Non-configurational language

In generative grammar, non-configurational languages are languages characterized by a flat phrase structure, which allows syntactically discontinuous expressions, and a relatively free word order.

History of the concept of "non-configurationality"

The concept of non-configurationality was developed by grammarians working within Noam Chomsky's generative framework. Some of these linguists observed that the Syntactic Universals proposed by Chomsky and which required a rigid phrase structure were challenged by the syntax of some of the world's languages that had a much less rigid syntax than that of the languages on which Chomsky had based his studies. Chomsky made it a goal of the Government and Binding framework to accommodate languages such as Japanese and Warlpiri that apparently did not conform to his proposed language universal of Move α. Hale later published his own description of non-configurationality in Warlpiri.

Distinction

Non-configurational languages contrast with configurational languages, where the subject of a sentence is outside the finite verb phrase (VP) (directly under S below) but the object is inside it. Since there is no VP constituent in non-configurational languages, there is no structural difference between subject and object. The distinction — configurational versus non-configurational — can exist in phrase structure grammars only. In a dependency-based grammar, the distinction is meaningless because dependency-based structures do not acknowledge a finite VP constituent.

The following trees illustrate the distinction:

::alt=two tree diagrams - in the first, which demonstrates configurational structure, the subject stands on its own, and the object and verb (V) are grouped together in a VP at the same level as the subject. In the second, which demonstrates non-configurational structure, all three elements (subject, verb, object) are at the same level within the sentence.|border|514x514px

Non-configurational languages have a seemingly 'flat' constituent structure, as illustrated above. The presence of the VP constituent in the configurational tree on the left allows one to define the syntactic relations (subject vs. object) in terms of configuration: the subject is the argument that appears outside of the VP, but the object appears inside it. The flat structure on the right, where there is no VP, forces/allows one to view aspects of syntax differently. More generally, Hale proposed that non-configurational languages have the following characteristics:

free (or more accurately, pragmatically determined) word order
extensive use of null anaphora (pro-drop phenomena)
syntactically discontinuous expressions

However, it is not clear that those properties all cluster together. Languages that have been described as non-configurational include Mohawk, Warlpiri, Nahuatl, Jingulu, Non-configurationality and discourse-configurationality are mutually independent. It displays the three main characteristics of non-configurationality, namely free word order, extensive use of null anaphora, and discontinuous expressions.

thumb|This tree shows the basic sentence structure of Warlpiri sentences.

thumb|This tree shows the basic sentence structure of English sentences.

According to Hale, the relatively unconstrained manner in which words are ordered within the sentence is due to the way in which the projection principle acts in non-configurational languages. Hale's Configurationality Parameter (CP) holds that, in non-configurational languages, the projection principle holds of only lexical structure (LS).

The major (lexical) categories of Warlpiri include N, V, and PV (pro-verb) and the minor (functional) categories include AUX (verbs) and particles, conjunctions, and clitics, which are all part of the category Particles. This is in contrast to the sentence structure of a configurational language, such as English, with a basic sentence phrase structure following:

S --> NP VP.

Warlpiri verbs are always argument-taking predicates and Warlpiri nominals are always arguments or argument-taking predicates. On the one hand, much work on these languages in Principles and Parameters has attempted to show that they are in fact configurational. On the other hand, it has been argued in Lexical Functional Grammar that these attempts are flawed, and that truly non-configurational languages exist. From the perspective of syntactic theory, the existence of non-configurational languages bears on the question of whether grammatical functions like subject and object are independent of structure. If they are not, no language can be truly non-configurational.

Controversy with dependency grammars

The distinction between configurational and non-configurational languages can exist for phrase structure grammars only. Dependency grammars (DGs), since they lack a finite VP constituent altogether, do not acknowledge the distinction. In other words, all languages are non-configurational for DGs, even English, which all phrase structure grammars take for granted as having a finite VP constituent. The point is illustrated with the following examples:

::No structure will have a finite VP constituent. - Finite VP in bold

::No structure will have a finite VP constituent. - Non-finite VP in bold

Phrase structure grammars almost unanimously assume that the finite VP in bold in the first sentence is a constituent. DGs, in contrast, do not see finite VPs as constituents. Both phrase structure grammars and DGs do, however, see non-finite VPs as constituents. The dependency structure of the example sentence is as follows:

::DG tree, no finite VP

Since the finite VP will have a finite VP constituent does not qualify as a complete subtree, it is not a constituent. What this means based upon the criterion of configurationality is that this dependency structure (like all dependency structures) is non-configurational. The distinction between configurational and non-configurational has hence disappeared entirely, all languages being non-configurational in the relevant sense. Note, however, that while the finite VP is not a constituent in the tree, the non-finite VP have a finite VP constituent is a constituent (because it qualifies as a complete subtree).

Dependency grammars point to the results of standard constituency tests as evidence that finite VP does not exist as a constituent While these tests deliver clear evidence for the existence of a non-finite VP constituent in English (and other languages), they do not do the same for finite VP.

Notes

References

Austin, Peter and Joan Bresnan 1996. Non-configurationality in Australian aboriginal languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14, 215–268.
Baker, Mark 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. New York: Oxford Press. 61-182.
Crystal, David 2008. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Blackwell Pub, 329
Hale, Kenneth 1982. Preliminary remarks on configurationality. In J. Pustejovsky & P. Sells (Eds.), NELS 12, 86–96.
Hale, Kenneth 1983. Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 5-47.
Jelinek, Eloise 1984. Empty Categories, Case, and Configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2, 39-76.
Marácz, László and Muysken, Pieter (Eds.) 1989. Configurationality: The typology of asymmetries. Dordrecht: Foris.
Osborne, Timothy, Michael Putnam, and Thomas Gross 2011. Bare phrase structure, label-less structures, and specifier-less syntax: Is Minimalism becoming a dependency grammar? The Linguistic Review 28, 315-364.
Pensalfini, Rob 2004. "Towards a Typology of Configurationality". Natural Language & Linguistic Theory. 22 (2): 359-408.
Simpson, Jane 1991. Warlpiri Morpho-Syntax: A Lexicalist Approach.

External links

Non-configurational language (Lexicon of Linguistics)
Configurational language (Lexicon of Linguistics)
Scrambling (Lexicon of Linguistics)
Cartoon Theories of Linguistics: Non-Configurational Languages A simplification of the basic idea of non-configurational languages into a cartoon.