Cartographic syntax

In linguistics, Cartographic syntax, or simply Cartography, is a branch of syntax. The basic assumption of Cartographic syntax is that syntactic structures are built according to the same patterns in all languages of the world. It is assumed that all languages exhibit a richly articulated structure of hierarchical projections with specific meanings. Cartography belongs to the tradition of generative grammar and is regarded as a theory belonging to Minimalism. The founders of Cartography are the Italian linguists Luigi Rizzi and Guglielmo Cinque.

Method

The basic method of Cartography is called 'transitivity method'. This method will be introduced by an abstract and then by means of a concrete English example. The starting point is an observation of two elements A and B and their relative ordering. Usually, languages prefer one order with two elements, in this case, for example, AB, but not *BA (the star indicates that an order is not well-formed). In other cases, BA is not ill-formed, but marked. This means, for example, that one element needs to be stressed and that it can only be used under certain circumstances. This is indicated by a number sign (i.e., #BA). Then, the relative order of other elements is explored, for example, the relative order of the elements B and C. Suppose the relative order of these elements would be BC, but not *CB. This predicts that the order AC should hold, but the order *CA should be ruled out. This can then be tested.

This can be illustrated by the concrete example of English adjective ordering restrictions.[1] In English, evaluative adjectives, used by a speaker to express his/her subjective evaluation of a noun precede size adjectives:[2]

(1) a.  a great big man
    b. #a big great man '''evaluation > size'''

Note that it is possible to say (1b), but this either requires a pause or stress. Thus, the neutral order is evaluation > size. Also note that this is not an order concerning the two adjectives great and big, but the whole class of evaluative (e.g., cute or awesome) and size adjectives (e.g., tiny or small). So far, the observation that evaluative adjectives precede size adjectives in English is simply an empirical observation and is theory-neutral.

Now, another class is tested. For example, color adjectives. Comparing color adjectives to size adjectives reveals the order size > color:

(2) a.  a tiny yellow fish 
    b. #a yellow tiny fish '''size > color'''

Combining these insights predicts the order evaluation > color. This can now be tested:

(3) a.  a big blue house
    b. #a blue big house '''evaluation > color'''

As the prediction indeed turns out to be on the right track we can conclude that the order should be:

evaluative adjectives > size adjectives > color adjectives

In fact, it is not only these three classes, but many others that also exhibit similar ordering restrictions not only in English, but in presumably all languages of the world. The question that emerges is how to theoretically account for these facts. In older versions of generative grammar, it was assumed that adjectives are adjuncts. However, an adjunct approach explicitly predicts that the order of the adjectives should be free which is against the empirical facts.

Cartography of the clause

The idea of Cartography is now that such ordering restrictions are hard-wired into the syntactic structures of all languages and that all languages exhibit the same structure. This leads to the assumption of a richly articulated and fixed set of functional projections. This is not only true for adjectives, but also for the structure of whole clauses. Such orders can be made visible by comparing different languages although languages are, of course, different on the surface. However, while languages use different strategies to express syntactic categories (or may not even express them at all) the order is nevertheless visible. As an example, consider the categories epistemic modality which expresses a necessity or a possibility that is made by a speaker based on his/her knowledge, tense (which is a bit of an oversimplification here), ability, and an event description. These categories are expressed in English in exactly this order (and other orders will be ill-formed):[3]

(4) ... because Paula [must]     [have] [been able] [to repair her bike].
                       epistemic  tense  ability     event

Comparing this order to German reveals that this language uses a reverse strategy, i.e., the order is exactly the same, but mirrored (note again, that it is not possible to change the order):

(5) ... weil    Paula [ihr Fahrrad reparieren] [gekonnt] [haben] [muss].
        because Paula  her bike    repair       can       have    must
                       event                    ability   tense   epistemic

Examples like these are taken to be evidence in favor of the idea that syntactic structures are fixed across languages although there may be surface variation due to the fact that languages may employ different strategies of expressing them (e.g., by concatenating them from right to left or from left to right).

Further reading

• Benincà, P. & Munaro, N. (2011): Mapping the Left Periphery: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. Oxford University Press.
• Bross, F. & Hole, D. (2017): Scope-taking strategies and the order of clausal categories in German Sign Language. In: Glossa. A Journal of General Linguistics, 76.
• Cinque, G. & Rizzi, L. (2008): The Cartography of Syntactic Structures. In: STiL – Studies in Linguistics, 2. 43–59.
• Rizzi, L. & Bocci, G. (2017): Left Periphery of the Clause: Primarily Illustrated for Italian. In: Evenaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.): The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax. Second edition. 2171–2200.
• Shlonsky, U. (2010): The Cartographic Enterprise in Syntax. In: Language and Linguistics Compass, 4/6. 417–429

References

1. Similar ordering restrictions were reported by numerous researchers, for example: Whorf, B. L. (1945). Grammatical Categories. Language, 21(1), 1-11.
2. Kingsbury, R. & Wellman (1986). Longman Advanced English. Harlow: Longman.
3. Example from Bross, F. & Hole, D. (2017): Scope-taking strategies and the order of clausal categories in German Sign Language. In: Glossa. A Journal of General Linguistics, 76.