Construct · 3 fields · 6 citations

Where does syntax collide?

One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.

● jingle · one word, three constructs Nearest construct by meaningconjunctioncompare the meanings
How to read this

Every construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to syntax is conjunction.

Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.

grammar term generalizedborrowed as spatial grammarsyntax3 CONSTRUCTSLinguistic syntaxAPOLLONIUS · WORD ORDERLogical syntaxCARNAP · FORM VS MEANINGSpace syntaxHILLIER · SPATIAL CONFIG

Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.

1924Linguistic syntax1934Logical syntax1976Space syntax
2026

Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.

Linguistics

Arrangement of words into sentences

The study of how words combine into phrases and sentences, and of the rules a language uses to order and relate them. The concept is ancient: the Greek grammarian Apollonius Dyscolus set it out in the 2nd century in his treatise Peri syntaxeos (On Syntax), and among modern treatments Jespersen's 1924 The Philosophy of Grammar and Chomsky's 1957 Syntactic Structures recast it as a system of rules that generates the well-formed sentences of a language. The referent is a property of a human language, the grammar that arranges its words, not the formal rules of a symbolic system studied apart from meaning and not the layout of rooms and streets.[1][2]

Unit
One language's grammar, the patterns by which its words form phrases and sentences
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Described by grammaticality judgments, corpus analysis, and formal rules such as phrase-structure and dependency grammars

Logic and philosophy of language

Formal structure of a language, apart from meaning

The level of a language that deals only with its symbols and the rules for forming and transforming well-formed expressions, studied apart from what those expressions refer to or mean. Carnap's 1934 Logische Syntax der Sprache, published in English in 1937 as The Logical Syntax of Language, set out this purely formal level, and Morris's 1938 Foundations of the Theory of Signs fixed its place beside semantics, the study of meaning, and pragmatics, the study of use. The referent is the formal skeleton of a constructed logical or computational language, defined in deliberate contrast to meaning, not the grammar of a spoken language and not the arrangement of physical space.[3][4]

Unit
A formal language's set of symbols and its rules for well-formed expressions
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Specified by a formal grammar and checked by whether a string is well-formed under its formation rules

Architecture and urban studies

theories and techniques for measuring the configuration of space in buildings and settlements as a network of connected spaces.

A set of theories and techniques for describing and measuring the configuration of space in buildings and settlements, treating a layout as a network of connected spaces. Hillier, Leaman, Stansall, and Bedford's 1976 paper Space syntax introduced the approach, and Hillier and Hanson's 1984 The Social Logic of Space developed it into a full method that links spatial patterns to how people move and meet. The referent is the measurable arrangement of a physical environment, analysed as a graph of spaces, not the grammar of a language and not the formal rules of a symbolic system.[5][6]

Unit
One building or settlement's layout, taken as a network of connected spaces
Recovery means
Not applicable
Measured by
Computed from graphs of the layout using measures such as integration and connectivity, often from axial or convex-space maps

Next

Run it through the Collider, or take the citations with you.

See how syntax sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.

Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collision

Nearby collisions

grammar4 fields · 4 citationsjingle · one word, four constructsarrangement3 fields · 6 citationsjingle · one word, three constructsalphabet2 fields · 5 citationsjingle · one word, two constructs

References

  1. Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. George Allen & Unwin.
  2. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton.
  3. Carnap, R. (1937). The logical syntax of language (A. Smeaton, Trans.). Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. (Original work published 1934)
  4. Morris, C. W. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. University of Chicago Press.
  5. Hillier, B., Leaman, A., Stansall, P., & Bedford, M. (1976). Space syntax. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 3(2), 147–185. https://doi.org/10.1068/b030147
  6. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597237

Cited on this page?

Confirm your construct, or correct us.

If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.

Claim your construct