Constituency

Examples like (2) show that the words within a phrase or sentence are organized into sub-groups (or CONSTITUENTS), and that these groupings are often crucial in determining what the sentence means. Once we accept that fact a practical question arises, namely how are we to identify these significant sub-groups, since their boundaries are (in general) invisible? In some cases, the answer may seem obvious, even trivial. To see this, try (without looking below) to divide the Malay sentences in (7) into their major constituent parts:

(7) a Ahmad makan nasi.

         Ahmad eat       rice

        ‘Ahmad is eating rice.’

      b Fauzi makan roti.

         Fauzi eat           bread

        ‘Fauzi is eating  bread.’

      c Orang ini makan ikan.

         person this eat     fish

        ‘This person is eating fish.’

      d Anjing itu makan tulang besar.

        dog       that eat      bone big

        ‘That dog is eating a big bone.’

      e Orang tua itu makan pisang.

         person old that eat     banana

        ‘That old person is eating a banana.’

      f Ahmad makan ikan besar itu.

        Ahmad eat          fish big that

       ‘Ahmad is eating that big fish.’

Almost certainly, you would make the divisions in the places marked in (8). Why? First, these examples show that a single word (e.g. Ahmad) can be replaced by phrases containing two or three words (anjing itu, orang tua itu, etc.). Since a single word is obviously a “unit” of some kind, the phrases which can be substituted in the same position should also be units of the same kind. Moreover, each of these phrases forms a semantic unit: orang tua itu refers to a single, specific, individual. And, although it contains three words, the phrase bears only one GRAMMATICAL RELATION in sentence (7e), namely subject.

(8) a   Ahmad| makan | nasi.                          ‘Ahmad is eating rice.’

      b   Fauzi | makan | roti.                              ‘Fauzi is eating bread.’

      c   Orang ini | makan | ikan.                       ‘This person is eating fish.’

      d   Anjing itu | makan | tulang besar.       ‘That dog is eating a big bone.’

      e  Orang tua itu | makan | pisang.             ‘That old person is eating a banana.’

      f Ahmad| makan | ikan besar itu.               ‘Ahmad is eating that big fish.’

But we must be careful here. In some languages, a group of words which forms a semantic and functional (or relational) unit does not always form a unit for purposes of word order (i.e. a constituent). For example, the subject of the Warlpiri sentence in (9) (‘small child’) consists of two words, a noun and an adjective, which are widely separated from each other and so could not form a constituent in the normal sense.

Such languages are the exception rather than the rule; but in all languages there are many contexts where semantics and Grammatical Relations alone will not enable us to determine the constituent boundaries. We need other kinds of evidence, in particular evidence that is more directly related to the linear arrangement of words in the sentence.

At this point, we can only offer a preliminary introduction to the kinds of tests used to determine the boundaries of syntactic constituents. Identifying constituents can be a complex issue and sometimes requires a fairly deep knowledge of the language. Moreover, tests that work for one language may not apply to another. But let us see how we might proceed with our Malay examples.

One reason for believing that the words orang tua itu in (7e) form a syntactic constituent is that the same string of words can occur in a variety of positions within the sentence: subject (10a), object (10b), object of a preposition (10c), etc. Each of these positions could equally well be filled by a single word, e.g. a proper name like Ahmad.

(10) a [Orang tua itu] makan nasi goreng.

           person old that eat         rice fry

           ‘That old person eats fried rice.’

        b Saya belum kenal [orang tua itu].

           I      not.yet know person old that

          ‘I am not yet acquainted with that old person.’

        c Ibu     memberi wang kepada [orang tua itu].

           mother give       money to      person old that

          ‘Mother gives money to that old person.’

        d Ibu     belanja [orang tua itu] minum teh.

           mother treat      person old that drink tea

          ‘Mother bought a cup of tea for that old person.’

We noted above that strings of words which can replace a single word in a particular position must be “units” (i.e. constituents) of the appropriate type. This conclusion is supported by the discovery that only one such unit can occur as the subject or direct object of a single verb, as demonstrated in (11). (The asterisk “*” before the sentences in [11] indicates that they are ungrammatical.) Therefore, where several words occur together in these positions, as in (10a,b), those words must form a single constituent.

(11) a *[Perempuan ini] [orang tua itu] makan nasi.

            woman        this person old that eat      rice

           *‘This woman that old person is eating rice.’

         b*Fauzi makan [ikan itu] [nasi goreng].

             Fauzi eat          fish that rice fry

            *‘Fauzi is eating fried rice that fish.’¹

Malay, like most other languages, has various ways of changing the word order of a sentence. When a group of words can be “moved” as a unit, we can normally assume that the group forms a syntactic constituent. So, examples like (12b–d) support the claim that the direct object phrase in (12a) is a constituent.

(12) a Saya makan [ikan besar itu].

           I            eat          fish big that

          ‘I ate/am eating that big fish.’

       b [Ikan besar itu] saya makan.

          fish       big        that I     eat

          ‘That big fish I ate/am eating.’

       c [Ikan besar itu]=lah   yang saya makan.

          fish    big    that=FOC REL  I    eat

          ‘It was that big fish that I ate.’

      d [Ikan besar itu] di-makan oleh anjing saya.

         fish     big    that PASS-eat   by    dog    my

         ‘That big fish was eaten by my dog.’

Another reason for identifying the phrases we have been discussing here as constituents is that they can be replaced by question words to form a content question (sometimes called a CONSTITUENT QUESTION). This is illustrated in (13).

(13) a [Orang tua itu] makan [ikan besar itu].

           person old that eat       fish    big    that

           ‘That old person ate the big fish.’

        b Siapa makan [ikan besar itu]?

           who     eat     fish     big    that

           ‘Who ate that big fish?’

      c [Orang tua itu] makan apa?

         person old that eat     what

        ‘What did that old person eat?’

Similarly, constituent scan form the answer to a content question, whereas a string of words which is not a syntactic constituent is not a possible answer, as illustrated in (14c).

(14) a Q: Siapa makan ikan besar itu?             A: Orang tua itu.

                who eat      fish     big     that              person old that

           Q: ‘Who ate that big fish?’                     A: ‘That old person.’

       b Q: Orang tua itu makan apa?                 A: Ikan besar itu.

               person old that eat    what               fish     big    that

          Q: ‘What did that old person eat?’        A: ‘That big fish.’

      c Q: Orang  tua  itu  makan  apa?              A:*Besar itu.⁵

              person old that eat         what                  big      that

         Q: ‘What did that old person eat?’         A: * ‘That big.’

Let us briefly summarize the kinds of evidence we have mentioned. We have claimed that certain strings of Malay words form a syntactic constituent because these strings:

a     can replace, or be replaced by, a single word;

b     occur in positions within the sentence which must be unique;

c     may occur in a number of different sentence positions, as illustrated in (10), and can be “moved” (or re-ordered) as a unit, as illustrated in (12);

d     can be replaced by a question word;

e     can function as the answer to a content question.

As mentioned above, gathering this kind of evidence often requires a significant amount of knowledge about the grammar of the language. When beginning to study a new language “from scratch,” it is reasonable to make some initial hypotheses about constituent structure based on factors such as meaning and potential for substitution, as we did in our initial discussion of the Malay data. But keep alert for other kinds of evidence which can help you confirm or disprove these hypotheses.

¹. The order of the duplicate object NPs is reversed in the English translation to clarify the nature of the ungrammaticality in Malay.

اخر الاخبار

اخبار العتبة العباسية المقدسة

العتبة العباسية المقدسة تعلن أسماء الفائزين بمسابقة الذكرى الميمونة لولادة الإمام الحسين (عليه السلام)

شعبة الخطابة النسوية تستعد لإطلاق مسابقة (سبيل المنتظرين) بنسختها الثالثة

قسم الشؤون الفكرية يقدّم محاضرتين توعويتين لطلبة جامعة المنارة في ميسان

سماحة السيد الصافي يؤكّد أن القرآن عظّم شخصية النبي (صلّى الله عليه وآله) وكشف زيف ما أُلصِق بسيرته

المزيد

الآخبار الصحية

دراسة: محاولة متعمدة لنشر الإنفلونزا تنتهي بـ"مفاجأة"

من خبير في هارفارد.. 6 نصائح يومية "فعالة" لإبطاء الشيخوخة

7 مشروبات طبيعية لتقوية الذاكرة وزيادة التركيز

عرض شائع على الأصابع.. قد يكشف سرطان الرئة مبكرا

المزيد

الآخبار التكنلوجية

وسائل التواصل بين الإفراط والامتناع.. ما هو الحد الآمن للمراهقين؟

أعمق خندق في الكوكب الارض !

روساتوم: روسيا تقترب من تطوير ساعات ذرية فائقة الدقة

مفاجأة علمية عن الإنجاب.. كم طفلا يطيل عمر المرأة؟

المزيد

مواضيع ذات صلة

Anaphora vs. deixis

Grammatical case vs. semantic case

Semantic roles and Grammatical Relations Conclusion

Arguments and semantic roles

Semantic roles and Grammatical Relations

Identifying meaningful elements Summary

Identifying meaningful elements within words

Identifying meaningful elements Identifying word meanings

Consequences of modifying Gunlogsons 2001 model

A case study of the semantics of clear - Factivity revisited

A case study of the semantics of clear - The analysis

A case study of the semantics of clear - Vagueness