In grammar and theoretical linguistics, government or rection refers to the relationship between a word and its dependents. One can discern between at least three concepts of government: the traditional notion of case government, the highly specialized definition of government in some generative models of syntax, and a much broader notion in dependency grammars.
In traditional Latin and Greek (and other) grammars, government is the control by verbs and prepositions of the selection of grammatical features of other words. Most commonly, a verb or preposition is said to "govern" a specific grammatical case if its complement must take that case in a grammatically correct structure (see: case government).[1] For example, in Latin, most transitive verbs require their direct object to appear in the accusative case, while the dative case is reserved for indirect objects. Thus, the phrase I see you would be rendered as Te video in Latin, using the accusative form te for the second person pronoun, and I give a present to you would be rendered as Tibi donum do, using both an accusative (donum) for the direct and a dative (tibi; the dative of the second person pronoun) for the indirect object; the phrase I help you, however, would be rendered as Tibi faveo, using only the dative form tibi. The verb favere (to help), like many others, is an exception to this default government pattern: its one and only object must be in the dative. Although no direct object in the accusative is controlled by the specific verb, this object is traditionally considered to be an indirect one, mainly because passivization is unavailable except perhaps in an impersonal manner and for certain verbs of this type. A semantic alternation may also be achieved when different case constructions are available with a verb: Id credo (id is an accusative) means I believe this, I have this opinion and Ei credo (ei is a dative) means I trust this, I confide in this.
Prepositions (and postpositions and circumpositions, i.e. adpositions) are like verbs in their ability to govern the case of their complement, and like many verbs, many adpositions can govern more than one case, with distinct interpretations. For example in Italy would be in Italia, Italia being an ablative case form, but towards Italy would be in Italiam, Italiam being an accusative case form.
In government and binding theory
The abstract syntactic relation of government in government and binding theory, a phrase structure grammar, is an extension of the traditional notion of case government.[2] Verbs govern their objects, and more generally, heads govern their dependents. A governs B if and only if:[3]
This definition is explained in more detail in the government section of the article on government and binding theory.
Government broadly construed
One sometimes encounters definitions of government that are much broader than the one just produced. Government is understood as the property that regulates which words can or must appear with the referenced word.[4] This broader understanding of government is part of many dependency grammars. The notion is that many individual words in a given sentence can appear only by virtue of the fact that some other word appears in that sentence.
According to this definition, government occurs between any two words connected by a dependency, the dominant word opening slots for subordinate words. The dominant word is the governor, and the subordinates are its governees. The following dependency tree illustrates governors and governees:
The word has governs Fred and ordered; in other words, has is governor over its governees Fred and ordered. Similarly, ordered governs dish and for, that is, ordered is governor over its governees dish and for; Etc. This understanding of government is widespread among dependency grammars.[5]
Governors vs. heads
The distinction between the terms governor and head is a source of confusion, given the definitions of government produced above. Indeed, governor and head are overlapping concepts. The governor and the head of a given word will often be one and the same other word. The understanding of these concepts becomes difficult, however, when discontinuities are involved. The following example of a w-fronting discontinuity from German illustrates the difficulty:
Wem
who-DAT
denkst
think
du
you
haben
have
sie
they
geholfen?
helped?
Wem denkst du haben sie geholfen?
who-DAT think you have they helped?
'Who do you think they helped?'
Two of the criteria mentioned above for identifying governors (and governees) are applicable to the interrogative pronoun wem 'whom'. This pronoun receives dative case from the verb geholfen 'helped' (= case government) and it can appear by virtue of the fact that geholfen appears (= licensing). Given these observations, one can make a strong argument that geholfen is the governor of wem, even though the two words are separated from each other by the rest of the sentence. In such constellations, one sometimes distinguishes between head and governor.[6] So while the governor of wem is geholfen, the head of wem is taken to be the finite verb denkst 'think'. In other words, when a discontinuity occurs, one assumes that the governor and the head (of the relevant word) are distinct, otherwise they are the same word. Exactly how the terms head and governor are used can depend on the particular theory of syntax that is employed.
^See for instance Allerton (1979:150f) and Lockwood (2002:75ff.).
^Reinhart (1976), Aoun and Sportiche (1983), and Chomsky (1986) are three prominent sources that established important concepts in generative grammar such as c-command, m-command, and government.
^For definitions of government along the lines given here, see for instance van Riemsdijk and Williams (1987:231, 291) and Ouhalla (1994:169).
^For examples of government construed in this broad sense, see for instance Burton-Roberts (1986:41) and Wardbaugh (2003:84).
^See for instance Tesnière (1959), Starosta (1988:21), Engel (1994), Groß and Osborne (2009), among many others.
^Concerning the distinction between heads and governors, see Groß and Osborne (2009: 51-56).
References
Allerton, D. 1979. Essentials of grammatical theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Aoun, J. and D. Sportiche 1983. On the formal theory of government. Linguistic Review 2, 211–236.
Burton-Roberts, N. 1986. Analysing sentences: An introduction to English syntax. London: Longman.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Engel, U. 1994. Syntax der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, 3rd revised edition. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
Groß, T. and T. Osborne 2009. Toward a practical dependency grammar theory of discontinuities. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22, 43–90.
Harris, C. L. and Bates, E. A. 2002. Clausal backgrounding and pronominal reference: A functionalist approach to c-command. Language and Cognitive Processes 17, 3, 237–269.
Jung, W.-Y. 1995. Syntaktische Relationen im Rahmen der Dependenzgrammatik. Hamburg: Buske.
Lockwood, D. 2002. Syntactic analysis and description: A constructional approach. London: continuum.
Ouhalla, J. 1994. Transformational grammar: From rules to principles and parameters. London: Edward Arnold.
Starosta, S. 1988. The case for Lexicase: An outline of Lexicase grammatical theory. New York: Pinter Publishers.
Tesnière, L. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
van Riemsdijk, H. and E. Williams. 1986. Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Wardbaugh, R. 2003. Understanding English grammar, second edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
January 15, 2023
government, linguistics, grammar, theoretical, linguistics, government, rection, refers, relationship, between, word, dependents, discern, between, least, three, concepts, government, traditional, notion, case, government, highly, specialized, definition, gove. In grammar and theoretical linguistics government or rection refers to the relationship between a word and its dependents One can discern between at least three concepts of government the traditional notion of case government the highly specialized definition of government in some generative models of syntax and a much broader notion in dependency grammars Contents 1 Traditional case government 2 In government and binding theory 3 Government broadly construed 4 Governors vs heads 5 See also 6 Notes 7 ReferencesTraditional case government EditMain article Case government In traditional Latin and Greek and other grammars government is the control by verbs and prepositions of the selection of grammatical features of other words Most commonly a verb or preposition is said to govern a specific grammatical case if its complement must take that case in a grammatically correct structure see case government 1 For example in Latin most transitive verbs require their direct object to appear in the accusative case while the dative case is reserved for indirect objects Thus the phrase I see you would be rendered as Te video in Latin using the accusative form te for the second person pronoun and I give a present to you would be rendered as Tibi donum do using both an accusative donum for the direct and a dative tibi the dative of the second person pronoun for the indirect object the phrase I help you however would be rendered as Tibi faveo using only the dative form tibi The verb favere to help like many others is an exception to this default government pattern its one and only object must be in the dative Although no direct object in the accusative is controlled by the specific verb this object is traditionally considered to be an indirect one mainly because passivization is unavailable except perhaps in an impersonal manner and for certain verbs of this type A semantic alternation may also be achieved when different case constructions are available with a verb Id credo id is an accusative means I believe this I have this opinion and Ei credo ei is a dative means I trust this I confide in this Prepositions and postpositions and circumpositions i e adpositions are like verbs in their ability to govern the case of their complement and like many verbs many adpositions can govern more than one case with distinct interpretations For example in Italy would be in Italia Italia being an ablative case form but towards Italy would be in Italiam Italiam being an accusative case form In government and binding theory EditThe abstract syntactic relation of government in government and binding theory a phrase structure grammar is an extension of the traditional notion of case government 2 Verbs govern their objects and more generally heads govern their dependents A governs B if and only if 3 A is a governor a lexical head A m commands B and no barrier intervenes between A and B This definition is explained in more detail in the government section of the article on government and binding theory Government broadly construed EditOne sometimes encounters definitions of government that are much broader than the one just produced Government is understood as the property that regulates which words can or must appear with the referenced word 4 This broader understanding of government is part of many dependency grammars The notion is that many individual words in a given sentence can appear only by virtue of the fact that some other word appears in that sentence According to this definition government occurs between any two words connected by a dependency the dominant word opening slots for subordinate words The dominant word is the governor and the subordinates are its governees The following dependency tree illustrates governors and governees dd dd The word has governs Fred and ordered in other words has is governor over its governees Fred and ordered Similarly ordered governs dish and for that is ordered is governor over its governees dish and for Etc This understanding of government is widespread among dependency grammars 5 Governors vs heads EditThe distinction between the terms governor and head is a source of confusion given the definitions of government produced above Indeed governor and head are overlapping concepts The governor and the head of a given word will often be one and the same other word The understanding of these concepts becomes difficult however when discontinuities are involved The following example of a w fronting discontinuity from German illustrates the difficulty Wemwho DATdenkstthinkduyouhabenhavesietheygeholfen helped Wem denkst du haben sie geholfen who DAT think you have they helped Who do you think they helped Two of the criteria mentioned above for identifying governors and governees are applicable to the interrogative pronoun wem whom This pronoun receives dative case from the verb geholfen helped case government and it can appear by virtue of the fact that geholfen appears licensing Given these observations one can make a strong argument that geholfen is the governor of wem even though the two words are separated from each other by the rest of the sentence In such constellations one sometimes distinguishes between head and governor 6 So while the governor of wem is geholfen the head of wem is taken to be the finite verb denkst think In other words when a discontinuity occurs one assumes that the governor and the head of the relevant word are distinct otherwise they are the same word Exactly how the terms head and governor are used can depend on the particular theory of syntax that is employed See also EditAgreement linguistics C command Case government Collocation Dependency grammar M command Phrase structure grammarNotes Edit See for instance Allerton 1979 150f and Lockwood 2002 75ff Reinhart 1976 Aoun and Sportiche 1983 and Chomsky 1986 are three prominent sources that established important concepts in generative grammar such as c command m command and government For definitions of government along the lines given here see for instance van Riemsdijk and Williams 1987 231 291 and Ouhalla 1994 169 For examples of government construed in this broad sense see for instance Burton Roberts 1986 41 and Wardbaugh 2003 84 See for instance Tesniere 1959 Starosta 1988 21 Engel 1994 Gross and Osborne 2009 among many others Concerning the distinction between heads and governors see Gross and Osborne 2009 51 56 References EditAllerton D 1979 Essentials of grammatical theory London Routledge amp Kegan Paul Aoun J and D Sportiche 1983 On the formal theory of government Linguistic Review 2 211 236 Burton Roberts N 1986 Analysing sentences An introduction to English syntax London Longman Chomsky N 1986 Barriers Cambridge MA MIT Press Engel U 1994 Syntax der deutschen Gegenwartssprache 3rd revised edition Berlin Erich Schmidt Gross T and T Osborne 2009 Toward a practical dependency grammar theory of discontinuities SKY Journal of Linguistics 22 43 90 Harris C L and Bates E A 2002 Clausal backgrounding and pronominal reference A functionalist approach to c command Language and Cognitive Processes 17 3 237 269 Jung W Y 1995 Syntaktische Relationen im Rahmen der Dependenzgrammatik Hamburg Buske Lockwood D 2002 Syntactic analysis and description A constructional approach London continuum Ouhalla J 1994 Transformational grammar From rules to principles and parameters London Edward Arnold Reinhart T 1976 The syntactic domain of anaphora Doctoral dissertation MIT Available online at http dspace mit edu handle 1721 1 16400 Starosta S 1988 The case for Lexicase An outline of Lexicase grammatical theory New York Pinter Publishers Tesniere L 1959 Elements de syntaxe structurale Paris Klincksieck van Riemsdijk H and E Williams 1986 Introduction to the theory of grammar Cambridge MA The MIT Press Wardbaugh R 2003 Understanding English grammar second edition Malden MA Blackwell Publishing Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Government linguistics amp oldid 1076833654, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
