balsai
  • Kalbai svarbūs įtampos balsai: Liepimas, aiškinimas, klausymas.
• Categorization
  • Language gender and other agreements come from "categorization" (as noted by Levi-Strauss) and for the sake of reducing vagueness.
  • Japanese has a complex system of honorifics with verb forms and vocabulary to indicate the relative status of the speaker, the listener, and persons mentioned.
  • J-FOL: Gender: for example, individual words - syntactic aspect of a word.
  • J-FOL: Lithuanian-Spanish gender, English definite-indefinite, Chinese measure words - are syntactic activities that impose syntactic mindfulness.
• Tyla
  • Tyla (nulybė) palaiko daugiaprasmybę.
• Parts of speech
  • nouns, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, determiners, participles, prepositions, postpositions, numerals, articles. Articles are sometimes considered determiners, and determiners are sometimes considered adjectives.
• Veiksmažodžių nuosakos
  • Nuosakos yra kaip pokalbės, atskiros kalbos: praeičiai, dabarčiai, ateičiai.
• Eilėraščiai
  • Kalbėjimas yra kaip eilėraščių kūrimas, žodžių derinimas.
• Dviprasmybės
  • "Do" gali reikšti "Ar": Do you want to... nors pagrindinė reikšmė yra "daryti".
  • Kiekviena kalba būtinai turi savitas tokias dviprasmybes, kaip Babelio bokšte.
  • Yra dviprasmybė tarp "kaip" ir "kodėl" - priežastis santvarkoje ir už santvarkos
  • Dviprasmybė tarp prasmės ir reikšmės, taip pat Jėzaus "galėti".

Sintaksės reiškiniai

• Anaphora
• Agreement
• Antecedent-contained deletion
• Differential_Object_Marking
• Case
• Clitics
• Control
• Dummy pronoun
• Ergative verb
• Existential clause
• Expletives
• Heavy NP shift
• Inverse copula sentences
• Movement paradox
• Parasitic gap
• Pro-drop
• Raising
• Reciprocal
• Reflexive pronoun
• Reflexive verb
• Unaccusative verb
• Wh-movement

Basics of Chinese (non-syntactic!) grammar rules (Chinese Boost grammar)

• What precedes modifies what follows. (What is the presumption for word order in linear grammar?)
• Words do not change.
• Chinese is topic-prominent. (Puts the thing the sentence is about first.) English is subject prominent.
• Aspect, not tense. Compare aspects: I will set off to Beijing. I will have set off to Beijing.
• Chinese rules are logical. Chinese tends to only indicate things once in a sentence.

Units

• Phonetically, a word is that which can be surrounded by spaces.
• Sentence is an independent, self-standing unit of syntax. It means that control can be handed over to another speaker.
• A clause expresses a thought and expresses that a moment of the present has elapsed.

Aplinkybės

• Išnagrinėti: žodžiai kaip "under" padeda remtis žodžiais kurių pilnai nesuprantame, ir juos tuo pačiu gerai suprasti.

Word frequency

• Most common words in English
• Most common Chinese characters
• Dažninis lietuvių kalbos žodynas ir duomenys

To study

• Saussure - A course in general linguistics.
• Chris Argyris. Organizational defensive routines. Self-sealing logic. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Data

Basics of Chinese

• New Practical Chinese Reader

Language of gestures

• 38 gestures
• Koko klausimas: Where is my kitten?

---

Abstract

Submitted for Cognition and Language, Brno, Czechia, November 24-26, 2017.

Could the Basis for Language Be the Reduction of Vagueness In Order to Coordinate Activity?

We explore how we can derive various aspects of language by considering its original purpose to be the reduction of vagueness in order to coordinate activity.

Generally, in discourse, there is a remarkable agreement as to which words and sentences are spoken. Traditionally, linguists have supposed that language therefore conveys meaning through assemblies of well defined terms. More broadly, analytic philosophy, and more specifically, cognitive linguistics, have held such an outlook, which we argue is implausible, psychologically, phenomenologically and pragmatically.

Psychologically, the unfolding sense of meaning which we experience only loosely matches the flow of words that we speak and hear. Phenomenologically, speaker and listener are quite disconnected in what they personally feel. Indeed, thinking itself is extremely vague. And, pragmatically, people need not agree on what their terms actually mean, nor know themselves, for that matter.

Cognitive linguistics has reconsidered language in terms of thinking and so has developed an understanding of cognitive frameworks. However, these frameworks are still discussed from the prevailing point of view of assembling items. Thus, Langacker (2008) considers how we may conceptualize a drinking glass as a space, shape, container, instrument, material and so on. Instead, we suppose that the purpose of language is to coordinate activity. Thus we conceive of a world in which what is well defined are recurring activities. We pick things up and set them down; we drink liquids; we serve them to others. It is the recurring activity which determines what a "drinking glass" might mean for us. For example, we may be told to clean the glasses in the sink but leave the plates. Thus we have an activity of distinguishing glasses from plates. The implementation of such an activity can be particular to any individual. There need be no definition of what a "glass" is, nor what properties it has, but rather there is an activity of selecting glasses, which may lead to an ad hoc concept, or not. Architect Christopher Alexander (1979) has described how recurring activity evokes structure, and structure channels activity, yielding patterns - general "rules of thumb" - which come together in pattern languages. We can apply his thinking to linguistics.

The goal of language then can be to reduce the general vagueness of thinking, by a variety of strategies, for the purpose of coordinating activity, old and new. This is compatible with Tomasello's (2016) concept of joint intentionality. Working together with others, we must leverage general models of intention, attention, and serving the interests of others, for example, by appreciating status, as in who submits to whom. We must punctuate our actions, much as if they were sentences. Some strategies can be most abstract, such as dividing the vagueness of our minds into two perspectives, as when distinguishing construal and content. Other strategies can be familiar to us as transformations of our own self-identity. Thus we overview strategies which help us coordinate activity and we show what they might variously ground to make language possible.

---

I will briefly show why I am familiar with this structure and then I will show how it relates to games and what it means for linguistics.

---

---

In my philosophical research, I have used hundreds of ways of figuring things out, and so I documented and systematized them. I came up with a tightly structured system of 24 ways. For now, I will just mention two of the most basic ways. On the one hand, we can isolate what is more important than anything else. On the other hand, we can be open to absolutely everything, no matter how peripheral.

---

---

I will also mention how I systematized the ways of figuring things out in mathematics. On the surface, math is endless, but if we consider the ways we solve math problems, then our minds are quite limited. For example, consider Euclid's problem of how to construct an equilateral triangle given one of its sides. That is, given two corners of an equilateral triangle, how do we find where the third corner should be? The solution is to draw two circles and to see where they intersect. This is because each circle is a condition of where the desired point needs to be. The point needs to satisfy both conditions. And so our minds convert the surface problem - a geometry problem - into an underlying problem - a lattice of conditions. And such a lattice is a math structure that we use in our minds.

---

---

I analyzed about 200 problems and discovered and systematized 24 such math structures. They reveal the same system and I think that if we analyze any discipline, we will find the same ways of figuring things out, what I propose is the Universal Grammar.

---

---

Finally, before I discuss the grammar of games, I want to mention an exercise of the imagination which gives rise to the major structural components. Namely, imagine God's point of view, what might motivate God, one who is prior to all things, to logic, being, meaning and so on? The only thing I can imagine is God asking himself the question, Is God necessary? Would God be even if God was not? We could say that this is the game that God plays. And so I imagine a proof by contradiction, where God makes the least likely conditions for his existence, namely us. But being God, he must indeed arise even so. But then how do they know they are the same God? It is because they understand the same thing. And so we have God who understands, God who comes to understand, and God who is understood. But this is from the point of view of God who understands, who declares "I am God", who initiates this game. What does it look like for the God who arose in the game, who declares "You are God"? Well, it looks like God went beyond himself into the game, so that the game expanded from nothing to something to anything to everything, and likewise, God inside the game goes outside of it. I can say briefly that we are dealing with the two representations of the Foursome, very much like the eight lines of Jesus's prayer "Our Father". And what does this relationship look like from the side, from the point of view that lens which equates God beyond the game and the Godlet within the game, for whom "That is God"? Well, there are four scopes where God beyond the game and God within the game can meet, and there are six gaps when they don't. And that's basically the structure of the Ten Commandments, four positive commandments to love God, and six negative commandments to love your neighbor as yourself. Finally, these three points of view are linked together in every three-cycle by which we take a stand, follow through and reflect, thereby relating the unity of God, the unity of an individual, and the unity of a community. I share this thinking to give a sense of the metaphysical abstraction that very well should be grounding the cognitive frameworks that make us human.

Andrew Kehler UCSD linguistics

Max Dymetman. Some remarks on the geometry of grammar. Cancellation diagrams, the fundamental theorem of group theory, parsing and complexity.

https://colganology2.blogspot.com/2023/03/one-rule-you-didnt-know-you-didnt-know.html

• Opinion-size-age-shape-colour-origin-material-purpose NOUN
• Kaip įvairiose kalbose, kokia tvarka išsidėsto būdvardžiai?