Search

Riemer (2009) complains that a large number of sentences, despite appearing to be acceptable to many native speakers of English--including himself--are treated as ungrammatical in recent works that subscribe to the generative approach to (the English) language. In his opinion, this need not be considered "as evidence of an overly narrow evidentiary base", but rather as proof "of the predictive failure of current generative syntactic models". He claims that this conclusion is to be reached by eliminating the grammaticality/acceptability contrast, which is related to the opposition between I-language and E-language, respectively. In addition, he discusses the role of intuition in generative linguistics and the empirical status of Chomskyan linguistics as Galilean linguistics, although this discussion proceeds through contradictory assertions and in the end is revealed as having no significance for the general purpose of the argument. In this brief reply to Riemer I intend to show (1) that even if a huge proportion of "(bad) starred sentences" (i.e. wrongly starred as ungrammatical) are judged to be grammatical by however many native speakers of a language, this proves nothing about the predictive failure of generative linguistics, since autonomous linguistics has (and cannot have) any predictive character at all. Rather, it is useful for proving the relevance of speakers' intuitions as the only legitimate evidence for grammatical theorization and description; (2) that it is not sound--because it brings neither theoretical nor descriptive profit--to eliminate the distinction between grammaticality and acceptability; this must be maintained, although not in relation to the opposition between I-language and E-language but with respect to the Coserian distinction between linguistic and expressive knowledge; and (3) that Chomskyan linguistics is not an empirical science and thus cannot be legitimately called Galilean linguistics.

Standard criticisms of unjustified grammaticality assignments in generative syntax are easily countered by reminders that grammaticality is a different notion from acceptability. In response, the criticisms are reformulated here in a way that interprets unjustified assignments as possible evidence of the predictive failure of current generative syntactic models, and not, as is standard, as evidence of an overly narrow evidentiary base. This is argued to invalidate appeals to the grammaticality/acceptability contrast, showing that the persistent anxieties about intuitive grammaticality assignments in generative methodology withstand the stock Chomskian defence. It is argued that if grammaticality assignments are as unreliable as critics of generativism often claim, their use conflicts with both the obvious theoretical goal of Minimalist syntax, and with its orientation as "Galilean" science.

This rejoinder demonstrates that Lopez-Serena's [Lopez-Serena, A., 2009. "Intuition, acceptability and grammaticality: a reply to Riemer." "Language Sciences" 31, 634-648] critique of Riemer [Riemer, N., 2009. "Grammaticality as evidence and as prediction in a Galilean linguistics." "Language Sciences" 31, 612-633] is unfounded. LS's critique is characterized by errors of fact and interpretation, a failure to distinguish positions which are being conceded from those being argued, and an arbitrary redefinition of the terms of the debate. Furthermore, LS's conceptions of intuition and scientificity, which motivate her criticisms, prove to be highly problematic.

This paper argues against the view of intrusive [r] as a synchronically arbitrary insertion process. Instead, it is seen as a phonologically natural process, which can be modelled within the framework of Optimality Theory (OT). Insertion of [r] in phonologically restricted environments is a consequence of a more general theory of consonant epenthesis outlined here. This theory ties epenthesis in with the notion of prominence and strives to formalize a general theory of epenthesis which explains why glottal stops and glides are crosslinguistically frequently found epenthetic consonants, although in different prosodic contexts. I argue that glottal stops are optimal margin consonants and thus inserted in margin positions (e.g. word-initially) while glides are optimal peak consonants, inserted in peak positions (e.g. as hiatus breakers). This hypothesis is derived from sonority-based prominence scales [Prince, A., Smolensky, P., 1993. "Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar." Ms. Rutgers University and the University of Colorado at Boulder]. Intrusive [r] can then be understood as the optimal consonant in a peak position when glide formation is blocked, because [r] is the most sonorous possible element in this position. Spreading-based or perceptually grounded accounts of intrusive [r] are consequently rejected under this approach. (Contains 2 figures.)

Investigates the pragmatic functions of topicalizing subject (S) and object (O) in Standard Arabic and attempts to find a functional explanation for the occasional preposing/topicalization of S and/or O over the verb (V) to yield a construction in the form of SVO order or any other order sanctioned by the rules of Arabic grammar. (22 references) (Author/VWL)

Examines the claim that transformational rules are psychologically real, and applies this claim to all aspects of transformational grammar. (AM)

Examines the innate faculties that underlie linguistic competence, especially syntactic competence, and proposes a theory of these faculties which accounts for the complexities of language and the evolution of human language. (AM)

In this paper, I critique a recent claim made by Stokhof and van Lambalgen (2011) (hereafter S&vL) that linguistics and science are at odds as to the models and constructions they employ. I argue that their distinction between abstractions and idealisations, the former belonging to the methodology of science and the latter to linguistics, is not a real one. I show that the majority of their arguments are flawed and evidence they cite misleading. Contrary to this distinction, I argue that linguistics, like some variants of the scientific enterprise, uses a minimalist method of idealisation (Weisberg, 2007b), one which includes abstractions (as defined by S&vL) and other idealisations not uncommon to scientific model-building. Finally, I offer an alternative account of the problems cited by S&vL as a direct result of the modelling choices of linguists as opposed to the methods they use to define such models. I do so through the use of the specific example of the treatment of tense and aspect in the mainstream literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Numerous authors treat the term ‘biolinguistics’ as synonymous with the generative enterprise. Although undeniably Chomskyan in orientation, biolinguistics should not be equated with generative grammar, as the latter does not often seek to go beyond the level of cognition and establish linking hypotheses with the brain. This article attempts to clarify the nature of biolinguistics, highlighting departures from the research agenda routinely assumed by generative practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This article is about the relationship between Dependency Phonology and Government Phonology in general, and the more specific question how exactly a dependency relation may incarnate. The latter issue is raised by the genuine contribution of Government Phonology to phonological theory, i.e. lateral relations among syllabic constituents. Government and licensing describe a dependency relationship between a head and a dependent, but are non-arboreal. Their application therefore mechanically leads to the elimination of trees (deforestation). Arboreal syllable structure, however, is the spine of Structural Analogy, since it parallels syntactic arboreal structure. The question is thus whether arboreal and lateral descriptions of syllable structure are just notational variants (in which case Structural Analogy with syntactic trees can be maintained), or whether they are really different. It is shown that the latter is the case, and that the different expression of dependency relations in syntax and phonology is due to two things: a design property of syntax, concatenation (which is absent from phonology), and an input condition to phonological computation, linearity (which is absent from syntax). Hierarchical structure is thus implemented in module-specific ways: concatenation in syntax (the minimalist device Merge) produces trees (while invalidating the lateral option). It is therefore argued that the arboreal means of expressing dependency relations is the result of concatenation, and of nothing else: no concatenation, no trees. It thus follows from the fact that phonology does not concatenate anything that there cannot be any tree-building device in this module. An appreciable side-effect of this perspective is an explanation of a long-standing observation, i.e. the absence of recursion in phonology: no trees, no recursion. On the other hand, linearity in phonology produces lateral relations (and makes trees unworkable). A related issue discussed is what kinds of third factor explanation are desirable, given that everybody is after “more general, language-unspecific” motivations for the workings of grammar: Chomskian minimalism/biolinguistics as much as anti-chomskian “Cognitive” Grammar and the work by John Anderson. Candidates are global notions such as cognitive salience on the one hand, or more concrete things such as linearity and concatenation on the other. It appears that the current striving for the former is an attempt at turning back the clocks: the evolution of Cognitive Science since Franz-Joseph Gall’s 19th century phrenology was in the opposite direction. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This article aims to re-evaluate the relevance of the foot in French. After a critical review of the literature on the subject, with reference to both adult and child language, we argue that the prosodic structure of French is best understood within a grid-only framework. The model is couched in Stratal Optimality Theory and illustrated with naturalistic data drawn from southern French and Swiss French. Particular attention is paid to phenomena such as the loi de position and optional penultimate pitch accent, for which we show that syntagmatic constituency is unnecessary. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Although variation and heterogeneity are generally recognized as a characteristic of linguistic usage, they are hardly conceived as a fundamental dimension of grammar. Introducing a distinction between an exemplum linguistics and a datum linguistics, we show that the history of the language sciences, both conceptually and descriptively, is organized around opposing conceptions of what a linguistic fact is. While Generative Grammar and its practitioners are clearly examples of the first, corpus linguistics illustrates the second conception. The upsurge of datum linguistics and of usage based models since the beginning of the 21st century allows for a fundamental reassessment of the functional role of variation in language. We show that while the biolinguistic program rests on the negation of the sociocultural framing of the language faculty and denies any functional impact of communicational competence in shaping language and grammars, constructional approaches and usage-based linguistics make room for a Darwinian sociocultural conception. In such a conception, communication is a leading force in the emergence and stabilization of human linguistic competence, both diachronically and synchronically. In this approach, variation and heterogeneity are to be seen as core factors in shaping language. Thus, as argued some 50years ago by Weinreich, variation and heterogeneity are to be regarded as structurally functional, and as fundamental dimensions of language. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Noam Chomsky’s most recent research paradigm, the Minimalist Program (MP), overtly proclaims continuity with earlier phases of transformational-generative linguistics. Despite its (limited) use of terminology from these earlier phases and its continued focus on many of the same issues with which Chomsky and his followers have always been concerned, at a conceptual level MP represents a dramatic break with earlier generative theories. MP adopts many of the assumptions and goals of the linguistic research projects that emerged before, alongside, and contrary to Chomsky’s own, the ones which have come in the linguistic literature to be called functionalism. While this shift has had significant consequences in linguistics, in part driving convergences between functionalist and formalist approaches, its consequences have yet to be fully realized in fields like philosophy and cognitive science that have based many foundational assumptions on just those aspects of generativism now challenged by Chomsky’s own theory. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Semantic accounts of verb pattern alternations often rely on observations about ‘verb disposition’: the preference of verbs with particular lexical semantic characteristics for one of two competing constructions is taken as a clue to the semantic differences between the two constructions. For instance, it has been observed with regard to the English dative alternation that verbs of refusal such as deny and refuse are perfectly acceptable in the ditransitive construction but much less so in the so-called prepositional dative construction with to (compare They refused the convict a last cigarette with ? They refused a last cigarette to the convict); and this contrast has been presented as evidence for the hypothesis that the prepositional dative highlights the actual movement of the theme toward the receiver (e.g. [Goldberg, A.E., 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: the case of the English ditransitive. Cognitive Linguistics 3, 37–74]). This paper discusses the merit of verb disposition as evidence for semantic hypotheses about alternating constructions and presents the results of a corpus-based study of verb disposition in the Dutch dative alternation. On the basis of [Gries, S., Stefanowitsch, A., 2004. Extending Collostructional Analysis: a corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9, 97–129] method of ‘distinctive collexeme analysis’, the alternating verbs with a statistically significant preference for the Dutch ditransitive are separated from those with a statistically significant preference for the prepositional dative in a corpus of contemporary Dutch newspaper language. The results of this test provide the basis for a number of empirically valid generalizations about the semantic parameters driving the dative alternation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Standard criticisms of unjustified grammaticality assignments in generative syntax are easily countered by reminders that grammaticality is a different notion from acceptability. In response, the criticisms are reformulated here in a way that interprets unjustified assignments as possible evidence of the predictive failure of current generative syntactic models, and not, as is standard, as evidence of an overly narrow evidentiary base. This is argued to invalidate appeals to the grammaticality/acceptability contrast, showing that the persistent anxieties about intuitive grammaticality assignments in generative methodology withstand the stock Chomskian defence. It is argued that if grammaticality assignments are as unreliable as critics of generativism often claim, their use conflicts with both the obvious theoretical goal of Minimalist syntax, and with its orientation as ‘Galilean’ science. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This paper documents the acoustic reflexes of ATR harmony in Kinande followed by an analysis of the dominance reversal found in class 5 nominals. The principal findings are that the ATR harmony is reliably reflected in a lowering of the first formant. Depending on the vowel, ATR harmony also affects the second formant. The directional asymmetry noted in previous research is also confirmed. Dominance reversal is analysed within the Optimality Theory framework as the combination of dispreferences for affixal triggers and left-headed harmonic domains. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This paper investigates the nature of the substitutions used for the dental fricatives (/θ/ and /ð/) by Dutch learners of English as a second language. By means of an OT analysis, the underlying reasons for the difficulties encountered with these sounds are brought to light. The present data reveal that phonetics (or acoustics) rather than phonology plays a major role in the selection of the phonemes used to substitute the dental fricatives. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This paper argues against the view of intrusive [r] as a synchronically arbitrary insertion process. Instead, it is seen as a phonologically natural process, which can be modelled within the framework of Optimality Theory (OT). Insertion of [r] in phonologically restricted environments is a consequence of a more general theory of consonant epenthesis outlined here. This theory ties epenthesis in with the notion of prominence and strives to formalize a general theory of epenthesis which explains why glottal stops and glides are crosslinguistically frequently found epenthetic consonants, although in different prosodic contexts. I argue that glottal stops are optimal margin consonants and thus inserted in margin positions (e.g. word-initially) while glides are optimal peak consonants, inserted in peak positions (e.g. as hiatus breakers). This hypothesis is derived from sonority-based prominence scales [Prince, A., Smolensky, P., 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms. Rutgers University and the University of Colorado at Boulder]. Intrusive [r] can then be understood as the optimal consonant in a peak position when glide formation is blocked, because [r] is the most sonorous possible element in this position. Spreading-based or perceptually grounded accounts of intrusive [r] are consequently rejected under this approach. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The hypothesis initially defended in [Abney, S.P., 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspects. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT] that determiners, quantifiers, and adjectives are heads and NP is their syntactic complement became one of the standard analyses within P&P and early minimalist syntax, but, examined in an unprejudiced way, causes more difficulties than it solves at both the empirical and the conceptual level. Without rejecting the head status of articles and the DP view of nominals, Kayne [Kayne, R., 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA], Cinque [Cinque, G., 1995. On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance noun phrase. In: Cinque, G. (Ed.), Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 287–309] and others have subsequently proposed that demonstratives, quantifiers, possessives, and adjectives be considered phrasal specifiers of various functional projections, rather than heads, with only articles treated as heads of DP, and such is now the standard view within Chomskian generative grammar, but the specifier theory is itself subject to serious objections. This work evaluates afresh the pros and cons of both accounts, but finally rejects them to return to the earlier NP analysis of NPs and the traditional view of articles, demonstratives, quantifiers, adjectives, PPs and relative clauses as modifiers of the noun, which, under the theory of modification presented in [Escribano, J.L.G., 2004. Head-final effects and the nature of modification. Journal of Linguistics 40, 1–43], accounts for the facts quite well and meets the Occamian ideals of Minimalist Theory rather better than current competitors. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Matsumoto [Matsumoto, Y., 1996. Complex Predicates in Japanese, CSLI Publications and Kuroshio Publishers, Stanford and Tokyo] argues that Japanese light verbs, co-occurring with a VN, include control verbs such as hajimeru ‘begin’, kokoromiru ‘attempt’ as well as suru ‘do’ on the basis of the transfer of VN arguments and adjuncts. After critically examining his analysis in terms of syntax and semantics, this paper shows that a constructional distinction between light suru and control verb is empirically necessary, and the differences are reduced to whether the Event Fusion takes place or not at the representational level of event structure. The proposed analysis allows us to account for the exact nature of behaviors of VN arguments and adjuncts and a number of details that are not addressed by previous studies [Matsumoto, Y., 1996. Complex Predicates in Japanese, CSLI Publications and Kuroshio Publishers, Stanford and Tokyo; Butt, M., 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu, CSLI Publications, Stanford]. A new formal account for the Japanese light verb construction is then provided under the theory of Lexical-Functional Grammar [Bresnan, J., 1982, The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA; 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax, Blackwell, Oxford], which incorporates a restrictive view of the syntax-semantics interface. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]