Lesson 6.3: HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE

Now, let's return to the syntactic process of combination introduced in Lesson 6.2. Connected with this process is the other syntactic principle hierarchical structure also introduced in Lesson 6.2. Knowledge of this principle is part of our competence. As speakers of a language we know that the words, the smallest constituents in a sentence, combine into larger units that hang together semantically. These larger units are constituents (just like words) because they also help make up a sentence. And because they are larger constituents consisting of 2 or more words, they are considered higher up in the hierarchy of syntactic constituents than words. In the textbook on p. 173, the authors show the constituents for the sentence Many executives eat at really fancy restaurants. They use underlining to visualize the hierarchical nature of its constituent structure. Another visualization method is to use parentheses. I am giving you the same sentences but using parentheses to show its constituents:

(5) (((Many) (executives)) ((eat) ((at) (((really) (fancy)) (restaurants))))).

The constituents for the sentence (other than words) are from left to right and from smaller to larger:
(many executives)
(really fancy)
(really fancy restaurants)
(at really fancy restaurants)
(eat at really fancy restaurants)
(Many executives eat at really fancy restaurants)

Since this concept of semantically coherent groupings (as the book calls constituents) is somewhat abstract I will give you an analogy that will hopefully support your grasp of this concept.

The analogy I want to use is a parallel between the hierarchical structure of ever larger, semantically coherent constituents in a sentence and the hierarchical structure of age-graded constituents in a family. In my extended family, we Schramms constitute two units at the bottom of the age hierarchy, i.e. children and parents. At the lowest level, there are our three children Kaela, Adi, and Sarina. As the children, they form a coherent unit.

My wife Judy and I form another coherent unit as the parents. Together, parents and children form the next higher level in my conceptualization of the family hierarchy, the Schramms. This can be visualized as follows: At the next level up, there are the grandparents Anderson, Art and Darlene, who are my wife's parents. We form the coherent grouping of the Anderson branch of the family, consisting of the grandparents and the Schramms. Now the hierarchy looks like this: Going up another level, there is the head of the Shoger clan, great-grandmother Gladys Shoger, who is my wife's grandma and lives in Iowa. Now there is the coherent Shoger grouping with the Anderson branch and the single great-grandmother as constituents; the hierarchy looks like this: We get the following constituents top to bottom: Shoger, Great-Grandmother/Andersons, Grandparents/Schramms, and parents/children. Together we all form the top level Shoger constituent, which would correspond to the sentence level in language; each family member corresponds to a word at the bottom level. The in-between levels correspond to phrasal constituents. I hope this familiar familial example makes constituents and constituent structure more concrete.

Another way to demonstrate constituent structure is to look at ambiguous sentences. Sentences are often ambiguous because one can "cut" constituents in two different ways. So we should be able to determine the two different constituent structures that go with the two meanings of the sentence. If we succeed, we should also have a better understanding of how constituent structures work.

Let's try this strategy to improve our understanding of sentence constituents. Headlines are notorious for their ambiguity because they  are often "abbreviated" sentences. Take the following ambiguous headline from a newspaper:

(6) Stud Tires Out

This headline is structurally ambiguous. It can therefore be paraphrased in two ways because there is an interpretation for each constituent structure. One interpretation is that tires with studs (so-called stud tires) can not be used any longer. This interpretation corresponds to the following constituent structure: ((Stud Tires) (Out)). Stud Tires is a compound noun and therefore a single constituent. There is no verb; only the particle out, which is part of the full verb phrase be out.

Since it may be hard for you to identify the constituents of a sentence or phrase, let's discuss a procedure to help with the identification. The book provides three useful tests for identifying constituents (pp. 171-2). They are ability to stand alone, substitution by pro-form, and movement. Starting with ability to stand alone, stud tires should be able to stand alone if it is a constituent. Applying the test, we ask: what is out (=can't be used any longer)? As an answer, we get: stud tires. The two words can stand alone, which tells us that they are a constituent. To apply substitution by pro-form, we should be able to substitute a pronoun for stud tires. This is indeed possible, since we can say They are out. (We have to stick the verb be back in for this test to work.) Finally, we should be able to move stud tires if it is a constituent. Is it possible to say Out are stud tires? I think so if one thinks of the proper context where out needs to be stressed. The constituent passes the movement test as well. All three tests confirm that stud tires is a constituent.

The other interpretation of the ambiguous headline is that there is a stud, and this stud tires out (=gets tired). This second interpretation corresponds to the following constituent structure: ((Stud) (Tires out)). Stud is a noun and a constituent by itself. Tires out is a phrasal verb and another constituent. In either case, the sentence is another constituent and is therefore put in parentheses as well. Let's apply the constituent tests to tires out to see if these two words act as a single constituent in the second interpretation. To apply the ability-to-stand-alone test we need to ask a question that gives us only the constituent we are interested in. The question goes as follows: What does the stud do? Tires out is the answer. This test seems to work. Using the substitution by pro-form test, we get the following: Who tires out? The answer is The stud does. Again, we get confirmation that there is a constituent because the phrasal verb can be replaced by the pro-verb DO. And finally, can we apply the movement test? We might be able to say out tires the stud under certain circumstances?!? There does not appear to be a perfect confirmation from this test, but the other two tests provide good support. As the book mentions, not all tests can be applied all the time. With two tests applying, we can still be confident that there are two constituent structures and that this sentence is therefore ambiguous.

Here are a few more examples of  ambiguous headlines, which you can work on in groups:

(7) British Left Waffles On Falkland Islands
     Eye Drops Off Shelf
     Teacher Strikes Idle Kids
     Squad Helps Dog Bite Victim

To make sure that everybody sees the two meanings in each case, take a few minutes (or perhaps only seconds - that always depends on whether you get locked into only one reading or are able to see both right away), and write down paraphrases for the two readings in each case. Also, put parentheses around the two constituents in each of the readings of (7) that cause the ambiguity. Then apply the three constituent tests to confirm that you found the proper constituents. When you are finished, go to the discussion group folders Syntax 1-5 in FirstClass and post your two paraphrases for each headline, the two headlines with parentheses around the constituents for each interpretation, and the constituent tests for each of the two constituent structures. Compare each others' postings and resolve any differences between them if necessary to make sure that in each case everyone recognizes the two readings, identifies the two sets of constituents, and is able to apply the constituent tests. If your group has difficulties with this exercise, go to other groups, post a response in Announcements, or email me for clarification. I will also check on your discussions. Have fun!

Exercise: Constituent Structure

Finally, each of you individually (not as groups) please submit two of the headlines to me as a homework assignment in your individual FirstClass student folder. This is a homework assignment in addition to the group discussion on this same topic. Make sure to include This concludes lesson 6. Click here to get to the midterm exam. The midterm exam is due on March 5, 2001.

This is the end of the sixth lesson. You will find lesson 7 next week by going to the list of lessons on the home page (http://web.hamline.edu/personal/aschramm/linguistics2001/index.html) and clicking on "Lesson 7".

updated last: 2/24/01       © Andreas Schramm and Hamline University