Deconstructing SYNtax

There are at least two distinct ways of conceiving of syntax: the set of rules that enable speakers and listeners to combine the meaning of expressions (compositional syntax), or the set of formal constraints on the combinations of expressions (formal syntax). The question that occupies us in this paper is whether all languages include a significant formal syntax component or whether there are languages in which most syntactic rules are exclusively compositional. Our claims are (1) that Oneida (Northern Iroquoian) has almost no formal syntax component and is very close to a language that includes only a compositional syntax component and (2) that the little formal syntax Oneida has does not require making reference to syntactic features.1 There are at least two distinct ways of conceiving of syntax: Definition 1. Syntax is the set of rules that enable speakers and listeners to combine the meaning of two or more expressions (words or phrases) (hereafter, compositional syntax) Definition 2. Syntax is the set of formal constraints on the combinations of two or more expressions (words or phrases) (hereafter, formal syntax) Syntactic rules in most languages partake of both conceptions of syntax: They are statements about how speakers can combine the meaning of expressions while at the same time restricting the form of the expressions they license the combination of. But only the first, i.e. compositional syntax, is a conceptual necessity. Whatever syntax does, it must at a minimum ensure that when two expressions of the right semantic kind combine, they combine semantically in the right way. This is what the syntax of natural and logical languages share. It seems impossible to imagine a natural language whose syntax would not provide recipes for combining the meanings of expressions that are part of well-formed constituents. But, because most syntactic rules in most languages also include a formal component, we tend to think of syntax in the second sense (what we call formal syntax) as syntax proper. The question that occupies us in this paper is whether all languages include a significant formal syntax component or whether there are languages in which most syntactic rules are exclusively compositional and do not restrict the form of the expressions that combine. Our claim is that Oneida (Northern Iroquoian) is such a language. Most of its syntactic rules or constructions are strictly compositional, and very few include a formal component and that formal component is very restricted. More precisely, we make the following two claims. Claim 1. Compared to most languages, Oneida has almost no formal syntax component and is very close to a language that includes only a compositional syntax component. The examples come from a compilation of recorded texts or stories (Michelson, Kennedy and Doxtator, to appear), and we are grateful to those who have contributed recordings; we would like especially to acknowledge Norma Kennedy and the late Mercy Doxtator for their collaboration. References to works on Iroquoian languages may be found in an annotated bibliography (Michelson 2011). Grammars of several other Iroquoian languages are presently underway (e.g. Chafe In press).