The evolution of understanding of syntactic structure and its mathematical representation in the structuralist school: From Saussure to set theory, graphs, and algebras

Evans Gesura Mecha

doi:10.51867/AQSSR.3.2.50

Authors

Evans Gesura Mecha Kisii University, Kenya Author https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1875-7998

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51867/AQSSR.3.2.50

Keywords:

C-command, Linearization, Mathematical Structuralism, Merge, Model-Based Linguistics, Multidominance, Structural Realism, Structuralism, Syntactic Structure, X-Bar Theory

Abstract

What kind of mathematical object is a sentence? This article traces how structuralist linguistics has answered that question, from Saussure's sign-system through Bloomfieldian and Harrisian distributionalism to the labelled tree of early generative grammar, the unordered set of Minimalist Merge, and today's graph-theoretic and algebraic reformulations. The paper adopts a conceptual-historical and critical analytical approach, examining foundational and contemporary theoretical literature on linguistic structuralism, mathematical representation, and the philosophy of scientific modelling. Its research design involves a comparative analysis of successive models of syntactic structure, focusing on their underlying mathematical assumptions, explanatory capacities, and limitations. We disentangle theses often conflated under “structuralism”: the linguistic school, mathematical structuralism, structural realism, and the structuralist theory of science, drawing on Rickart, Hellman and Shapiro, Votsis, Balzer, Sneed and Moulines, and Nefdt's model-based reading of grammar. We then re-examine linearization, the deep/surface distinction, binarity, endocentricity, Merge, and Hopf-algebraic and graph-theoretic reformulations, arguing that this history isolates which relational properties of language are genuinely forced and which are formal artefacts of a chosen idiom. Findings reveal that c-command remains a relatively stable relational property across changes in syntactic representation, whereas the deep-surface structure distinction illustrates how theoretical commitments may arise from the formalism adopted. The paper contributes a critical framework for distinguishing descriptive adequacy, derivational economy, and formal overhead in evaluating competing mathematical representations of syntactic structure.

References

Armstrong, D. M. (1978). Nominalism and realism: Volume 1, Universals and scientific realism. Cambridge University Press.

Balzer, W., & Moulines, C. U. (Eds.). (1996). Structuralist theory of science: Focal issues, new results. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110879421

Balzer, W., Sneed, J. D., & Moulines, C. U. (Eds.). (2000). Structuralist knowledge representation: Paradigmatic examples. Rodopi.

https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004457805

Benacerraf, P. (1965). What numbers could not be. The Philosophical Review, 74(1), 47-73.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2183530

Blevins, J. P. (1990). Syntactic complexity: Evidence for discontinuity and multidomination [Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst]. Graduate Linguistics Student Association.

Bloomfield, L. (1926). A set of postulates for the science of language. Language, 2(3), 153-164.

https://doi.org/10.2307/408741

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. Henry Holt.

Carnie, A. (2008). Constituent structure. Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199261994.001.0001

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.

https://doi.org/10.21236/AD0616323

Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184-221). Ginn.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris.

Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1994). Bare phrase structure. In G. Webelhuth (Ed.), Government and binding theory and the minimalist program (pp. 383-439). Blackwell.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Michaels, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89-155). MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond explanatory adequacy. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures (Vol. 3, pp. 104-131). Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195171976.003.0004

Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33-49.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003

Chomsky, N. (2015). Problems of projection: Extensions. In E. Di Domenico, C. Hamann, & S. Matteini (Eds.), Structures, strategies and beyond: Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti (pp. 3-16). John Benjamins.

https://doi.org/10.1075/la.223.01cho

Chomsky, N., Seely, T. D., Berwick, R. C., Fong, S., Huybregts, M. A. C., Kitahara, H., McInnerney, A., & Sugimoto, Y. (2023). Merge and the strong minimalist thesis. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009343244

Collins, C. (2002). Eliminating labels. In S. D. Epstein & T. D. Seely (Eds.), Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program (pp. 42-64). Blackwell.

https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755662.ch3

De Vries, M. (2009). On multidominance and linearization. Biolinguistics, 3(4), 344-403.

https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.8735

Fox, D., & Pesetsky, D. (2005). Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure. Theoretical Linguistics, 31(1-2), 1-45.

https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.2005.31.1-2.1

Godfrey-Smith, P. (2006). The strategy of model-based science. Biology and Philosophy, 21(5), 725-740.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-006-9054-6

Harris, Z. S. (1951). Methods in structural linguistics. University of Chicago Press.

Harris, Z. S., & Hiż, H. (1981). Papers on syntax. D. Reidel.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8467-7

Hellman, G., & Shapiro, S. (2019). Mathematical structuralism. Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108582933

Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. MIT Press.

Kayne, R. S. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. MIT Press.

Krivochen, D. G. (2023). The search for minimal search: A graph-theoretic approach. Biolinguistics, 17, Article e9793. https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.9793

Ladyman, J., & Ross, D. (2007). Every thing must go: Metaphysics naturalized. Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276196.001.0001

Lambek, J. (1958). The mathematics of sentence structure. The American Mathematical Monthly, 65(3), 154-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.1958.11989160

Lieb, H.-H. (Ed.). (1992). Prospects for a new structuralism. John Benjamins.

https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.96

Marcolli, M., Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2023a). Old and new minimalism: A Hopf algebra comparison [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.10270

Marcolli, M., Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2023b). Syntax-semantics interface: An algebraic model [Preprint]. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.06189

Marcolli, M., Chomsky, N., & Berwick, R. C. (2025). Mathematical structure of syntactic Merge: An algebraic model for generative linguistics. MIT Press.

https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/15811.001.0001

Matthews, P. H. (2001). A short history of structural linguistics. Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612596

McCawley, J. D. (1982). Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(1), 91-106.

Meier, T. (2012). A logical reconstruction of Leonard Bloomfield's linguistic theory [Unpublished manuscript]. PhilSci-Archive. https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9405/

Narita, H. (2014). Endocentric structuring of projection-free syntax. John Benjamins.

https://doi.org/10.1075/la.218

Nefdt, R. M. (2016). The foundations of linguistics: Mathematics, models, and structures [Doctoral dissertation, University of St Andrews]. University of St Andrews Research Repository. https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/9584

Nefdt, R. M. (2019). The philosophy of linguistics: Scientific underpinnings and methodological disputes. Philosophy Compass, 14(12), Article e12636. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12636

Nefdt, R. M. (2021). Structural realism and generative linguistics. Synthese, 199(1-2), 3711-3737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02952-1

Newmeyer, F. J. (2023). Chomsky and the turn to syntax, including alternative approaches to syntax. In L. R. Waugh, M. Monville-Burston, & J. E. Joseph (Eds.), The Cambridge history of linguistics (pp. 549-576). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9780511842788.030

Reinhart, T. (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].

Resnik, M. D. (1997). Mathematics as a science of patterns. Oxford University Press.

Rickart, C. E. (1995). Structuralism and structures: A mathematical perspective. World Scientific.

https://doi.org/10.1142/2447

Saussure, F. de. (1959). Course in general linguistics (W. Baskin, Trans.). Philosophical Library. (Original work published 1916)

Shapiro, S. (1997). Philosophy of mathematics: Structure and ontology. Oxford University Press.

Stabler, E. P. (1997). Derivational minimalism. In C. Retoré (Ed.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics (pp. 68-95). Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0052152

Votsis, I. (2011). Structural realism: Continuity and its limits. In P. Bokulich & A. Bokulich (Eds.), Scientific structuralism (pp. 105-117). Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9597-8_6

Wells, R. S. (1947). Immediate constituents. Language, 23(2), 81-117.

https://doi.org/10.2307/410382

Worrall, J. (1989). Structural realism: The best of both worlds? Dialectica, 43(1-2), 99-124.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1989.tb00933.x

Zyman, E. (2024). On the definition of Merge. Syntax, 27(4), 653-689. https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12287.

https://doi.org/10.1111/synt.12287