For-to clauses 4

Thetoy English rule basically means, real English as spoken by thenative speakers of the Language. (Cowie, 2008). It shows how syntaxand semantics are related to each other. That is how a meaning of aphrase and its structure are related.

Nativespeaker of English language, may consider some spoken phrases to becorrect or well formed, when looking at syntax of the naturallanguage, the expression or the phrases are always correct accordingto the native speaker. It is expected that from the syntax of anatural language that it will specify exactly those expressions thatnative speakers will consider to be correct, or well-formed. Thiscannot be done by simply enumerating all the correct expressions of alanguage. The reason is that this set is infinite, for every naturallanguage.(Reich, P. 1969).

Tocome up with a correct expression of a language, there has to befirst, expression of morphemes (thesmallest grammatical unit in a language),then the induction step follows (syntactic rule of the language thattells how expression can be combined to form new expressions.(Chomsky,1980).

Thetoy grammar rule which explains structure and meaning in phrases orsentences:

S- (NP/CP) TP.

S–Stands for starting symbol, NP-Stands for noun phrase, CP –Stands for coordinating conjunction phrase, VP refers to verb phrase,and PP means preposition phrase. (Lecomte,A., Retoré, C. 2001).

Coordinatingconjunctions join sentence element, phrases and clauses that are thesame. They are and, for, nor, but, or, yet.

ForHarvey to eat the goldfish and for there to be a misunderstandingabout this.

Theabove two sentences, are considered to be CPs because first, the two sentences begin with a coordinating conjunction, (for).Secondly thetwo sentences have been considered as CPs, in the toy grammar rule,starting symbol (S), which is the start of a sentence is equivalentto

anoun phrase or a Coordinating conjunction. S-(NP/CP). According to (Gold,1967) In English grammar rules, it is not correctto begin a sentence with Coordinating conjunctions, but following thetoy grammar rule, this is allowed since starting point can be a nounphrase or a Coordinating conjunctions. S-(NP/CP).

b) Assuming ‘for’ is a C ‘to’ would be, P since VP V (NP)(AP) (CP) (PP).

c)Structure for (1) ‘for Harvey to eat the goldfish would be amistake’.


NP SCP for


VP eat, mistake NP goldfish NP the , a VP ,would, be



d) How (5) is derived.

‘Itwould be weird for Harvey to be elected treasurer’.

Klein,2002) shows how sentences can be formed following this format. Heexplains that however a sentence begins, as long as the meaning canbe derived, this sentence is grammatically correct as per the nativelanguage.

Itis a noun phrase, would and be are verbs, for is a coordinatingconjunction, Harvey is a noun to is a preposition, elected is a verbphrase and treasurer is a noun phrase.





Thephrases above have to be joined to other phrases to make sense, (theinduction step flow).

2.Generalization of spoken phrases.

  1. I would hate for you to have been waiting all this time.

  2. For his grammar to be criticised unfairly is depressing for Harvey.

  3. It would not be a good idea for you to be sleeping then.

  4. I wouldn’t like for my salary to can go down.

  5. For Harvey to will eat the goldfish might be a mistake.

  6. It would sadden me for my puppy to would run away.

Sentencenumber one, three, four and six follow the rule: S-NP, VP, whilesentence number two and five follow the rule S–CPs.

Thisis adhere ring to the format S— (NP/CP), this format allows asentence to begin with a coordinating conjunction phrase or nounphrase. (Herkema, 2001).


  1. Chomsky, N. (1980).&nbspRules and representations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

  2. Cowie, F. (2008).&nbsp&quotInnateness and Language&quot.&nbspStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

  3. Edward PStabler (2010). &quotAfter Government and Binding Theory&quot. In Johan F.A.K. van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen.Handbook of Logic and Language&nbsp(2nd ed.).

  4. E.M.Gold, Language Identification in the Limit, Information and Control, 10(5): 447–474, 1967

  5. Harkema, H., 2001. &quotA characterization of minimalist languages&quot, in: de Groote, P., Morrill, G., Retoré, C. (Eds.), Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, No. 2099). Springer, New York,

  6. Klein, D. &amp Manning, C. (2002). A generative constituent-context model for improved grammar induction. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Philadelphia. 128–135.

  7. Lecomte, A., Retoré, C. (2001). &quotExtending Lambek Grammars: A Logical Account of Minimalist Grammars&quot.&nbspProc. 39th Ann. Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. pp.&nbsp362–369.

  8. Reich, P. (1969). &quotThe finiteness of natural language&quot.&nbspLanguage&nbsp(45): 831–843.