Search

Ross (1967) observed that the coordinate structure constraint can be violated in certain semantically asymmetric structures. In this article we consider one of these structures, namely type A coordination, in detail (the terminology is from Lakoff 1986; an example is Here's the whisky I went to the store and bought). We present experimental evidence showing that the pattern of argument and adjunct extraction from type A coordinate structures matches the pattern of argument and adjunct extraction from structures containing rationale clauses in all crucial respects. This near-perfect parallel behavior suggests that, like rationale clauses, the second conjunct in a type A coordination is an adjunct (see also Brown 2017). We explore the consequences of this finding for both interpretive and syntactic analyses of asymmetric coordination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historiographers of linguistics have typically claimed that by the 1970s, generative grammarians were organizationally dominant in the field of linguistics in the United States. I demonstrate that such is not true. To support my assertion, I present evidence based on who held LSA offices in the 1970s and 1980s, on what was published in the journal Language, on presentations at LSA meetings, on the composition of summer Linguistics Institutes, on grants awarded to linguists, and on jobs advertised in the field. My explanation for the lack of generative dominance is based on various factors, including the immaturity and diversity of the field of linguistics, on generative grammar not being a grant-dependent enterprise, and on the attitude toward the LSA exhibited by Chomsky and many of his closest co-thinkers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a case study in how quantitative-statistical and formal-theoretical (generative) approaches to language variation can be combined. We provide a quantitative analysis of word-order variation in verb clusters in 185 dialects of Dutch and map the results of that analysis against linguistic parameters extracted from the theoretical literature on verb clusters. Based on this novel methodology, we argue that verb cluster ordering in Dutch dialects can be reduced to three grammatical parameters (largely similar to the ones described in Barbiers et al. 2018), and we identify the dialect groups that correspond to the various settings of those parameters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pater's (2019) target article proposes that neural networks will provide theories of learning that generative grammar lacks. We argue that his enthusiasm is premature since the biases of neural networks are largely unknown, and he disregards decades of work on machine learning and learnability. Learning biases form a two-way street: all learners have biases, and those biases constrain the space of learnable grammars in mathematically measurable ways. Analytical methods from the related fields of computational learning theory and grammatical inference allow one to study language learning, neural networks, and linguistics at an appropriate level of abstraction. The only way to satisfy our hunger and to make progress on the science of language learning is to confront these core issues directly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The birthdate of both generative linguistics and neural networks can be taken as 1957, the year of the publication of foundational work by both Noam Chomsky and Frank Rosenblatt. This article traces the development of these two approaches to cognitive science, from their largely autonomous early development in the first thirty years, through their collision in the 1980s around the past-tense debate (Rumelhart & McClelland 1986, Pinker & Prince 1988) and their integration in much subsequent work up to the present. Although this integration has produced a considerable body of results, the continued general gulf between these two lines of research is likely impeding progress in both: on learning in generative linguistics, and on the representation of language in neural modeling. The article concludes with a brief argument that generative linguistics is unlikely to fulfill its promise of accounting for language learning if it continues to maintain its distance from neural and statistical approaches to learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pater's (2019) expansive review is a significant contribution toward bridging the disconnect of generative linguistics with connectionism, and as such, it is an important service to the field. But Pater's efforts for inclusion and reconciliation obscure crucial substantive disagreements on foundational matters. Most connectionist models are antithetical to the algebraic hypothesis that has guided generative linguistics from its inception. They eschew the notions that mental representations have formal constituent structure and that mental operations are structure-sensitive. These representational commitments critically limit the scope of learning and productivity in connectionist models. Moving forward, we see only two options: either those connectionist models are right, and generative linguistics must be radically revised, or they must be replaced by alternatives that are compatible with the algebraic hypothesis. There can be no integration without structured representations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The target article (Pater 2019) proposes to use neural networks to model learning within existing grammatical frameworks. This is easier said than done. There is a fundamental gap to be bridged that does not receive attention in the article: how can we use neural networks to examine whether it is possible to learn some linguistic representation (a tree, for example) when, after learning is finished, we cannot even tell if this is the type of representation that has been learned (all we see is a sequence of numbers)? Drawing a correspondence between an abstract linguistic representational system and an opaque parameter vector that can (or perhaps cannot) be seen as an instance of such a representation is an implementational mapping problem. Rather than relying on existing frameworks that propose partial solutions to this problem, such as harmonic grammar, I suggest that fusional research of the kind proposed needs to directly address how to 'find' linguistic representations in neural network representations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years linguists have gained new insight into human language capacities on the basis of results from linguistics and biology. The so-called BIOLINGUISTIC ENTERPRISE aims to fill in the explanatory gap between language and biology, on both theoretical and experimental grounds, hoping to reach a deeper understanding of language as a phenomenon rooted in biology. This research program is taking its first steps, and it has already given rise to new insights on the human language capacity, as well as to controversies, echoing debates that go back to the earlier days of generative grammar. The present discussion piece provides a high-level characterization of biolinguistics. It highlights the main articulation of this research program and points to recent studies linking language and biology. It also compares the BIOLINGUISTIC PROGRAM, as defined in Chomsky 2005 and Di Sciullo & Boeckx 2011, to the view of the human language faculty presented in Jackendoff 2002 and Culicover & Jackendoff 2005, and to the discussion in Jackendoff 2011.* [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This discussion note revolves around the early days of generative grammar, that is to say the late 1950s and the 1960s. A number of commentators have claimed that MIT linguists in this period formed an elitist in-group, talking only to each other by means of inaccessible 'underground' publications and thereby erecting a barrier between themselves and the outside world of linguistics. I attempt to refute such claims. We see that the early generativists used every means at their disposal at the time to diffuse their ideas: publishing single-authored books, journal articles, anthology chapters, and technical reports; aiding the writing of textbooks; giving conference talks; teaching at LSA (Linguistic Society of America) Institutes; and hosting numerous visitors to MIT. And in particular, there was no significant 'underground' literature to obstruct the acceptance of the new theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article delineates and analyzes the syntactic and semantic parameters of variation exhibited by English FILLER-GAP CONSTRUCTIONS. It demonstrates that a detailed, fully explicit account of the observed variation is available within a framework embracing the notion 'grammatical construction'. This account, which explicates similarities and differences among topicalization, interrogatives, relatives, exclamatives, and comparative correlatives in terms of linguistic types and hierarchical constraint inheritance, is articulated in detail within the framework of SIGN-BASED CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR (SBCG), a version of HEAD-DRIVEN PHRASE STRUCTURE GRAMMAR (HPSG) integrating key insights from Berkeley CONSTRUCTION GRAMMAR. The results presented here stand as a challenge to any analysis incorporating transformational operations, especially proposals couched within Chomsky's 'Minimalist program'.* [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competence-based theories of island effects play a central role in generative grammar, yet the graded nature of many syntactic islands has never been properly accounted for. Categorical syntactic accounts of island effects have persisted in spite of a wealth of data suggesting that island effects are not categorical in nature and that nonstructural manipulations that leave island structures intact can radically alter judgments of island violations. We argue here, building on work by Paul Deane, Robert Kluender, and others, that processing factors have the potential to account for this otherwise unexplained variation in acceptability judgments. We report the results of self-paced reading experiments and controlled acceptability studies that explore the relationship between processing costs and judgments of acceptability. In each of the three self-paced reading studies, the data indicate that the processing cost of different types of island violations can be significantly reduced to a degree comparable to that of nonisland filler-gap constructions by manipulating a single nonstructuraI factor. Moreover, this reduction in processing cost is accompanied by significant improvements in acceptability. This evidence favors the hypothesis that island-violating constructions involve numerous processing pressures that aggregate to drive processing difficulty above a threshold, resulting in unacceptability. We examine the implications of these findings for the grammar of filler-gap dependencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is the mechanism by which a linguistic change advances across successive generations of speakers? We explore this question by using the model of incrementation provided in Labov 2001 and analyzing six current changes in English. Extending Labov's focus on recent and vigorous phonological changes, we target ongoing morphosyntactic(-semantic) and discourse-pragmatic changes. Our results provide a striking validation of the incrementation model, confirming its value as a key to understanding the evolution of linguistic systems. However, although our findings reveal the predicted peak in the apparent-time progress of a change and corroborate the female tendency to lead innovation, there is no absolute contrast between men and women with respect to incrementation. Instead, quantitative differences in the social embedding of linguistic change correlate with the rate of the change in the speech community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In parasitic gap constructions an illicit gap inside a syntactic island becomes acceptable in combination with an additional licit gap, a result that has interesting implications for theories of grammar. Such constructions hold even greater interest for the question of the relation between grammatical knowledge and real time language processing. This article presents results from two experiments on parasitic-gap constructions in English in which the parasitic gap appears inside a subject island, before the licensing gap. An off-line study confirms that parasitic gaps are acceptable when they occur inside the infinitival complement of a subject NP, but not when they occur inside a finite relative clause. An on-line self-paced reading study using a plausibility manipulation technique shows that incremental positing of gaps inside islands occurs in just those environments where parasitic gaps are acceptable. The fact that parasitic gaps are constructed incrementally in language processing presents a challenge for attempts to explain subject islands as epiphenomena of constraints on language processing and also helps to resolve apparent conflicts in previous studies of the role of island constraints in parsing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses general questions about the organization of grammar via a detailed discussion of a small, but well-explored, area of English: the contraction of want to to wanna. It distinguishes three general approaches to the analysis of wanna: a phonological rule, lexicalization, or a derivational rule. Each approach has a different set of strengths, but they all have weaknesses as well. The article then offers a new analysis in terms of REALIZATION, which combines the strengths of all the previous analyses. This analysis, which is based on the theory of word grammar, accounts not only for all the well-known syntactic and morphological constraints on this contraction, but also for a fact that has not been noted before: that, for some speakers, the last vowel alternates in just the same idiosyncratic way as that of to, which suggests strongly that in some sense wanna contains to as well as want. For these (but not all) speakers, the proposed analysis recognizes two words (sublexemes of WANT and TOinf) at the level of syntax and a single form ({wanna}, containing variants of {want} and {to}) at the level of form; the relations between these words and forms, and between the forms and their phonological realizations, are defined by a declarative network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Within the framework of optimality theory (Prince & Smolensky 2004), Steriade (2001a,b) proposes the P-map hypothesis, whose fundamental tenet is that the rankings of faithfulness constraints are grounded in perceptual-similarity rankings. This article provides empirical support for this hypothesis. In Japanese loanword phonology, a voiced geminate, but not a singleton, devoices to dissimilate from another voiced obstruent within a single stem. Based on this observation, I argue that the [+ voice] feature is protected by two different faithfulness constraints, IDENT(+ voi)Sing and IDENT(+ voi)Gem and they are ranked as lDENT(+ voi)Sings (+ voi)Gem in Japanese. I further argue that this ranking is grounded in the relative perceptibility of [+ voice] in singletons and geminates, and this claim is experimentally supported. The general theoretical implication is that phonetic perceptibility can directly influence patterns in a phonological grammar. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why is it preferable to say "salt and pepper" over "pepper and salt?" Based on an analysis of 692 binomial tokens from online corpora, we show that a number of semantic, metrical, and frequency constraints contribute significantly to ordering preferences, overshadowing the phonological factors that have traditionally been considered important. The ordering of binomials exhibits a considerable amount of variation. For example, although "principal and interest" is the more frequent order, "interest and principal" also occurs. We consider three frameworks for analysis of this variation: traditional optimality theory, stochastic optimality theory, and logistic regression. Our best models—using logistic regression—predict 79.2% of the binomial tokens and 76.7% of types, and the remainder are predicted as less frequent—but not ungrammatical—variants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the author presents his comments to critiques about the article "Grammar is grammar and usage is usage." Critiques recognizes that one possible objection to stochastic grammar is by mixing data from different individuals together in a large data set, evidence relevant to the investigation of the mental grammar of particular individuals is potentially obscured. But he then dismisses the importance of the objection. Critiques goes on to argue, that stochastic grammar is supported by the fact that phenomena that are categorial in some languages are simply a matter of statistical preference in others. So, the person of the subject argument cannot be lower than the person of a no subject argument. A consequence is that one never finds first or second person subjects of passives in that language where the agent is in the third person. In English, as it turns out, similar passives are possible, but very rare compared to passives with, say, third person subjects. As they note, a traditional generative model would ascribe the Lummi facts to competence and the English facts to performance. They see this as a lost generalization. In their view, only a model of grammar allowing stochastic constraints can unite the facts in the two languages, assigning them two different points along the same continuum with respect to relations involving grammatical person.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "What is the Human Language Faculty? Two Views" by Ray Jackendoff in the September 2011 issue.

A response by Ray Jackendoff to a letter to the editor about his article "What is the Human Language Faculty? Two Views" in the September 2011 issue is presented.

A letter to the editor in response the article "What is the Human Language Faculty? Two Views" by Ray Jackedoff in the September 2011 issue is presented.