Recent from talks
Antisymmetry
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Antisymmetry
In linguistics, antisymmetry, is a theory of syntax described in Richard S. Kayne's 1994 book The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Building upon X-bar theory, it proposes a universal, fundamental word order for phrases (branching) across languages: specifier-head-complement. This means a phrase typically starts with an introductory element (specifier), followed by the core (head, often a verb or noun), and then additional information (complement). The theory argues that any sentence structure that deviates from this order results from rearrangements (syntactic movements) of this underlying structure. For instance, a sentence like "Eat the cake quickly" might be analyzed as a rearrangement of a more basic specifier-head-complement structure "Quickly eat the cake".
While Kayne proposes specifier-head-complement as the base order, some linguists have suggested alternative base orders, such as specifier-complement-head. Antisymmetry is reliant on x-bar notions, which are disputed by constituency structure theories (as opposed to dependency structure theories).[citation needed]
This framework is important for syntacticians as it offers a restrictive theory of possible sentence structures, potentially explaining cross-linguistic variations in word order and constraining the range of grammatical analyses.
C-command is a relation between tree nodes, as defined by Tanya Reinhart. Kayne uses a simple definition of c-command based on the "first node up". However, the definition is complicated by his use of a "segment/category" distinction. Two directly connected nodes that have the same label are "segments" of a single "category". A category "excludes" all categories not "dominated" by all its segments. A "c-commands" B if every category that dominates A also dominates B, and A excludes B. The following tree illustrates these concepts:
AP1 and AP2 are both segments of a single category. AP does not c-command BP because it does not exclude BP. CP does not c-command BP because both segments of AP do not dominate BP (so it is not the case that every category that dominates CP dominates BP). BP c-commands CP and A. A c-commands C. The definitions above may perhaps be thought to allow BP to c-command AP, but a c-command relation is not usually assumed to hold between two such categories, and for the purposes of antisymmetry, the question of whether BP c-commands AP is in fact moot.
(The above is not an exhaustive list of c-command relations in the tree, but covers all of those that are significant in the following exposition.)
Asymmetric c-command is the relation that holds between two categories, A and B, if A c-commands B but B does not c-command A.
Informally, Kayne's theory states that if a nonterminal category A asymmetrically c-commands another nonterminal category B, all the terminal nodes dominated by A must precede all of the terminal nodes dominated by B (this statement is commonly referred to as the "Linear Correspondence Axiom" or LCA). Moreover, this principle must suffice to establish a complete and consistent ordering of all terminal nodes — if it cannot consistently order all of the terminal nodes in a tree, the tree is illicit. Consider the following tree:
Hub AI
Antisymmetry AI simulator
(@Antisymmetry_simulator)
Antisymmetry
In linguistics, antisymmetry, is a theory of syntax described in Richard S. Kayne's 1994 book The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Building upon X-bar theory, it proposes a universal, fundamental word order for phrases (branching) across languages: specifier-head-complement. This means a phrase typically starts with an introductory element (specifier), followed by the core (head, often a verb or noun), and then additional information (complement). The theory argues that any sentence structure that deviates from this order results from rearrangements (syntactic movements) of this underlying structure. For instance, a sentence like "Eat the cake quickly" might be analyzed as a rearrangement of a more basic specifier-head-complement structure "Quickly eat the cake".
While Kayne proposes specifier-head-complement as the base order, some linguists have suggested alternative base orders, such as specifier-complement-head. Antisymmetry is reliant on x-bar notions, which are disputed by constituency structure theories (as opposed to dependency structure theories).[citation needed]
This framework is important for syntacticians as it offers a restrictive theory of possible sentence structures, potentially explaining cross-linguistic variations in word order and constraining the range of grammatical analyses.
C-command is a relation between tree nodes, as defined by Tanya Reinhart. Kayne uses a simple definition of c-command based on the "first node up". However, the definition is complicated by his use of a "segment/category" distinction. Two directly connected nodes that have the same label are "segments" of a single "category". A category "excludes" all categories not "dominated" by all its segments. A "c-commands" B if every category that dominates A also dominates B, and A excludes B. The following tree illustrates these concepts:
AP1 and AP2 are both segments of a single category. AP does not c-command BP because it does not exclude BP. CP does not c-command BP because both segments of AP do not dominate BP (so it is not the case that every category that dominates CP dominates BP). BP c-commands CP and A. A c-commands C. The definitions above may perhaps be thought to allow BP to c-command AP, but a c-command relation is not usually assumed to hold between two such categories, and for the purposes of antisymmetry, the question of whether BP c-commands AP is in fact moot.
(The above is not an exhaustive list of c-command relations in the tree, but covers all of those that are significant in the following exposition.)
Asymmetric c-command is the relation that holds between two categories, A and B, if A c-commands B but B does not c-command A.
Informally, Kayne's theory states that if a nonterminal category A asymmetrically c-commands another nonterminal category B, all the terminal nodes dominated by A must precede all of the terminal nodes dominated by B (this statement is commonly referred to as the "Linear Correspondence Axiom" or LCA). Moreover, this principle must suffice to establish a complete and consistent ordering of all terminal nodes — if it cannot consistently order all of the terminal nodes in a tree, the tree is illicit. Consider the following tree: