As everybody who has any experience in the matter knows, the typing and
printing of labeled bracketings and (even more so) tree diagrams is a headache. Writing or drawing them by hand on paper or
on a blackboard is of course quite easy; but inserting a handwritten diagram in
printing by using a block is quite expensive—particularly when one considers that
the block may never be used again. Composing
them has its difficulty; the result (as readers of IL have no doubt realized)
often looks unattractive or space-consuming or both.
I propose certain conventions for printing tree diagrams and labeled bracketings
that will make for ease of printing and low costs.
The best way to do is through illustrations. Each example appears in four versions : (a) conventional tree diagram;
(b) its proposed revision; (c) conventional labeled bracketing; (d) its proposed
revision.
(1a)
X (1b) X
A B
C
A
B C
P L
M S T U
P L
M STU Q R
Q
R
A possible variation of (1a), (1b) is one in which P, Q, R, S, T, U are
all written in a horizontal line with the branches AP, LQ, MR, and the triangle
SCU appropriately elongated. In (1b) the
triangle will remain as it is; the bar over STU will be lowered. Note that the difficulty of ‘composing’ (1a)
with all obliques slanted at 45 degrees is eliminated in (1b) and the (1b) is
more space-saving than the conventional genealogical tree.
[P] [Q] [R]
[STU]
(1c) A A L L M M C C
B B
X
X
Here
some ‘information’ is lost in passing from (1a) or (1b) to (1c) in that [STU]
is not appropriately ambiguous as the triangle is between [ [S] [TU] ] and
[ [ST] [U] ] and [ [S] [T] [U] ]; it will mean the last alternative
[ld]
X [A [P] B [L [Q] M [R] ] C [ Δ STU]
]
The reading convention for (1d) is simple; it presupposes that every bracket
(i.e. every node in the tree) is labeled. Sister-adjunction
and Chomsky-adjunction present no problem. Consider sister-adjunction of C to B in (2).
(2a) X (2b) X
A C
B
A C +
B
(2c)
x[ A C + B]x (2d) x [A C B]
And now Chomsky-adjunction of C to B in (3).
(3a)
X (3b) X ; better X
A C #
B A B*
A
C # B
C B
(3c)
x [A C
# B] x (3d)
x [A B* [CB] ]
Generative-semantics-style diagrams tend to be simple horizontally but
with long vertical extension. Consider (4).
(4a)
X (4b) X ; better X
A B
A
B X
A
B
A B
X
X
A B
A B
(4c) A [A B] (4d) X [A B
[X [ A B] ]
]
X
X
X B
B X
I
have not separately considered the problems of typing; but it will be noticed
that typing will be simpler too.
I
have not introduced any plus marks or other boundary symbols in the proposed notations
so far. Such symbols can actually be used for indicating
the mode of overt ordering between the constituents :
(i) Significant order : [A +
B] (i.e. A, then B and thus different from [B + A])
(ii)
Nonsignificant order
(a) Rigid order : [A B] (i.e. A, then B,
and never possibly B, then A) e.g. [quick⌒ ly]
(b) Fluid order
: [A
X B] (i.e. A, then B or B then
A without any difference, at least any noticeable difference) e.g. Hindi (hai X nahin]
(c) Simultaneous
order : [A, B] e.g. [Imp, Neg],
[ + COUNT, + ANIM],
[ + HIGH, +
BACK]
When
no particular kind of order is to be indicated, no boundary symbol need be used
: [A B].
Note
how the comma ordering under (ii) (c) can be used to convey elaborate feature
analysis at the level of phonology and syntax-semantics in an easy-to-print form. Thus, a vowel harmony rule calling for delayed
vowel assimilation could be presented as
:
[ V, +
high] [α back, β round] / [V, α back, β round] (C)—
Some
of the insights of prosodic analysis could be incorporated by adopting labeled
bracketing. Thus :
I [ C [ + tense, + labial,
+ stop] ] F [ V [ + high, -- back, -- round],
C [ + nasal, + velar] ] T [ + high, + fall]
could
be offered as a phonological analysis of ping resolved into an initial
element P---, a final element ing, and a tonal element high fall.
Halliday-style choice and chain diagrams read from left to right and tend
to have great horizontal extension with great inconvenience in printing. They could be recast from top to bottom—the
solid horizontal bar standing for chain and the wavy bar for choice. Thus, a corpus consisting of
X
[A B C [P] ], X [A B C [Q] ], and X [A B C [R] ] can be generated
by (5b) or (5d) below :
(5b) X
A B C
P Q R
P P
(5d)
X [A B C [ Q ]]; better X [A B
C [{ Q}] ]; even better X [A B C [{P Q R}]]
R R
Notice that the elongation of [ ],
( ), { }
is not always necessary.
If one desires to introduce functional labels, the Tagmemicist device of
using the ‘slot : filler’ coupling can be useful.
(6a) X (6b)
X
a b
a : A b
: B
A B
(6d)
X [a : A b: B]
The Tagmemicist ± A is of course
better represented as (+ A), so that
(7)
(± ( ± A + B)) + C + (D + E)
will be recast as
(7d)
( + (A) + B) + C + [D + E]
May I express the hope that the stratificationists will also find their
way to more printable diagrams on similar lines (pardon the pan)?
Before I conclude, let me point out that ʘ
as a zero symbol is less confusing than the slashed 0 (compare the high-mid front
rounded vowel and the voiceless bilabial frictive) and easier to print (very few
presses have the slashed zero, most presses have the geometric symbol for a circle
: The only merit of the slashed zero is of course that it is easy to type.
[Readers of IL are urged to try out these suggestions and earn the
gratitude of editors, proofreaders, printers—perhaps even readers! They are also
invited to contribute items to the new feature “Shop Talk”.—Ed.].
COLOPHON
This was published in Indian Linguistics 35:170-2, 1974.
