In generative grammar, non-configurational languages are languages in which there is no verb phrase (VP) constituent. In configurational languages in contrast, the subject of a sentence is outside the 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 vs. non-configurational) can exist in constituency-based grammars (=phrase structure grammars) only. Given a dependency-based grammar (=dependency grammar), the distinction is impossible since dependency-based structures do not and cannot acknowledge a finite VP constituent.
Contents |
The following trees illustrate the distinction:
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 the configuration. The subject is the argument that appears outside of the VP, whereas the object appears inside it. The flatter structure on the right, where there is no VP, forces/allows one to view aspects of syntax differently. More generally, it has been proposed that non-configurational languages have the following characteristics:
However, it is not clear that these properties all cluster together. Languages that have been classified as non-configurational include Mohawk, Warlpiri, Nahuatl and O'odham (Papago).
The analysis of non-configurational languages has been controversial among phrase structure grammars[1]. 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[2]. 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.
The distinction between configurational and non-configurational languages can exist for phrase structure grammars only. Dependency grammars, since they lack a finite VP constituent altogether, do not acknowledge the distinction. In other words, all languages are non-configurational for dependency grammars, even English, which all phrase structure grammars take for granted as a having a finite VP constituent. The point is illustrated with the following examples:
Phrase structure grammars almost unanimously assume that the finite VP in bold in the first sentence is a constituent. Dependency grammars, in contrast, do not see finite VPs as constituents. Both phrase structure grammars and dependency grammars do, however, see non-finite VPs as constituents. If finite VP is not a constituent, the distinction between configurational and non-configurational languages disappears, all languages being non-configurational in a sense.
Dependency grammars point to the results of standard constituency tests as evidence that finite VP does not exist as a constituent[3] 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.